Before you vote please read the post.

Determinism

Determinism (specifically causal determinism) is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality, where the second event is a consequence of the first.) in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is, to some large degree, determined by prior states.
(Causality is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a consequence of the first.)
Hence "determinism" is the name of a broader philosophical view that conjectures that every type of event, including human cognition (behaviour, decision, and action) is causally determined by previous events. In philosophical arguments, the concept of determinism in the domain of human action is often contrasted with free will. The argument called indeterminism (otherwise "nondeterminism") negates causality as a factor and contradicts deterministic argument.
From Wikipedia, Determinism.
Determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism)



Varieties of determinism

Causal (or Nomological) determinism [1] generally assumes that every event has an antecedent cause in an infinite causal chain going back to Aristotle's Prime Mover or the beginning of the universe. Determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused (causa sui). Research in quantum mechanics complicates this position further (see 'Arguments' section below). Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon.

Logical determinism or Determinateness is the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present, or future, are either true or false. A belief in Causal Determinism along with this Logical Determinism together define what is called 'Hard Determinism' (discussed further below). Note that one can support Causal Determinism without necessarily supporting Logical Determinism (depending on one's views on the nature of time) and vice versa. The problem of free will is especially salient now with Logical Determinism: how can choices be free, given that propositions about the future already have a truth value in the present (i.e. it is already determined as either true or false)? This is referred to as the problem of future contingents.[1] Often synonymous with Logical Determinism are the ideas behind Spatio-temporal Determinism or Eternalism: the view of special relativity. J. J. C. Smart, a proponent of this view, uses the term "tenselessness" to describe the simultaneous existence of past, present, and future. In physics, the "block universe" of Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein assumes that time is simply a fourth dimension that already exists (like the three spatial dimensions). In other words, all the other parts of time are real, just like the city blocks up and down one's street, although we only ever perceive one part of time.
From Wikipedia,Varieties of determinism
Varieties of determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Varieties_of_determinism)




Free will and determinism


Philosophers have argued that either Determinism is true or Indeterminism is true, but also that 'Free will' either exists or it does not. This creates four possible positions. Compatibilism refers to the view that free will is, in some sense, compatible with Determinism. The three 'Incompatibilist' positions, on the other hand, deny this possibility. They instead suggest there is a dichotomy between determinism and free will (only one can be true).
To the Incompatibilists, one must choose either free will or Determinism, and maybe even reject both. The result is one of three positions:
Metaphysical Libertarianism (free will, and no determinism) a position not to be confused with the more commonly cited Political Libertarianism
Hard Determinism (Determinism, and no free will)
Hard Indeterminism (No Determinism, and no free will either).
Thus, although many Determinists are Compatibilists, calling someone a 'Determinist' is often used to denote the 'Hard Determinist' position.
The Standard argument against free will, according to philosopher J. J. C. Smart focuses on the implications of Determinism for 'free will' [7]. He suggests that, if determinism is true, all our actions are predicted and we are not free; if indeterminism is true, our actions are random and still we do not seem free.

Implications

Some determinists argue that materialism does not present a complete understanding of the universe, because while it can describe determinate interactions among material things, it ignores the minds or souls of conscious beings.
A number of positions can be delineated:
Immaterial souls exist and exert a non-deterministic causal influence on bodies. (Traditional free-will, interactionist dualism).[8][9]
Immaterial souls exist, but are part of deterministic framework.
Immaterial souls exist, but exert no causal influence, free or determined (epiphenomenalism, occasionalism)
Immaterial souls are all that exist (Idealism).
Immaterial souls do not exist — there is no mind-body dichotomy, and there is a Materialistic explanation for intuitions to the contrary.
Another topic of debate is the implication that Determinism has on morality. Hard determinism is particularly criticized for making moral judgements impossible.
From Wikipedia, Free will and determinism
Free will and determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Free_will_and_determinism)


For this article Wikipedia mentions following references and bibliography .
And external links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#References_and_bibliography

"References and bibliography

Daniel Dennett (2003) Freedom Evolves. Viking Penguin.
John Earman (2007) "Aspects of Determinism in Modern Physics" in Butterfield, J., and Earman, J., eds., Philosophy of Physics, Part B. North Holland: 1369-1434.
George Ellis (2005) "Physics and the Real World," Physics Today.
Epstein J.M. (1999) "Agent Based Models and Generative Social Science," Complexity IV (5).
-------- and Axtell R. (1996) Growing Artificial Societies — Social Science from the Bottom. MIT Press.
Kenrick, D. T., Li, N. P., & Butner, J. (2003) "Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms," Psychological Review 110: 3–28.
Albert Messiah, Quantum Mechanics, English translation by G. M. Temmer of Mécanique Quantique, 1966, John Wiley and Sons, vol. I, chapter IV, section III.
Nowak A., Vallacher R.R., Tesser A., Borkowski W., (2000) "Society of Self: The emergence of collective properties in self-structure," Psychological Review 107.
Schimbera, Jürgen / Schimbera, Peter: Determination des Indeterminierten. Kritische Anmerkungen zur Determinismus- und Freiheitskontroverse. Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 23 September 2010, ISBN 978-3-8300-5099-5."
[/SIZE]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwIntroIndex.htm
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/determinism.html
http://www.galilean-library.org/int13.html





I am closest to hard determinism.
But I can not accept that I do not have free will.

You?

I'm really confused.:shrug:

How about determinism and free will?

Mod Note:

Emil,

If you're going to copy swathes of text like that, you are required to provide the source. Not only is this standard academic and journalistic procedure, it also avoids any nasty legal ramifications. What's more, particularly when you're posting definitions, this is of the utmost importance.

You posted this at 11:34 am EST today. I'll give you 24 hours from that time to PM me indicating that you're ready to edit the original post and add your source notation.
Until then, thread closed.

How about determinism and free will?



Is a theoretical option not practical.
It is called Compatibilism.
But they define free will as being not free.


Compatibilism
Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent.[1] It may, however, be more accurate to say that compatibilists define 'free will' in a way that allows it to co-exist with determinism. Strictly speaking, Compatibilism defines free will as a "freedom to act (according to one's determined motives)".
Compatibilism's definition of 'free will' is contrasted with that of Incompatibilism, which instead defines free will in indeterministic terms.
From Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism


Defining free will


..........................http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Schopenhauer.jpg/160px-Schopenhauer.jpg
Schopenhauer said "Man is free to do what he wills,
but he cannot will what he wills" The Compatibilist
calls this limited freedom 'free will'

Compatibilists (aka soft determinists) often define an instance of 'free will' as one in which the agent had freedom to act. That is, the agent was not coerced or restrained. Arthur Schopenhauer famously said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills". In other words, although an agent may often be free to act according to a motive, the nature of that motive is determined. The Compatibilist's belief that we often have 'free will' is perhaps better described as a belief in occasional 'freedom to act'. Also note that this definition of free will does not rely on the truth or falsity of Causal Determinism.


