Free-will or determinism - a question.

[SteveH]

If free will is an illusion, as some people hold, and strict determinism is true, how can we know? How, indeed, can we know anything, since we were pre-destined from all eternity to believe or think we know whatever we believe or think we know to be true? I'm not a philosopher, and may be missing something obvious here, but I'm willing to be put right by good enough arguments for determinism. Therefore, I would appreciate serious, non-sarcastic answers.

[Stranger]

This has been discussed extensively in the "Searching for God..." topic but it might be interesting to give it its own.

Firstly, the question of whether the universe is a deterministic system is an open one. However, the only alternative to strict determinism is to introduce a random element. To the extent something is not determined by its logical antecedents, it must be random.

Secondly, the way most people think of free with is logically incoherent. It is not possible (for the reason given above) for an action to be both purposeful and not determined.

However, having said that, it is my own view (heavily influenced by Daniel Dennett whose books actually changed my mind on the subject) that a more realistic notion of free will can be recovered (compatibilism). I won't try to reproduce all the reasoning here (see Dennett's books Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves for more) but our brains have evolved to be very sophisticated information gathering, processing, and decision making systems. Our choices may, ultimately be determined but they are determined by all of our nature and nurture - by the people we are. I can see no realistic alternative that is any more 'free' than that.

The godlike perspective of being able to see the innermost workings of our minds and see the machinery of determinism is inaccessible to us and is not a useful level of detail. It is only relevant if you think there actually is a god who can see it - and if that is the case, the argument for free will being an excuse for evil evaporates and with it any notion of a just god sitting in judgement...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This has been discussed extensively in the "Searching for God..." topic but it might be interesting to give it its own.

Firstly, the question of whether the universe is a deterministic system is an open one. However, the only alternative to strict determinism is to introduce a random element. To the extent something is not determined by its logical antecedents, it must be random.

Secondly, the way most people think of free with is logically incoherent. It is not possible (for the reason given above) for an action to be both purposeful and not determined.

However, having said that, it is my own view (heavily influenced by Daniel Dennett whose books actually changed my mind on the subject) that a more realistic notion of free will can be recovered (compatibilism). I won't try to reproduce all the reasoning here (see Dennett's books Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves for more) but our brains have evolved to be very sophisticated information gathering, processing, and decision making systems. Our choices may, ultimately be determined but they are determined by all of our nature and nurture - by the people we are. I can see no realistic alternative that is any more 'free' than that.

The godlike perspective of being able to see the innermost workings of our minds and see the machinery of determinism is inaccessible to us and is not a useful level of detail. It is only relevant if you think there actually is a god who can see it - and if that is the case, the argument for free will being an excuse for evil evaporates and with it any notion of a just god sitting in judgement...

The trouble with determinism is for me................novelty by which I mean new situations which require a reasonable response.

[SusanDoris]

Stranger #1

Well put - seconded.

[SteveH]

This has been discussed extensively in the "Searching for God..." topic but it might be interesting to give it its own.

Firstly, the question of whether the universe is a deterministic system is an open one. However, the only alternative to strict determinism is to introduce a random element. To the extent something is not determined by its logical antecedents, it must be random.

Secondly, the way most people think of free with is logically incoherent. It is not possible (for the reason given above) for an action to be both purposeful and not determined.

However, having said that, it is my own view (heavily influenced by Daniel Dennett whose books actually changed my mind on the subject) that a more realistic notion of free will can be recovered (compatibilism). I won't try to reproduce all the reasoning here (see Dennett's books Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves for more) but our brains have evolved to be very sophisticated information gathering, processing, and decision making systems. Our choices may, ultimately be determined but they are determined by all of our nature and nurture - by the people we are. I can see no realistic alternative that is any more 'free' than that.

The godlike perspective of being able to see the innermost workings of our minds and see the machinery of determinism is inaccessible to us and is not a useful level of detail. It is only relevant if you think there actually is a god who can see it - and if that is the case, the argument for free will being an excuse for evil evaporates and with it any notion of a just god sitting in judgement...

Interesting article - thanks. I've come across compatibilism before.

