Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

Human creativity aptly shows how we can manipulate our abilities and resources to achieve something which initially exists in human imagination.  This form of creativity can't be defined in the deterministic scenario because the driving forces are just reactions to previous events driven by the unintelligent forces of nature.

I'm sorry, I fail to see why you think your conclusion follows from your premise. Why can't any given artifact of imagination come from the combination of various previous experiences? 

The soul can't be defined in physical terms, but it perceives, it inspires, it manipulates, it controls.

I don't see that the soul needs to be defined at all, given there's no reason to believe in one. Even if we were to accept it, though, and accept that it had a part to play in the workings of the human mind, it's still trapped in the same cycle: it's either dependent upon experience acting upon a fundamental nature, and therefore deterministic, or it has a random element which could be considered free, but not will.

Free will is an oxymoron, it's conceptually self defeating. Will cannot be free, or it isn't will.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Those are our only two possibilities, determinism and randomness.

Essentially determinism and randomness are the same thing.  They both have their roots in the Big Bang which started everything off.  And they both have no intelligence within them.

But there is evidence of creativity.

This is what I see:
The complexities of life on this earth originally existed in the mind of the Creator, and He uses His powers of free will to bring life into existence on this earth.  And He shares these powers of creativity with His creation.

[Leonard James]

Imagine a newly fertilised embryo. It has, in the genetic combination it has inherited, certain predispositions - it has inherited those, it has no control over them.

Even within the womb it is exposed to sensations at various stages, and to hormones and nutrients of various levels which make subtle adjustments to its growth, it has no control over those either.

As the brain starts to develop, it starts to register input from the budding sensory organs, and it has no control over those inputs which begin to trigger brain development.

That partial development determines how the brain processes the next set of inputs, which updates the brain before the next set, and so on, and so on. We are the sum of those experiences updating the brain's architecture, that sense of 'we' is a subjective experience of that brain doing that processing.

Somewhere in the evolutionary process a random mutation occurred which conferred on its owner the ability to choose between courses of action, an obvious plus in the fight to survive and reproduce.

It is totally irrelevant how "free" that ability to choose is ... the important fact is that we have inherited it, and are able to use it to make decisions, both right and wrong, as far as survival is concerned.

[torridon]

Essentially determinism and randomness are the same thing. 

Eh ?

How do you make that out ?

The complexities of life on this earth originally existed in the mind of the Creator, and He uses His powers of free will to bring life into existence on this earth.  And He shares these powers of creativity with His creation.

Eh ?

How do you make that out ?

Well I mean, yes that sounds like a nice belief, but there is no evidence for it, or have I missed something ?

[torridon]

Somewhere in the evolutionary process a random mutation occurred which conferred on its owner the ability to choose between courses of action, an obvious plus in the fight to survive and reproduce.

It is totally irrelevant how "free" that ability to choose is ... the important fact is that we have inherited it, and are able to use it to make decisions, both right and wrong, as far as survival is concerned.

All vertebrates make choices and they make them using their brain. Claiming those choices are 'free' does not really add anything to understanding; a brain makes decisions, there is nothing for it to be free of.

[Alan Burns]

Eh ?

How do you make that out ?

Eh ?

How do you make that out ?

Well I mean, yes that sounds like a nice belief, but there is no evidence for it, or have I missed something ?

The probability that life was brought into existence purely by random or determinate events is very low.
The probability that such events could create self awareness and free will is absolute zero.

[Nearly Sane]

The probability that life was brought into existence purely by random or determinate events is very low.
The probability that such events could create self awareness and free will is absolute zero.

The assertatron impersonates Victor Meldrew

[Outrider]

Essentially determinism and randomness are the same thing.

No, they are polar opposites.

They both have their roots in the Big Bang which started everything off.

Not necessarily, given that it's a presumption to think that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang.

And they both have no intelligence within them.

Yes. And?

But there is evidence of creativity.

No. There is evidence of cause and effect, the progression of events through natural laws.

This is what I see: The complexities of life on this earth originally existed in the mind of the Creator, and He uses His powers of free will to bring life into existence on this earth.  And He shares these powers of creativity with His creation.

That's lovely, I can see many things, that's because we're creative. What you can't see, what no-one can see, is anything in the available evidence that leads to that conclusion - it doesn't preclude it, but it's completely divorced from the measurable, detectable, verifiable parts of reality that we have warrant to accept.

And you still - still - haven't explained how free will can be a thing.

O.

[Outrider]

Somewhere in the evolutionary process a random mutation occurred which conferred on its owner the ability to choose between courses of action, an obvious plus in the fight to survive and reproduce.

Somewhere in the course of evolution a chain of mutations led to our complex intelligence and with it the emergent behaviour of self-awareness. That self awareness is demonstrably occuring after the events of which it's aware - we don't consciously make decisions, we become aware of the fact that our brains have made the decision after it's been done. Our brains are indeed complex and highly advanced predictors and deductors, but that's independent of the self-awareness, not because of it.