Alternatives as imaginary


.................http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Gotland-Froejel-Kirche_03.jpg/150px-Gotland-Froejel-Kirche_03.jpg
Saying "there may be a person behind that door"
merely expresses ignorance about the one, determined reality

The Compatibilist will often hold both Causal Determinism (all effects have causes) and Logical Determinism (the future is already determined) to be true. Thus statements about the future (e.g. "it will rain tomorrow") are either true or false when spoken today.
Hume adds that the Compatibilist's free will should not be understood as some kind of ability to have actually chosen differently in an identical situation. The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have.[3] Any talk of alternatives is strictly hypothetical. If the compatibilist says "I may visit tomorrow, or I may not", she is not making a metaphysical claim that there are multiple possible futures. In that case, she is merely describing her uncertainty about what her determined future holds.
From Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism#Defining_free_will




Criticisms


Invalid use of 'free will'

................http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Prim_clockwork.jpg/160px-Prim_clockwork.jpg
Compatibilism has much in common with so-called 'Hard Determinists',
including moral systems and a belief in Determinism itself

Critics of compatibilism often focus on the definition of free will: Incompatibilists may agree that the compatibilists are showing something to be compatible with determinism, but they think that something ought not to be called 'free will'. Incompatibilists might accept the 'freedom to act' as a necessary criterion for free will, but doubt that it is sufficient. Basically, they demand more of 'free will'. The Incompatibilists believe free will refers to genuine (e.g. absolute, ultimate) alternate possibilities for beliefs, desires or actions, rather than merely counterfactual ones.
Faced with the standard argument against free will, many compatibilists choose determinism so that their actions are adequately determined by their reasons, motives, and desires.[5] Compatibilists are sometimes accused (by Incompatibilists) of actually being Hard Determinists who are motivated by a lack of a coherent, consonant moral belief system.
Compatibilists are sometimes called "soft determinists" pejoratively (William James's term). James accused them of creating a "quagmire of evasion" by stealing the name of freedom to mask their underlying determinism.[6] Immanuel Kant called it a "wretched subterfuge" and "word jugglery."[7] Ted Honderich explains that the mistake of Compatibilism is to assert that nothing changes as a consequence of determinism, when clearly we have lost the life-hope of origination.
From Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism#Criticisms

We are machines that work deterministically, but we can make our own decisions. Computers will be able to do the same thing given similar levels of complexity.

I like the compatibilism idea best here though I can't decide on the choices but I refuse to believe in indeterminism. I believe in determinism however not causal determinism as that only leads to infinite regress. If what I believe in is not causal then perhaps it shouldn't be called determinism but it is not random either. Since I believe in non-causal determinism I don't think there's a conflict of quantum mechanics with my belief.

We are machines that work deterministically, but we can make our own decisions. Computers will be able to do the same thing given similar levels of complexity.Are not "determinism" and "decision" incompatible?
How are you defining "decision"?

I'm a hard determinist. The everyday physical world is clearly causal and I can't think of any particular reason to suppose that we aren't also.

Free will is like red. It's something the brain creates because it's useful. There is no such thing as red; it's just an internal label the brain creates in order to quickly identify different EM frequencies. It's fast and useful, but it's not true. Free will is a short cut that enables us to navigate a complex social world, quickly and create stable social units.

There are academics who subscribe that free will is compatible with determinism, which makes no sense to me. They talk about free will as an emergent property that becomes independent of its constituent parts (neurons, body, environment). They talk about "top-down" causality, where organisms and organ systems constrain the behavior of their constituent parts, like neurons, cells, molecules, atoms, etc.

It must be bullcrap. I think the correct way to see it is that nothing is constraining anything. The mind cannot constrain the brain's neurons to do anything that they must not do; otherwise it would be breaking the laws of physics. Top-down causality is impossible. It's nonsense.

I wouldn't say down-up causality is wrong, but a better way to look at it is that the top isn't constraining the bottom and the bottom isn't constraining the top. Rather, life and organisms can be seen as matter swirling through torrents, and momentarily getting stuck in loops. Our constituent molecules are being hurled around like eddies in a stream. Our molecules are stuck in a temporary dance. It's complex, yes, but also entirely deterministic. Nobody's constraining anybody and nobody is breaking any rules.

There is no point in arguing about determinism if you are a determinist, as you must believe that every argument you make could not have been stated otherwise, and that your opponent will only come to agree with you if he is determined to do so.

^ But since a determinist can do no other, there is a point if they think there is a point.
Furthermore, I doubt even a hard-determinist can escape the illusion of free-will that seems to be so pervasive, and which is possibly even a prerequisite for self-awareness.

I'm a hard determinist. The everyday physical world is clearly causal and I can't think of any particular reason to suppose that we aren't also.Given that QM suggests that outcomes can be / are probabilistic rather than singular for a given set of input conditions at the quantum level... i.e. if you start with the same input, you might not get the same output... how do you reconcile this to your hard-deterministic view?

Given that QM suggests that outcomes can be / are probabilistic rather than singular for a given set of input conditions at the quantum level... i.e. if you start with the same input, you might not get the same output... how do you reconcile this to your hard-deterministic view?

I don't understand quantum mechanics or physics at the nanoscale. But that's fine, since I don't live there. I live in the middle--somewhere between the very tiny and the colossal--a place that's pretty easy to predict. But even if it weren't deterministic, but probabilistic, that could make thought all the more arbitrary. So where is the space for free will?

Given that QM suggests that outcomes can be / are probabilistic rather than singular for a given set of input conditions at the quantum level... i.e. if you start with the same input, you might not get the same output... how do you reconcile this to your hard-deterministic view?



The time dependent Schrödinger equation gives the first time derivative of the quantum state. That is, it explicitly and uniquely predicts the development of the wave function with time.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/8/7/68788b0ab56629c800e772dc047fb4cf.png
So if the wave function itself is reality (rather than probability of classical coordinates), quantum mechanics can be said to be deterministic. Since we have no practical way of knowing the exact magnitudes, and especially the phases, in a full quantum mechanical description of the causes of an observable event, this turns out to be philosophically similar to the "hidden variable" doctrine[citation needed].
According to some,[citation needed] quantum mechanics is more strongly ordered than Classical Mechanics, because while Classical Mechanics is chaotic, quantum mechanics is not. For example, the classical problem of three bodies under a force such as gravity is not integrable, while the quantum mechanical three body problem is tractable and integrable, using the Faddeev Equations. This does not mean that quantum mechanics describes the world as more deterministic, unless one already considers the wave function to be the true reality. Even so, this does not get rid of the probabilities, because we can't do anything without using classical descriptions, but it assigns the probabilities to the classical approximation, rather than to the quantum reality.
Asserting that quantum mechanics is deterministic by treating the wave function itself as reality implies a single wave function for the entire universe, starting at the origin of the universe. Such a "wave function of everything" would carry the probabilities of not just the world we know, but every other possible world that could have evolved. For example, large voids in the distributions of galaxies are believed by many cosmologists to have originated in quantum fluctuations during the big bang. (See cosmic inflation and primordial fluctuations.) If so, the "wave function of everything" would carry the possibility that the region where our Milky Way galaxy is located could have been a void and the Earth never existed at all. (See large-scale structure of the cosmos.)

From Wikipedia
Quantum mechanics and classical physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physic s)

I don't understand quantum mechanics or physics at the nanoscale. But that's fine, since I don't live there. I live in the middle--somewhere between the very tiny and the colossal--a place that's pretty easy to predict. But even if it weren't deterministic, but probabilistic, that could make thought all the more arbitrary. So where is the space for free will?:) I'm not arguing for free-will, but just clarification on your position. Personally I'm in the "free-will is an illusion" because I understand things to be either deterministic or random (probabilistic).
For free-will to exist, as I see it, would require an uncaused intervention, ensuring a certain outcome. And I can't see how this would happen.

From Wikipedia
Quantum mechanics and classical physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physic s)
Emil - I am capable of investigating wiki, thanks. And try to add something of your own rather than just posting from other sources.

Further, if you read the above, it states that the idea of the universe being a single wave-function does not remove the probabilistic nature of the wave-funtcion:

"Such a "wave function of everything" would carry the probabilities of not just the world we know, but every other possible world that could have evolved."

And try to add something of your own rather than just posting from other sources.



With my summary knowledge about QM,I am not able to deny determinism or defended In terms of QM.So I'm interested conclusions QM specialists.
Wiki concludes:"...quantum mechanics can be said to be deterministic."
If a specialist in QM has another opinion please a link, not only his opinion, so I can compare.

My opinion about the main question.
Briefly.
My logic, my reason says "hard determinism"-True
My feelings, my senses say "free will"-True
But "determinism" and "free will" are incompatible-True

so ... so ... so ... I think that is when a artificial intelligence blow up or entering a infinite loop.
I am curious if you solved this problem and how you solved.