[Robbie]

So have I something I've pondered when in pondering mood.
Interesting thread.

[torridon]

If free will is an illusion, as some people hold, and strict determinism is true, how can we know? How, indeed, can we know anything, since we were pre-destined from all eternity to believe or think we know whatever we believe or think we know to be true? I'm not a philosopher, and may be missing something obvious here, but I'm willing to be put right by good enough arguments for determinism. Therefore, I would appreciate serious, non-sarcastic answers.

The problem with 'free will' is that in the context of making a choice, the notion of freedom becomes meaningless; a meaningful choice cannot be free of the relevant considerations.

So what you are getting at, is - is there also a problem with 'free knowledge'.  Broadly I'd say, yes, the word 'free' is problematic in the context of knowledge.  We are not free to believe what we want.  I believe that Paris is in France; I do not have the freedom to believe that it is in Germany.

[SteveH]

You don't believe Paris is in France, you know it is, which is a different thing altogether.

[torridon]

You don't believe Paris is in France, you know it is, which is a different thing altogether.

I think that makes little difference vis a vis concepts of determinism and freedom.  The difference between knowing and believing is one of confidence, not freedom.  If we experience something personally we are much more likely to believe it than if we hear something second hand. If I look up and see the sky is blue, I will believe that without hesitation; on the other hand if someone tells me that the murder rate has gone up in Sweden since an influx of migrants I would not accept that unquestioningly.  The process of evaluating a truth claim varies from claim to claim but all such processes are going to be subject to the same underlying principle, that whether I find it convincing or not, is not a matter of choice or freedom.  If something strikes me as unconvincing, I cannot force it to strike me as convincing, and vice versa.

[Walter]

You don't believe Paris is in France, you know it is, which is a different thing altogether.

I know what the capital of France is if that's any help .

this is NOT a sarcastic answer , no, I really do .

[SteveH]

I know what the capital of France is if that's any help .

this is NOT a sarcastic answer , no, I really do .

So do I - F.

[Juan Toomany]

Hi Steve,

To have true free will every possible response to an event must be weighted equally - you are not being swayed in any particular direction - in fact it would be very difficult to make a choice. Whereas, if you feel that a specific response is required then this is cannot be free as something is directing the choice (past experiences, your mood at the moment or a combination of many things).

Regards Juan

[Nearly Sane]

Good day to Mr Toomany

[Juan Toomany]

Hi,

NDY. Just thought I would pay a visit and see what's going on.

Nothing seems to have changed much, but there again what would we do if all these issues were answered?

Regards Juan

[Nearly Sane]

Hi,

NDY. Just thought I would pay a visit and see what's going on.

Nothing seems to have changed much, but there again what would we do if all these issues were answered?

Regards Juan

It's a difficult one! If we answer the questions, then we stop like robots with no more jobs, we wind down and stop.

I hope at our best say the sane thing differently and/or better but even if it's just a bit weirder we go with it.

[Juan Toomany]

Good day to Mr Toomany

Hi again NS,

Forgot how to use the 'quote'

Good day to you too.

Regards Juan

[Alan Burns]

I think that makes little difference vis a vis concepts of determinism and freedom.  The difference between knowing and believing is one of confidence, not freedom.  If we experience something personally we are much more likely to believe it than if we hear something second hand. If I look up and see the sky is blue, I will believe that without hesitation; on the other hand if someone tells me that the murder rate has gone up in Sweden since an influx of migrants I would not accept that unquestioningly.  The process of evaluating a truth claim varies from claim to claim but all such processes are going to be subject to the same underlying principle, that whether I find it convincing or not, is not a matter of choice or freedom.  If something strikes me as unconvincing, I cannot force it to strike me as convincing, and vice versa.

You seem to be confused about what our freedom of choice entails, because the examples you keep quoting are not examples of our ability to make conscious choices.

Freedom of choice has nothing to do with belief in anything.  We can only believe what we deduce to be true (whether we like it or not) - it is not a free choice.  Also, as you rightly pointed out in previous posts, we can't choose our likes or dislikes.  For example, I can't choose to dislike beer, but I do have the freedom to choose how many pints I drink.  And I can't choose my sexual orientation, but I have the freedom to choose my sexual partner, or to remain celibate if I so wish.  And I have the freedom to choose to hop up and down on one leg, waving my hands in the air if I so wish.