It is totally irrelevant how "free" that ability to choose is ... the important fact is that we have inherited it, and are able to use it to make decisions, both right and wrong, as far as survival is concerned.

No, the fact that it isn't free makes a fundamental difference to the justifications for things like punishment and reward - how can you justify punishment for something over which someone actually has no control? It's like punishing a computer for completing a programme because you don't like the programme.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

No, the fact that it isn't free makes a fundamental difference to the justifications for things like punishment and reward - how can you justify punishment for something over which someone actually has no control? It's like punishing a computer for completing a programme because you don't like the programme.

O.

That would only make a difference if those judging had free will.

[Outrider]

That would only make a difference if those judging had free will.

No, it wouldn't. Exposure to the idea that we don't have free will, after the fact, is part of the experience of everyone that comes across it that updates their brain-pattern that influences the next round of decisions their brains will make that they will later become aware of.

If this wasn't the case we'd never have seen any cultural change at all, we'd never have developed concepts like justice or rights.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

No, it wouldn't. Exposure to the idea that we don't have free will, after the fact, is part of the experience of everyone that comes across it that updates their brain-pattern that influences the next round of decisions their brains will make that they will later become aware of.

If this wasn't the case we'd never have seen any cultural change at all, we'd never have developed concepts like justice or rights.

O.

But the exposure to the idea will happen or it won't happen, there is no choice in that. There will be no choice in any reaction.

[Outrider]

But the exposure to the idea will happen or it won't happen, there is no choice in that. There will be no choice in any reaction.

The fact that there's no choice, though, doesn't mean it won't make a difference, though.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The fact that there's no choice, though, doesn't mean it won't make a difference, though.

O.

Which is trivially true, any difference is not really about any question of justification, since if there is no free will the concept of something being justified is essentially meaningless, as the justification is merely a predetermined position.


Other than in discussions like this I think the issue of free will, like that of solipsism, is a philosophical geegaw, quite shiny when you first day it but ultimately fairly pointless in day to day life. As Isaiah Berlin is reputed to have said 'Of course I believe in free will, I have no choice.' 

[Outrider]

Which is trivially true, any difference is not really about any question of justification, since if there is no free will the concept of something being justified is essentially meaningless, as the justification is merely a predetermined position.

I didn't mean to imply that justification was involved, I was simply trying to refute the idea that it wouldn't make a difference.

Other than in discussions like this I think the issue of free will, like that of solipsism, is a philosophical geegaw, quite shiny when you first day it but ultimately fairly pointless in day to day life. As Isaiah Berlin is reputed to have said 'Of course I believe in free will, I have no choice.'

To a degree I think you're right. I do wonder if a more widespread appreciation of the idea that we're deterministic in nature might be useful in bringing about judicial and penal reform - those places that have the lowest recidivism are those which focus on rehabilitiation in their sentencing rather than incarceration for punishment, and I think it would be easier to 'sell' that idea to people who understood that punishment can't be justified.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I just don't see that terms like useful apply here. If there is no such thing as free will, the question of utility also loses its meaning. It makes no sense to talk about things being better if they can ink be one way.

[Outrider]

I just don't see that terms like useful apply here. If there is no such thing as free will, the question of utility also loses its meaning. It makes no sense to talk about things being better if they can ink be one way.

That we don't have freedom in our choices doesn't mean that we don't have preferences in how we'd like things to turn out. Useful, desireable, helpful, beneficial, these are all perfectly valid terms: the absence of free will doesn't remove our emotions or our subjective experience of the world around us.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

No, that only applies when we do the compartmentalisation that says we act as if there is free will, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, in a discussion where we assume there is no free will, then talking about better and useful is meaningless, since there is only one way for things to happen. Further the concept of subjectivism is also essentially meaningless, since if there is no free will, there really isn't a subject as we normally describe it.

[Outrider]

No, that only applies when we do the compartmentalisation that says we act as if there is free will, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, in a discussion where we assume there is no free will, then talking about better and useful is meaningless, since there is only one way for things to happen. Further the concept of subjectivism is also essentially meaningless, since if there is no free will, there really isn't a subject as we normally describe it.

We can foresee multiple possible outcomes - that our input into them is determined is as irrelevant as if we had no influence in the grander events, which is how most people feel anyway about global politics (for instance). That doesn't preclude us having outcomes we'd prefer and outcomes we'd rather didn't occur.

As to the concept of subjectivism, why is it meaningless? We still have an awareness and desires and preferences, a morality and an understanding: that we can't control our own output as expressly as we feel we can doesn't in any way undermine the awareness.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

There are no multiple possible outcomes though in determinism. Us seeing them is a fiction. Again in normal discourse this is unimportant, we act as if we do have free will, we think as if we do.