:) I'm not arguing for free-will, but just clarification on your position. Personally I'm in the "free-will is an illusion" because I understand things to be either deterministic or random (probabilistic).
For free-will to exist, as I see it, would require an uncaused intervention, ensuring a certain outcome. And I can't see how this would happen.

I guess then, the question is, does the quantum probabilistic nature of particles affect us at our scale? Physics are very different at the tiny scale than the medium scale. Can you imagine life if basketballs and cars and wives kept flipping in and out of existence and into different dimensions every second?

People like to make a lot out of quantum weirdness, saying stuff like, well, maybe it's true AND not true (in reference to something mundane)! But that shit doesn't apply to our everyday lives. We're big, goddamnit!

^ But since a determinist can do no other, there is a point if they think there is a point.
Furthermore, I doubt even a hard-determinist can escape the illusion of free-will that seems to be so pervasive, and which is possibly even a prerequisite for self-awareness.

Granted. But that would make no difference to their arguments at all.
I don't mind people arguing for determinism as long as they understand that it is pointless.

My own belief is that we have a kernel of free will, but nowhere near as much as we imagine we have.
That wasn't on the voting list.

I tend to think that the concepts of determinism and free will are ill-formed.

Free will is always constrained but within those constraints lies choice.

I'm much more entertained by the notion of "instant destiny".

My own belief is that we have a kernel of free will, but nowhere near as much as we imagine we have.
That wasn't on the voting list.


I think this kernel of free will that we seem to have is understood better by addressing it as free choice.

I'm a hard determinist. The everyday physical world is clearly causal and I can't think of any particular reason to suppose that we aren't also.

Free will is like red. It's something the brain creates because it's useful. There is no such thing as red; it's just an internal label the brain creates in order to quickly identify different EM frequencies. It's fast and useful, but it's not true. Free will is a short cut that enables us to navigate a complex social world, quickly and create stable social units.

There are academics who subscribe that free will is compatible with determinism, which makes no sense to me. They talk about free will as an emergent property that becomes independent of its constituent parts (neurons, body, environment). They talk about "top-down" causality, where organisms and organ systems constrain the behavior of their constituent parts, like neurons, cells, molecules, atoms, etc.

It must be bullcrap. I think the correct way to see it is that nothing is constraining anything. The mind cannot constrain the brain's neurons to do anything that they must not do; otherwise it would be breaking the laws of physics. Top-down causality is impossible. It's nonsense.

I wouldn't say down-up causality is wrong, but a better way to look at it is that the top isn't constraining the bottom and the bottom isn't constraining the top. Rather, life and organisms can be seen as matter swirling through torrents, and momentarily getting stuck in loops. Our constituent molecules are being hurled around like eddies in a stream. Our molecules are stuck in a temporary dance. It's complex, yes, but also entirely deterministic. Nobody's constraining anybody and nobody is breaking any rules.


I feel the need to clarify that determinism and lack of freedom are not one and the same. When asked about an action taken by one one will say they didn't feel coerced or forced to do what they did. If one is saying that this action is influenced by the universe somehow through lack of freedom that doesn't make sense, so it should suffice to say that the universe doesn't seem to be deterministic through causality even though we lack freedom.

I think this kernel of free will that we seem to have is understood better by addressing it as free choice.

I'll give you an example.

Chicken Coop Boy.
A child is kept by his cruel stepfather in the backyard chicken coop.
Until he is rescued, he grows up living only with chickens.
I would say that that child is going to start behaving very much like a chicken.

But he can still decide which grain to peck at.

But if we eliminate humanity from equation ?
How was the world before the appearance of humanity and how it will be after his disappearance?
Deterministic?
Indeterministic?

I feel the need to clarify that determinism and lack of freedom are not one and the same. When asked about an action taken by one one will say they didn't feel coerced or forced to do what they did. If one is saying that this action is influenced the universe somehow through lack of freedom that doesn't make sense, so it should suffice to say that the universe doesn't seem to be deterministic through causality even though we lack freedom.

Would it be possible to paraphrase that?

Here's a convoluted question:

If we do have freedom of choice, are we free to decide that we have choice?
If instead we don't have any choices, and everything is determined (by a chain of causality going back beyond our individual birth, the evolution of primates, the birth of the solar system, etc) then if we decide we have free will despite causality, does that free us from determinism, because we know we really can't decide (i.e. the choice is made for us)?

In other words, deciding that free will exists is an exercise of that freedom of choice, even if we don't have it? So is the appearance of free will and choice just something that gets determined for us, regardless of whether we decide that we do or don't have the choice?

Which would you choose, and why?

/cackle

Consciousness is a necessary precondition for free will.
If our actions are determined then consciousness is just an unnecessary side product of our mental capacity.

There is no contradiction in holding that view, but I find it unsatisfying.

Consciousness is a necessary precondition for free will.


The animals can choose? :scratchin:

If our actions are determined then consciousness is just an unnecessary side product of our mental capacity.

This sums up how I see consciousness, actually.

I think the consensus is that we live in a deterministic universe, but we can't tell that it is.

We can't predict behaviour very well, for instance, unless it's the "behaviour" of inanimate objects, and there is a built-in uncertainty. We can only predict anything within a certain time interval because of the chaotic nature of physical processes.

So even though the universe is deterministic, we can never know what is determined with sufficient accuracy, so instead, because of unpredictability and chaos, we (choose to) believe there is choice.

p.s. I read something about neurological studies that found chaos is a fundamental part of consciousness. Our brains work chaotically, and perhaps this is what determines our sense of freedom of choice. We have brains that exhibit chaotic patterns, from which order arises, but we can't tell how this happens subjectively--hence "freedom" of thought.

I think the consensus is that we live in a deterministic universe, but we can't tell that it is.

We can't predict behaviour very well, for instance, unless it's the "behaviour" of inanimate objects, and there is a built-in uncertainty. We can only predict anything within a certain time interval because of the chaotic nature of physical processes.

So even though the universe is deterministic, we can never know what is determined with sufficient accuracy, so instead, because of unpredictability and chaos, we (choose to) believe there is choice.



Well said.

HELICOPTER

Written above is a word.
While the edit command is still available, I can change that word, change the size of that word, its position etc.

Will I do that?
And if I do it, what changes will I make?
Will I change it more than once?

I don't know, because I haven't made a decision on the matter.
You certainly don't know.

How then can what I do in this small matter be determined?

At the macro level everything seems indetermined... we have what we consider to be "choice": you might or might not edit the word "HELICOPTER".

But there is small matter of "Cause and effect".
If we assume that cause and effect holds, then each effect is the result of a cause, and each effect is itself a cause for the next effect, and we have an unbroken chain of cause and effect since time began.

What people consider to be a "choice" is the observing of multiple possible branches from a cause and selecting one of them. But for this "choice" to be "free" requires an influencing factor, and most importantly for this influencing factor to be uncaused.

But since we have assumed that all effects are caused, this influencing factor must also be caused. And all we are therefore left with is the long chain of cause/effect.

i.e. either there is no such thing as an uncaused influencing factor and thus no such thing as "choice", or the assumption of cause and effect as given above is not valid.


In my opinion, what you consider to be a "choice" is merely your brain analysing the various inputs of your senses and memory and creating an output - all in accordance with cause and effect.
One of the analysis performed is a prediction of possible macro-level effects, and the brain builds these predictions into the analysis... on a feedback loop for want of a better analogy... but all of this still follows cause/effect - at the micro level.

Computers make choices all the time. They recieve inputs, they analyse, they give output. The only difference, in my opinion, is the complexity of the input and the complexity of the analysis.

However, if one introduces randomness into the analysis - and QM suggests that outputs are not strictly determined but follow a probability function - this still leaves no room for "free-will" or an uncaused influence... it merely introduces elements of randomness into such things.


So what we see as "choice" and "freewill" is a fairly pervasive and perfect illusion, one that we are all caught by and accept as practical reality, even if we also accept it, intellectually, as an illusion.