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to be confused about what our freedom of choice entails, because the examples you keep quoting are not examples of our ability to make conscious choices.

Freedom of choice has nothing to do with belief in anything.  We can only believe what we deduce to be true (whether we like it or not) - it is not a free choice.  Also, as you rightly pointed out in previous posts, we can't choose our likes or dislikes.  For example, I can't choose to dislike beer, but I do have the freedom to choose how many pints I drink.  And I can't choose my sexual orientation, but I have the freedom to choose my sexual partner, or to remain celibate if I so wish.  And I have the freedom to choose to hop up and down on one leg, waving my hands in the air if I so wish.

So any way of talking about what ypu means by free?   Or are you just going to avoid this again as you have repeatedly?

For simplicity and repetition How does your 'free' will work, Alan? And can you even begin to describe what you mean? Because up to now you have offered nothing as a description of your claim, never mind evidence.


You don't even have the tiny basis of a hypothesis.

[SteveH]

Hi Steve,

To have true free will every possible response to an event must be weighted equally - you are not being swayed in any particular direction - in fact it would be very difficult to make a choice. Whereas, if you feel that a specific response is required then this is cannot be free as something is directing the choice (past experiences, your mood at the moment or a combination of many things).

Regards Juan

Hi - I don't thnk we've met before.
True, but we'd still have limited free-will.

[Nearly Sane]

Hi - I don't thnk we've met before.
True, but we'd still have limited free-will.

what does free will mean? You seem not really to be answering that. In what way might it be 'free'!

[Alan Burns]

So any way of talking about what ypu means by free?   Or are you just going to avoid this again as you have repeatedly?

For simplicity and repetition How does your 'free' will work, Alan? And can you even begin to describe what you mean? Because up to now you have offered nothing as a description of your claim, never mind evidence.

By free I am simply implying freedom from physically pre determined chains of cause and effect events over which we can have no control.

[Nearly Sane]

By free I am simply implying freedom from physically pre determined chains of cause and effect events over which we can have no control.

Which as ever, given you are repeating yourself, is incoherent and not an answer.

[Alan Burns]

Which as ever, given you are repeating yourself, is incoherent and not an answer.

It refers to the simple logic that if there is nothing but material reactions, there can be no freedom of any sort because everything will be entirely pre determined.

[Nearly Sane]

It refers to the simple logic that if there is nothing but material reactions, there can be no freedom of any sort because everything will be entirely pre determined.

That's further incoherence and assertion. Why are you continuing not to address the issues that gave been raised to you hundreds of times, Alan? His does a 'free' decision get made?

[torridon]

By free I am simply implying freedom from physically pre determined chains of cause and effect events over which we can have no control.

Morning Alan. Nothing like a free will argument to draw you back in is there ? Seems like you can't resist, clear evidence of determinism operating through you I think 

That feeling of 'control' is a phenomenon of human psychology; a case of high order emergence. In reality, I don't think we have control, we don't have freedom, it just feels that way to us, in reality our choices and reactions are manifestations of the working out of deeper principles over which we have no control.

What shall I do in the next moment ? There are so many choices available. I could go to the right, I could go to the left, I could take a lungful of fresh air, I could start an insurrection to bring the government down or I could search for a tomato soup recipe. So many possibilities open to me, isn't it great being a human, so much better than being a warthog or a banana.

But generally speaking I act on the thought that comes into my head, but I don't control which thoughts occur to me, neither do I control how I feel about those thoughts.  At this level of understanding, notions of control and freedom dissolve.  I like the taste of chocolate, but I don't choose to like it; I just do.  I believe my son is studying philosophy; I don't choose to believe that, I just do.  Our feelings of control and freedom emerge from a lower order deterministic substrate where our hopes and fears form.  Those hopes. fears and preferences are the founding material from which our conscious choices are formed;  we cannot choose those preferences, we act on them.  The higher order feeling of control is an artefact of our psychology.