However, whether or not we actually believe in free will, a discussion based on the assumption that we don't and everything is determined then any concept of a better outcome is meaningless because there is only one outcome.

The reason why the subject essentially becomes meaningless is that the awareness is simply that of processing not acting. There is no subject to act and the processor merely changes as events impinge upon it. It therefore does not have any real continuity that we normally attribute to the idea of the subject in those discussions where we are assuming some form of free will.

[Outrider]

There are no multiple possible outcomes though in determinism. Us seeing them is a fiction. Again in normal discourse this is unimportant, we act as if we do have free will, we think as if we do.

Exactly.

However, whether or not we actually believe in free will, a discussion based on the assumption that we don't and everything is determined then any concept of a better outcome is meaningless because there is only one outcome.

And that one outcome may be better or worse than our envisioning of it - our subjective feeling of possibilities shapes how we feel about the result.

The reason why the subject essentially becomes meaningless is that the awareness is simply that of processing not acting. There is no subject to act and the processor merely changes as events impinge upon it.

Except that the awareness - and this discussion, and everything else - are inputs into that deterministic point at which any individual makes the decision. If I conclude that the more people who are aware of this the better than whether or not I could have ever made another conclusion doesn't change whether it's true or not.

It therefore does not have any real continuity that we normally attribute to the idea of the subject in those discussions where we are assuming some form of free will.

No, we aren't. What we're not doing is presuming that because will isn't free that it's therefore unimportant. We can't choose how we influence other wills, but we can influence other wills.

O.

[wigginhall]

There are no multiple possible outcomes though in determinism. Us seeing them is a fiction. Again in normal discourse this is unimportant, we act as if we do have free will, we think as if we do.


However, whether or not we actually believe in free will, a discussion based on the assumption that we don't and everything is determined then any concept of a better outcome is meaningless because there is only one outcome.

The reason why the subject essentially becomes meaningless is that the awareness is simply that of processing not acting. There is no subject to act and the processor merely changes as events impinge upon it. It therefore does not have any real continuity that we normally attribute to the idea of the subject in those discussions where we are assuming some form of free will.

That last paragraph is a very useful way of looking at it.  It's also interesting in that it resembles some Eastern approaches, that there is no I that is separate.   This connects with the whole issue of non-dualism, which can be connected with various religious positions, but not a conventional Christian one.   (Although there are radical Christians who see the crucifixion as the abandonment of I, and the entry into the 'stream'.)

But we imagine that there is an agent, or a subject, and the idea that there isn't is probably frightening, a kind of loss of control, or even worse, the loss of a centre.   This is the stuff of nightmares, maybe, so we have to sustain the idea of the agent.

[Nearly Sane]

It's a nonsense to talk about influencing other wills because again that assumes that we can form an intention that is some wa about making a change to what will occur. Given determinism whatever we are going to do will happen, and whatever is going to happen will happen in that scenario there is no influencing as that has an inbuilt assumption of things being able to be changed.


I think part of the issue here is viewing things from the idea of things changing across time. It's how we experience life but in a deterministic scenario, time and change are irrelevant.


I will see if any reply you make gives me any ideas about how to express this differently or more clearly but if not, I may just leave it at that as we seem to be going around in circles

[Outrider]

It's a nonsense to talk about influencing other wills because again that assumes that we can form an intention that is some wa about making a change to what will occur.

No, it says nothing about intention, it just recognises that our output is one of the inputs into the deterministic process that occurs in other brains.

Given determinism whatever we are going to do will happen, and whatever is going to happen will happen in that scenario there is no influencing as that has an inbuilt assumption of things being able to be changed.

Recognition that our activity is a part of the chain doesn't mean that it's claiming we're 'changing' an outcome.

I think part of the issue here is viewing things from the idea of things changing across time. It's how we experience life but in a deterministic scenario, time and change are irrelevant.

No, in a deterministic scenario time is required for effect to be the result of cause. Change is irrelevant, in the sense of selecting an outcome, yes, as distinct from effects which result in a differentiated state from those at the cause.

I will see if any reply you make gives me any ideas about how to express this differently or more clearly but if not, I may just leave it at that as we seem to be going around in circles

I just think we aren't making the same presumptions from determinism. You seem to think that it neutralises awareness, somehow. We both accept, as far as I can see, that as humans we operate on a day-to-day basis as though we had choice.

What we feel are our choices are outputs that go on to be causes that influences other people's activities. Realising that, and realising that therefore promoting ideas which would make the subjective experience of living more acceptable does not break determinism, but it does mean that more people are exposed to the ideas that will make our subjective experiences more desirable.

Whether that happens, and to what degree, are ultimately predetermined, yes, but our experience of going through that process is still valid.

O.

[torridon]

The probability that life was brought into existence purely by random or determinate events is very low.
The probability that such events could create self awareness and free will is absolute zero.

Ah, and how exactly do you go about calculating such probabilities ?