I think I have thought of a good argument against material determinism.
It is this.

What if I decide to make a decision based upon the outcome of another event which is unrelated to the first?
Say that I base whether I go out this evening on whether the favourite wins the 2.30 at Epsom.

An event which results in an action can only be said to have caused that action if it is necessarily connected.

An event which results in an action can only be said to have caused that action if it is necessarily connected.And you don't see how you using the output of one event to determine the output of another event provides that very connection?

What made you use such an input (the favourite winning) would be due to some other cause/effect chain.

But for one event to be said to have caused another, there must be a necessary connection. That doesn't exist in this case.

One event (horse not winning) did cause the other (you not going out) because YOU provided the necessary connection of basing the effect (going out or not) on the cause (horse winning or not).

The necessary connection is YOU - and whatever caused you to make the linkage between the horse race and your evening plans.

Well, the other factor for traditional causation is contiguousness.

If you are going to provide a special case for human beings, and just human beings, where one event can cause another at a distance, without being necessarily connected, I must protest.

This would be paranormal activity.

Isn't it more reasonable to believe that we have a tiny amount of free will?
Or alternatively, full free will, which is almost entirely moderated by our experiences fears and desires.

Well, the other factor for traditional causation is contiguousness.

If you are going to provide a special case for human beings, and just human beings, where one event can cause another at a distance, without being necessarily connected, I must protest.They are NOT at a distance... they ARE connected with regarded how they effect you. They are brought together through your observation of the result of the race. You don't have to be there... you merely have to observe the result - whether that is over the radio, on the news, on the internet.

Once you have decided to base your evening activity on the result of an earlier race then there is a cause/effect link between the race being run and you going out or not:
The race causes the result causes the reporting of the result causes your observation of the result causes you to go out (or not) that evening.

Had any part of that chain been broken (e.g. the race was not run, or the result not reported) then the race could not have effected your evening plans (within the limitations of the example).

This is all macro level cause/effect - what to speak of the micro level.


This would be paranormal activity.The same way that advanced technology might seem like magic, perhaps.


Isn't it more reasonable to believe that we have a tiny amount of free will?
Or alternatively, full free will, which is almost entirely moderated by our experiences fears and desires.No. At best I would suggest that "free-will" is a term used to describe the lack of conscious knowledge of ALL the causes of an action.

Consciousness is a necessary precondition for free will.


So what do you thank consciousness is.???


Edit:::



I am closest to hard determinism.
But I can not accept that I do not have free will.

You?


I dont know of any evidence that "free-will" esists... an i dont have a prollem wit a deterministic universe.!!!

Conciousness is not a side effect,its more like RAM of human brain which gives the illusion of conciousness.
QM true randomness is not actually random due to different gravity,thus time,thus Cause-Effect human logic has on the non-QM level,it is variables yet unknown that produce this random effect.
Also a non-deterministc universe its NOT possible,it contradicts whatever is inside the universe,if there wasnt determination nothing could exist like we know it now ,not even galaxy formations or planet formations or chemical formations or life could be possible.

Conciousness is not a side effect,its more like RAM of human brain which gives the illusion of conciousness.


Yes i see people usin the word "consciousness" as if "it" makes "free-will" possible... but they wont define what they thank consciousness is.!!!

I thank consicousness is biological (not som magical entity seperate from the body) an is subject to cause an effect.!!!

What do you think?Animals can choose?
For instance, can choose their own partner?Or what to eat or not? :scratchin:

Yes, I agree, the link is not broken. But the effect is disproportionate in intensity.
In nearly all physical example of cause and effect, the effect is equivalent in intensity to the cause. Either that, or the effect will only happen once.


They are NOT at a distance... they ARE connected with regarded how they effect you. They are brought together through your observation of the result of the race. You don't have to be there... you merely have to observe the result - whether that is over the radio, on the news, on the internet.

Once you have decided to base your evening activity on the result of an earlier race then there is a cause/effect link between the race being run and you going out or not:
The race causes the result causes the reporting of the result causes your observation of the result causes you to go out (or not) that evening.

Had any part of that chain been broken (e.g. the race was not run, or the result not reported) then the race could not have effected your evening plans (within the limitations of the example).

This is all macro level cause/effect - what to speak of the micro level.

The same way that advanced technology might seem like magic, perhaps.

No. At best I would suggest that "free-will" is a term used to describe the lack of conscious knowledge of ALL the causes of an action.

What do you think?Animals can choose?
For instance, can choose their own partner?Or what to eat or not? :scratchin:


In the general principle,yes.

Ok you say whats conciousness is not but what do you think it is? how it works?
etc.

Ok you say whats conciousness is not but what do you think it is? how it works?
etc.

Yes, it would be a very interesting thread of discussion.

But now I am interested if you're agree that determinism and free will are incompatible.
So we have chosen only one.Or determinism is true or free will is true.
You can not say that free will and determinism both of them are true.

But now I am interested if you're agree that determinism and free will are incompatible.
So we have chosen only one.Or determinism is true or free will is true.
You can not say that free will and determinism both of them are true.


Are you high?

I said everything is deterministic,from that alone you should realize that i used the word "choose" in the deterministic way,the illusion of choice.

Also,you deny a more scientific approach of what consciousness is but you have no opinion in what it is except that it is "free"?
I hope you know what that means.

Are you high?


Please explain.

....Once you have decided to base your evening activity on the result of an earlier race then there is a cause/effect link between the race being run and you going out or not:....


Your argument supporting causal or material determinism falls apart here already.

I voted metaphysical, but believe that that does not apply if you're talking about God.

Your argument supporting causal or material determinism falls apart here already.No - it doesn't. The word "decide" is also part of the big chain of cause and effect... as in "whatever caused you to decide..."

But I was concentrating on the single chain of cause-effect (at the macro level) that was under consideration - not the one that led to the so-called "decision".

Yes, I agree, the link is not broken. But the effect is disproportionate in intensity.
In nearly all physical example of cause and effect, the effect is equivalent in intensity to the cause. Either that, or the effect will only happen once.If you look at the micro-level, you are correct - Laws of conservation etc dictate this.

But within this example that you have set up you are ignoring all the other effects generated from the same causes, concentrating on just one chain rather than the innumerable others.

If the "cause" is that a race is run, how many "effects" do you think there are? You honestly think there is only the one effect that I offered (e.g. result is reported)?

And each of those effects are combined with other effects to become the next "cause" which gives rise to innumerable other effects.

i.e. all the "causes" of a given moment give rise to the "effect" that is the next moment, which in turn become the "causes" for the next moment's "effect".

Now, whether these effects are, at the micro-level, necessarily singular (as strict determinism would have it) or random within a probability function (as I understand QM would suggest), there is still no room for "free-will" other than as an illusion.

For genuine free-will there would need to be an influencing factor that was not already part of the chain of cause/effect.

Imagine a snooker ball heading for the top cushion... it has no choice but to go where it would... but for it to "decide" to go to a pocket it would need an external influence. Either another ball hits it (in which case the influence was caused and there was no "choice") or it stays on its path.

Or are you suggesting that the ball, within this analogy, somehow deflects itself?

If the ball had a mind, and that mind could control its movement through some process, then yes.
Do I sound like the kind of man who would deny free will to sentient snooker balls?

With cause and effect that does not involve a conscious mind, the cause is equal to the effect.
OK, you can dislodge a rock from a hilltop with a tiny push and send it tumbling, but you can only do that once.
Only when you come to conscious minds do do get a situation where , for example, entering the correct sequence of symbols on a keyboard can trigger a nuclear missile launch and destroy a city.

If the ball had a mind, and that mind could control its movement through some process, then yes.
Do I sound like the kind of man who would deny free will to sentient snooker balls?Isn't the "some process" what we are trying to establish?

Your argument here is circular: if something has this process that gives it "freewill" then it has "freewill".

The question is - what is this process? How does it work? How is it demonstrably counter to cause/effect?


With cause and effect that does not involve a conscious mind, the cause is equal to the effect.Cause is ALWAYS equal to the effect - but you are refusing to see all the necessary interactions, instead concentrating on macro items where there is no simple interaction.


Only when you come to conscious minds do do get a situation where , for example, entering the correct sequence of symbols on a keyboard can trigger a nuclear missile launch and destroy a city.So you are saying that because the "button push" does not equate to a nuclear explosion, and thus cause does not equal effect, that therefore free-will exists? :confused:

And you can not see how flawed this argument is?

Have you heard of chaos theory... how a slight pertubation in starting conditions can lead to drastic changes in output, even in "non conscious" environments? Your argument is looking at the cause "slight change in starting condition" and the effect "vast difference in output" and comparing them for some form of magnitude, utterly ignoring the vast complexity / chaos that fills the gaps.

Ah, the penny is dropping.
I didn't realise that determinists held that the mind does not control the body.
Yes, your argument is consistent, and it does remove the mind body problem.
A non deterministic theory cannot do that.

Your chaos theory argument doesn't rebut the disproportion between cause and effect in many of the things we do.
Chaos leads to unpredictable effects.

Ah, the penny is dropping.Now for the rest of the sacks of pennies ;)

Your chaos theory argument doesn't rebut the disproportion between cause and effect in many of the things we do.
Chaos leads to unpredictable effects.It highlights that if you cherry-pick what you consider to be the cause and what you consider to be the effect then you can observe a seemingly unbalanced cause/effect, when in fact it is all just "natural" / obeying laws of the universe etc.

So, no cause and effect as we understand it either.
We are giving up a lot just for consistency.

I suppose knowledge goes out of the window as well.

For all you know, your mind may be giving you a totally false impression of the world,
subject to some effect we know nothing about.
We are in Matrix territory.

So, no cause and effect as we understand it either.
We are giving up a lot just for consistency.Cause and effect is there - it was the whole premise upon which this line of discussion has stemmed - how cause/effect suggests that freewill is merely an illusion.

And I am merely pointing out, again, that when you look at specific macro causes and specific macro effects that you overlook the vast complexity of what is going on at the micro level upon which the macro is built, and thus can come to flawed conclusions based upon a perceived "imbalance" between the two.
When you look at macro events like the way you do in this regard, you are no longer observing them in a closed environment.

Imagine a closed and sealed room. If you drop a bag of dust/flour etc then measure the amount of flower in the room after it has settled, you would get the same amount as before you dropped it... this is a closed environment, so you would expect it.
If, however, you have windows and doors open, some of the flour escapes through those openings. If you then try to measure the amount of flour in the room it won't be the same... the room is no longer closed.

So it is with your efforts to observe "balance" between the cause and effect at such a macro level... you are seeing the cause and effect in open environments, with much of the balancing items lost through the windows, and you are choosing to ignore the amount lost through the windows and just observe the "imbalance". Your argument in this regard is therefore flawed.

No, I got that.

What about the second and third paragraphs?

^ That's 'cos I couldn't see the relevance of those comments to the discussion. They seem to be non sequiturs given the discussion at hand.
Perhaps if you elaborate on them, and how they relate to whether the universe is random or deterministic or whether there is free-will etc?

It is a matter of what you allow as A Priori.
Descartes only stripped it back as far as the existence of the individual, and a sentient acting individual at that.
Lax, I know.

As a Determinist, what do you accept as true without proof?

I'm not a "strict" Determinist (same inputs will give same outputs)... I tend toward the "probabilistic determinism" - i.e. determinism tempered with the probability functions of QM... and the apparent randomness of things such as radioactive decay. Which probably means it isn't really determinism.

And I wouldn't say I accept anything as "true" without proof.
If any evidence counters what I already have with regard a position I hold, then my position will change.
Practically one usually takes a position, but that doesn't mean one has accepted that position as "true" - merely practical.

Then you're not a "causal determinist" to make long story short.

Practically one usually takes a position, but that doesn't mean one has accepted that position as "true" - merely practical.

Well said.
All too often (particularly in here...) people take the committance to a position to be synonymous with an assertion that it is 'true'.

(Actually, this charge is laid out whimsically here. Let's call this the "Fallacy of Metaphysical Extension" :-) )



Then you're not a "causal determinist' to make long story short.


Strictly speaking, correct.
Mind, given the very general descriptions of the two possible camps granted in the OP, one could hardly blame good Sarkus...

I'm not a "strict" Determinist (same inputs will give same outputs)... I tend toward the "probabilistic determinism" - i.e. determinism tempered with the probability functions of QM... and the apparent randomness of things such as radioactive decay. Which probably means it isn't really determinism.


There is also another kind of determinism than causal determinism?
What is strict "strict" Determinist or "probabilistic determinism" ?

Can you give any links in which, without doubt,someone deny determinism due to QM?And just because QM and for no other reason.

As far as I use the terms:

A system has "strict determinism" where the same inputs to that system always yield the same singular output.

A system has "probabilistic determinism" where the same inputs to that system always yield to the same probability function of outputs.

The latter could still be considered a form of determinism due to the output always being the same - albeit a probability function P(x) - rather than a single output such as "X".

But BOTH are forms of causal determinism, though... in that both begin from the understanding that each even is the result of a preceeding event - i.e. that cause and effect holds.


Where I'm on the vague edges of determinism, however, is with regard the nature of random things such as radioactive decay... and whether these are truly uncaused or whether they are caused but we just can't tell (yet?) what causes them.


And as for the links you ask - just google Quantum Mechanics and Determinism, and especially Quantum Indeterminacy.
There should be plenty of material for you, on both / all sides of the debate.

I asked because I have misunderstood you.
I thought you are deterministic,even hard deterministic.
But now I understand that you are not.




And as for the links you ask - just google Quantum Mechanics and Determinism, and especially Quantum Indeterminacy.
There should be plenty of material for you, on both / all sides of the debate.


I have not found under the conditions that I mentioned.
I found nondeterministic opinions for which QM was one of the arguments against determinism.

I have not found under the conditions that I mentioned.
I found nondeterministic opinions for which QM was one of the arguments against determinism.Why are you looking for examples where QM is the only reason?

Why are you looking for examples where QM is the only reason?


Because many, here in the forum use QM as the only argument against causal determinism.

Because many, here in the forum use QM as the only argument against causal determinism.


Seems to be a pretty good argument.

Seems to be a pretty good argument.


You're against causal determinism due to QM or is it your conviction?

You're against causal determinism due to QM or is it your conviction?


I'm sorry, I don't understand your distinction there. Quantum indeterminism seems to rule out causal determinism.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your distinction there. Quantum indeterminism seems to rule out causal determinism.


There are no quantum indeterminism so there are causal determinism.

There are no quantum indeterminism so there are causal determinism.



I'm sorry, but that is a counter-factual statement. Quantum mechanics says so, and it's one of most accurately experimentally verified theories in history.

Determinism as a philosophical position is hard to counter.
If we didn't have an overwhelming internal sense of making choices, I don't think anyone would argue against it.
So much of our life is conformed by habit, conditioning, state of health etc, that even I, taking a non Determinist position, accept that 90% of what we do is not in our conscious control.

Different Point.
I think there is a problem for Determinism when we shape the world in a way which isn't Utilitarian.
So, houses might be explained by Determinism, and offices etc, but the existence of the Taj Mahal, a monument to human grief, is harder to explain.
In fact, the whole of art is a problem for Determinism, isn't it?

If the mind does not control the body, then how could people make things that can only be understood by referring them to that mind?
I'll put it another way.
Why are there things in the world which indicate the existence of a human mind if that mind can have no influence in making them?

I'm sorry, but that is a counter-factual statement. Quantum mechanics says so, and it's one of most accurately experimentally verified theories in history.


You're naive if you think someone convinced of determinism,
would deny theory of causation because of QM theory.

If the mind does not control the body, then how could people make things that can only be understood by referring them to that mind?
I'll put it another way.
Why are there things in the world which indicate the existence of a human mind if that mind can have no influence in making them?


I personally have the same dilemma.
But I can not give up determinism.
post 17 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2624618#post2624618)

...I, taking a non Determinist position, accept that 90% of what we do is not in our conscious control.


Do you thank consciousness is biological... or a seperate entity from the body... or somptin else.???

...given the very general descriptions of the two possible camps granted in the OP, one could hardly blame good Sarkus...

What about you glaucon... do you thank humans have "free-will" (make choises which are not a part of a causal chane of events).???

Do you thank consciousness is biological... or a seperate entity from the body... or somptin else.???

Mind is certainly Biological, it is a function of the Brain.
Many experiments show that.

So it should be determined,
unless our understanding of the physical world is wrong.
Which I doubt.

To believe in free will creates a contradiction,
which I don't know how to resolve.

Consciousness does seem to relate to choice.
When you are learning to drive, for example , you are conscious of making choices, and conscious of mistakes made by making those choices.
When you are able to drive, you do it without thinking about it.

Mind is certainly Biological...

So it should be determined,
unless our understanding of the physical world is wrong.
Which I doubt.

To believe in free will creates a contradiction,
which I don't know how to resolve.


I resolve the contradition of free-will like i do any other unevidenced beleif by takin it for what it is... an unevidenced beleif.!!!

Accepting that there is no free will would have catastrophic consequences, in my opinion.
An example would be: if there is no free will means that the person is not responsible for anything, so we can abolished the laws and the courts.

Accepting that there is no free will would have catastrophic consequences, in my opinion.
An example would be: if there is no free will means that the person is not responsible for anything, so we can abolished the laws and the courts.


I dont see any evidence for free-will an i dont want to abolish laws an courts :shrug:

... an i dont want to abolish laws an courts :shrug:


Neither did I.:huh:

Accepting that there is no free will would have catastrophic consequences, in my opinion.
An example would be: if there is no free will means that the person is not responsible for anything, so we can abolished the laws and the courts.


The main message in life is that it is all fun and games until someone gets hurt. The main question man can not answer with laws is that if no physical harm is done has man broken any laws? Possibly to whom benefited from laws broken would be a better question to answer what caused them to be broken in the first place. Do our morals not confirm why. To say a man has no morals is to confirm he serves a higher purpose (of which his body can suffer punishment, but the mind has suffered before the crime was committed)

You're naive if you think someone convinced of determinism,
would deny theory of causation because of QM theory.


I'm not talking about what would convince someone, I'm talking about what is.

The main message in life is that it is all fun and games until someone gets hurt. The main question man can not answer with laws is that if no physical harm is done has man broken any laws? Possibly to whom benefited from laws broken would be a better question to answer what caused them to be broken in the first place. Do our morals not confirm why. To say a man has no morals is to confirm he serves a higher purpose (of which his body can suffer punishment, but the mind has suffered before the crime was committed)


What you say is exciting but does not belong in this thread.
I suggest you open a new thread about it.

I'm not talking about what would convince someone, I'm talking about what is.

Yes,it is a causal result ...:D

I resolve the contradition of free-will like i do any other unevidenced beleif by takin it for what it is... an unevidenced beleif.!!!

Yes, you are right of course.
Despite its being such a huge problem for philosophy students and their lecturers, aside from that it is not a problem at all.
It's not too big a problem even for that small band, when they aren't thinking about it.

What about you glaucon... do you thank humans have "free-will" (make choises which are not a part of a causal chane of events).???

Frankly, I think it's obvious that we have free will.

Take the obverse: what then could possibly lead us to the appearance that we do choose freely?

However, I think the problem with this issue arises from inept definitions. In particular, people tend to take the term free will to far, to mean much more than it really implies: free will does not mean that 'anything goes'; it is not a denial of causality.

By free will, what I mean is that we have the option of election. Strictly interpreted, this is a denial of the case that each and every choice we make is directly determined. However (and this is the big one...), I do believe in structural determinism.

In short then, the environment within which we find ourselves is causally determined; our options of choice represent a matrix of possibility that is limited. But the choice that is made itself is not made without our input.

...I think the problem with this issue arises from inept definitions.


Yes thats often a prollem.!!!



In short then, the environment within which we find ourselves is causally determined; our options of choice represent a matrix of possibility that is limited. But the choice that is made itself is not made without our input.

How do you define "our input".???

In short then, the environment within which we find ourselves is causally determined; our options of choice represent a matrix of possibility that is limited. But the choice that is made itself is not made without our input.But our input is causally determined.
For a "choice" to be made that is "free" then it surely needs to be selected without causation for the selection.

As for your last sentence - it's circular (or something like that) - "choice" surely requires the input of the one making the choice?
To me it is no more meaningful than saying "But the movie that is made itself is not made without a camera"... the latter half merely compounding the definition of the first part.

The question is... is there "choice".
There either is, or there is the illusion of choice.

To me for there to be real "choice" (as opposed to the illusion of) there needs to be an influence not caught up in the causal chain, but also that is in accordance to the "mind"... i.e. so not merely random.
I am not aware of any evidence of this.
And surely if an uncaused influence is in accordance to the "mind" there is likely to be a causal link?

It therefore seems more rational to me that "choice" is an illusion that comes after the event... even perhaps simultaneously... as the brain realises what it is doing and convinces you that you wanted to do it.
Sometimes it doesn't bother telling us, and we find ourselves doing things without thinking about it... without "choices" seemingly being made.

But the illusion is pervasive. And I would suggest (without backup/evidence/support) that it could even be a necessity for self-awareness.

How do you define "our input".???

By that I meant our means of selection.

But our input is causally determined.

No.
The situation is determined, and thus, limits our possible choice, but the choice is solely ours



For a "choice" to be made that is "free" then it surely needs to be selected without causation for the selection.

Not at all. See, that's exactly what I was getting at concerning the far too broad common interpretation of 'free will'. Your stated requirements could never be met, by any selection method.




To me it is no more meaningful than saying "But the movie that is made itself is not made without a camera"... the latter half merely compounding the definition of the first part.

Not quite.
There's a difference between describing what a movie is, and the mechanisms involved in making one.




The question is... is there "choice".
There either is, or there is the illusion of choice.


I think that's a false dichotomy (given the common definitions).



To me for there to be real "choice" (as opposed to the illusion of) there needs to be an influence not caught up in the causal chain, but also that is in accordance to the "mind"... i.e. so not merely random.

Then you'll never see any such thing. Again, those conditions could never be satisfied (except of course, by some sort of 'god', but, we're talking about reality here..).




It therefore seems more rational to me that "choice" is an illusion that comes after the event... even perhaps simultaneously... as the brain realises what it is doing and convinces you that you wanted to do it.

I'll agree that, as you're trying to define it, "choice" is illusory.

A simple question:
After a good meal when and what you eat first?
This is an expression of free will or it is determined?
A more complicated question:
On a island where no other people are,where there is fruit, fish and animals.
When you hunt the first animal?
It depends on several factors (hunger, fruit, fish, your opportunity to make weapons and your knowledge to hunt).
This is an expression of free will or it is determined?

The same questions but in terms of an animal.

Free will determined by your knowledge. Most people pick the right "subconscious" decisions based on their knowledge, but every once in a while there is a switch that just doesn't work for some reason. That is when it goes beyond their control. It is important to distinguish between what you control and what is controlling you. It could be your mind or it could be the mind of someone else.

I dont see any evidence for free-will an i dont want to abolish laws an courts :shrug:


While I don't see evidence that confirms free will I don't see any evidence for causal determinism.

While I don't see evidence that confirms free will I don't see any evidence for causal determinism.

Do you know of any evidence for free will.???

While I don't see evidence that confirms free will I don't see any evidence for causal determinism.


Do you know of any evidence for free will.???

Good point.

I would thought that by now it would be obvious that ontologically, "free will" is not the kind of object that is subject to evidenciary support...

Not at all. See, that's exactly what I was getting at concerning the far too broad common interpretation of 'free will'. Your stated requirements could never be met, by any selection method.Then I am confused how you could agree that at the microscopic level there is only cause/effect (determinism or randomness - but no choice) - which is what I think you agree with - yet at the same time introduce something that offers at the macro level precisely what is not possible at the micro level... without the macro-level being illusory.

If you define "choice" as purely a macro observation or ability or whatever then you surely limit the understanding of what is really going on. And given that determinism is very much a micro-consideration, surely the discussion of free-will (given the thread title) and thus "choice" should go to those same levels... i.e. what is going on at the core... not just what is observed at the macro-level.

You seem to want to accept the micro-level but ignore the implications for the macro:

[free will]...it is not a denial of causality.
...
By free will, what I mean is that we have the option of election. Strictly interpreted, this is a denial of the case that each and every choice we make is directly determined.If at the micro level their are only things/actions that are either caused or random (such as radioactive decay) - how do you propose there to be something at the macro level that is both uncaused and non-random - i.e. the requirements for "choice"?

Then I am confused how you could agree that at the microscopic level there is only cause/effect (determinism or randomness - but no choice) - which is what I think you agree with - ...


So far so good.
Yet, there is the caveat concerning "choice". What does "choice" necessarily imply?



...
yet at the same time introduce something that offers at the macro level precisely what is not possible at the micro level... without the macro-level being illusory.


First, the macro level is illusory (which is to say, at our level of observation, we do not (cannot) observe all that there is to see..).

Second, and more importantly, at the macro level (ours) deterministic causality is not exhaustive. Which is to say, although causality still obtains, the direction it takes is not strictly determined. As active agents, we have the power of election.




If you define "choice" as purely a macro observation or ability or whatever then you surely limit the understanding of what is really going on.


Yes.



And given that determinism is very much a micro-consideration, surely the discussion of free-will (given the thread title) and thus "choice" should go to those same levels... i.e. what is going on at the core... not just what is observed at the macro-level.


I agree with you on the continuity of applicability. However, see my first comment above regarding the term "choice". Also, again, as agents, we affect the macro level system (which is to say, although the 'rules of the game' haven't changed, the players have..).




You seem to want to accept the micro-level but ignore the implications for the macro: ...


Not at all; but there's more to the situation than the rules.



If at the micro level their are only things/actions that are either caused or random (such as radioactive decay) - how do you propose there to be something at the macro level that is both uncaused and non-random - i.e. the requirements for "choice"?

I don't agree with your definition of "choice" meaning uncaused and non-random.

In any case, at the macro level, we're talking about agents that have a special kind of comprehension of the system within which they operate. Though the system is causal, it doesn't necessarily follow that the behaviour of an agent is strictly such.

Second, and more importantly, at the macro level (ours) deterministic causality is not exhaustive. Which is to say, although causality still obtains, the direction it takes is not strictly determined. As active agents, we have the power of election.I disagree - as this cannot follow if you hold there is no choice at the micro level. I agree that the direction the macro takes is not strictly determined - QM and randomness seem to indicate that - but I see no room for this "power of election" that you seem to hold on to.


I agree with you on the continuity of applicability. However, see my first comment above regarding the term "choice". Also, again, as agents, we affect the macro level system (which is to say, although the 'rules of the game' haven't changed, the players have..)But we can only affect the macro level system in accordance with the same drivers. Every move made by these new players is in accordance to the moves made at the micro level.


I don't agree with your definition of "choice" meaning uncaused and non-random.Then feel free to share your definition so I might gain an insight into where your points stem from?


In any case, at the macro level, we're talking about agents that have a special kind of comprehension of the system within which they operate. Though the system is causal, it doesn't necessarily follow that the behaviour of an agent is strictly such.Surely it must??
How can you have an unbroken causal chain at the micro level but allow a break of those same chains when you look at the macro?
Perhaps you see breaks in the macro-chain (for want of a better term) but those chains are still bound by the unbroken micro-level chains.

Perhaps if you can explain your thoughts further?

I disagree - as this cannot follow if you hold there is no choice at the micro level.

As I noted, "choice" doesn't apply. "Choice", conceptually, only applies to specific entities: agents.



I agree that the direction the macro takes is not strictly determined - QM and randomness seem to indicate that - but I see no room for this "power of election" that you seem to hold on to.

See above.




But we can only affect the macro level system in accordance with the same drivers. Every move made by these new players is in accordance to the moves made at the micro level.


Not at all. As we know, different scales are regulated by different iterations of the rules. Newtonian mechanics, for example, work fine on the 'human observational scale', whilst on much smaller, and much larger scales, they do not.



Then feel free to share your definition so I might gain an insight into where your points stem from?


Again, see above.
"Choice" implies an agent. There is a difference between "choice" and "possibility".



Surely it must??
How can you have an unbroken causal chain at the micro level but allow a break of those same chains when you look at the macro?
Perhaps you see breaks in the macro-chain (for want of a better term) but those chains are still bound by the unbroken micro-level chains.


Because you're assuming that there is a smooth gradation of application, which, we already know, is not the case.



Perhaps if you can explain your thoughts further?

Well, this would be going slightly offtopic, but, suffice it to say that, as agents, we enjoy a special place within our deterministic environment.
The environment is determined, to be sure, but only insofar as this means that restrictions are placed on possibilities within the environment. This does not mean that 'everything that happens had to happen'. What it does mean is that 'what happened, happened for a reason".

On any scale outside of the human observational scope, I would completely agree with you. But, as with the Observer Effect (for example), the simple fact of an agent being involved alters the causal chain. This all stems from the fact that we have the power of imagination: we can hypothesize, we can predict.
It is this ability to consider alternativity that enables us to interfere with a strict deterministic outcome. Note: we can affect the outcome, but not the precedent possibilities available to us.

Try the following two questions out:


If you chose not to choose, have you chosen?

Can you choose to draw a four sided triangle?



I'm also reminded here of Game Theory in general, and the Prisoner's Dilemma in particular...


p.s.:

I mentioned that this is verging on going offtopic because, to a great extent, we're moving on to talking about the nature of agency. Of course, this is closely related to the topic at hand, but clearly once we move specifically into the human realm, we've moved beyond the (implicit) scope of the OP.
Admittedly, this movement is mostly my fault, but, in my defense, the OP was dangerously vague and/or devoid of lucid definitions and parameters. In any case, I have no problem dropping this particular line of thought if that would leave the thread to stay right on topic.,...

Not at all. As we know, different scales are regulated by different iterations of the rules. Newtonian mechanics, for example, work fine on the 'human observational scale', whilst on much smaller, and much larger scales, they do not.But these iterations of rules all still obey causality / randomness. It is not that causality stops working at a certain level.
Certainly we can see that the micro gives rise to patterns of behaviour that are not visible at the micro... a molecule of water in isolation can not tell you about a pattern of ripples.
But causality/randomness surely applies across the board.
And as such, there is no "choice" - just an illusion of it - a post-event realisation and justification.


"Choice" implies an agent.But the agent still acts causally (or randomly)


Because you're assuming that there is a smooth gradation of application, which, we already know, is not the case.Only because you cherry-picked an application that is not ;).
I am assuming smooth gradation of application of causality/randomness... are you saying that this aspect is not applicable to all things?


What it does mean is that 'what happened, happened for a reason".And the reason can be broken down and down and down... all the while causality still holding... until you end up at the micro-level. Patterns seen at the macro are driven by the micro, not


On any scale outside of the human observational scope, I would completely agree with you. But, as with the Observer Effect (for example), the simple fact of an agent being involved alters the causal chain.No! I can not agree with this. This seems to applying some "immaterial soul"-like attribute to the agent.
The agent being involved does NOT alter the causal chain. It is PART of the causal chain. There is only the chain. The chain began before the agent and will continue after the agent.
The Observer Effect does NOT alter the causal chain... observation merely crystallises the probability function into a specific case (or "collapses the wave-function)... but either way the observation itself is part of the causal chain... the specific case was the effect of the observation, which was caused by X which was caused by Y... etc.
Nothing "changes" as a result. To suggest change as a result of the agent is to suggest that the agent has the ability to alter the causal chain... and therefore that the actions of the agent are necessarily uncaused and non-random.
I can not see how this can be the case if you accept causality/randomness.


This all stems from the fact that we have the power of imagination: we can hypothesize, we can predict.Which are all still part of the causal chain.


It is this ability to consider alternativity that enables us to interfere with a strict deterministic outcome. Note: we can affect the outcome, but not the precedent possibilities available to us.I'm not arguing out of a strict-deterministic position... I disagree (as previously posted) with strict determinism. But I still don't think we can interfere with the causal chain. To do so requires an uncaused and non-random event.
My arguments here have stemmed from causality/randomness i.e. everything is either caused or is the result of randomness - such as radioactive decay - with the conclusion I am putting forth (for your scrutiny) that there is no "free-will" (or "choice").

At best I would say that "choice / free-will" is a pattern of activity of an agent that gives the appearance of self-determination (within the confines of the environment).


I mentioned that this is verging on going offtopic because, to a great extent, we're moving on to talking about the nature of agency. Of course, this is closely related to the topic at hand, but clearly once we move specifically into the human realm, we've moved beyond the (implicit) scope of the OP.
Admittedly, this movement is mostly my fault, but, in my defense, the OP was dangerously vague and/or devoid of lucid definitions and parameters. In any case, I have no problem dropping this particular line of thought if that would leave the thread to stay right on topic.,...I'm happy to have you move it to a new thread... or even to PM... seems to be just you and me here anyway. ;)

I'm happy to have you move it to a new thread... or even to PM... seems to be just you and me here anyway. ;)

If glacuon determines that a new thred is necessary to discuss the issues necessary for the discussion of free will :bugeye: ... fine wit me... but it ant jus you an glacuon whos interested in an follerin this fasinatin thred/topic about free will (a thang that mos people clame "we" have)... an you'r las post shoud be helpful in re-focusin the discusson on what this thang called "free-will" is/how it operates... so im mos interested in glacuons answrs.!!!

Whispers softly so no-one hears....

Fully determined free will....

"If your choices are determined by absolutely everything then those choices must therefore be free of limitations unless you consider being "determined by absolutely everything" as a limitation"

Therefore free will and determinism can quite happilly co-exist but only when your choices are determined by absolutely everything
So Freewill exists as an ideal that we Humans may never acheive despite our constant quest to do so. [rel: to the human God Complex.]

Fully determined free will....


Well i will ask along the line of what Sarkus ask glacuon... is ther some "immaterial soul"-like attribute... or an inteligence seperate from humans which is involved wit you'r idea of "Fully determined free will.???

Well i will ask along the line of what Sarkus ask glacuon... is ther some "immaterial soul"-like attribute... or an inteligence seperate from fumans which is involved wit you'r idea of "Fully determined free will.???

regarding my solution the question of "immaterial Soul-like attribute" is irrelevant as "absolutely everything" is a global "all inclusive statement"

"If your choices are determined by absolutely everything then those choices must therefore be free of limitations unless you consider being "determined by absolutely everything" as a limitation"

Just checked the poll and noticed an option missing for me to vote upon.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Well i will ask along the line of what Sarkus ask glacuon... is ther some "immaterial soul"-like attribute... or an inteligence seperate from humans which is involved wit you'r idea of "Fully determined free will.???


regarding my solution the question of "immaterial Soul-like attribute" is irrelevant...


Im mor interested in discussin the issue wit people who will give direct answrs to direct questons.!!!


Just checked the poll and noticed an option missing for me to vote upon.

Yeah the poll coud be highly miss-leadin.!!!

So you believe an all-inclusive statement is not sufficient for your question?

a bit like asking...

Does your statement include an apple in Geneva or a speck of cosmic dust floating in the Orion Nebula...
absolutely everything is ..uhm well just that...

So getting bogged down in "immaterial soul like atributes" is not relevant as the statement already includes anything you can imagine or real.
example "Flying Pigs" are also part of "absolutely everything"
It is not the purpose of this thread to validate, confirm or qualify the existance of flying pigs.

...getting bogged down in "immaterial soul like atributes" is not relevant as the statement already includes anything you can imagine or real.

Lots of people make the clame that we have free will... im specificaly interested in hearin the process which suposedly allows free will to occur... an if that process includs flyin-pigs (or the equlivent) i wont get bogged down in it... i will nip it in the bud by skippin that persons posts.!!!

Lots of people make the clame that we have free will... im specificaly interested in hearin the process which suposedly allows free will to occur... an if that process includs flyin-pigs (or the equlivent) i wont get bogged down in it... i will nip it in the bud by skippin that persons posts.!!!

sorry Clueless but I assumed that my post was clear enough as to process:



Fully determined free will....

"If your choices are determined by absolutely everything then those choices must therefore be free of limitations unless you consider being "determined by absolutely everything" as a limitation"

Therefore free will and determinism can quite happilly co-exist but only when your choices are determined by absolutely everything
So Freewill exists as an ideal that we Humans may never acheive despite our constant quest to do so. [rel: to the human God Complex.]

Its simple.

1.Determinism:No (true)free will,only the illusion
2.Randomness: No free will at all.

1.Everything is determined like it is now.
2.Chaotic,no structure at all,no will of ANY kind,random is not "will".

Free will = the illusion that we have choice(most atheists)
True free will= that its not an illusion,we have the actual choice that cannot be predicted (most theists)
Unpredictable will=oxymoron.

edit:Just to clarify:
Any kind of (True) Free Will(either in deterministic world or a random world) is U-N-R-E-A-L.

Free will = the illusion that we have choice(most atheists)


I woud have guessed that even mos atheists thank they have free will.!!!

I think true randomness is impossible for the universe since chaos isn't randomness.

I think true randomness is impossible...

Thats my guess.!!!

Its simple.

1.Determinism:No (true)free will,only the illusion
2.Randomness: No free will at all.

1.Everything is determined like it is now.
2.Chaotic,no structure at all,no will of ANY kind,random is not "will".

Free will = the illusion that we have choice(most atheists)
True free will= that its not an illusion,we have the actual choice that cannot be predicted (most theists)
Unpredictable will=oxymoron.

edit:Just to clarify:
Any kind of (True) Free Will(either in deterministic world or a random world) is U-N-R-E-A-L.

Feel free (read: required) to actually provide any support for these blind suppositions.

Feel free (read: required) to actually provide any support for these blind suppositions.

You do realize that we are all assuming,right?


I think true randomness is impossible for the universe since chaos isn't randomness.


Now you're mixing up some words there.

True randomness doesnt exist ,yes.
Randomness(unpredictability) in the form that we can't predict cause there are many variables,it exists obviously.
Maybe i misrepresented my ideas.
Also.
Chaos is a more loose word,in this case i used it to represent true randomness ,to add a dramatic effect.
Chaos is usually used to show unpredictability or extreme conditions etc.

As i said, Nondeterministic Free Will is an oxymoron,since the Will has a structure.
Unless someone agrees that a person decides totally in (true)random,that means our brain doesn't obey the laws of physics.

Then there would be no will,and because there is no randomness any case of Free-Will being nondeterministic is imaginary.
You can't have a deterministic universe with nondeterministic "Will".
Its either all deterministic or its all nondeterministic (which is unreal).

Now you're mixing up some words there.

True randomness doesnt exist ,yes.
Randomness(unpredictability) in the form that we can't predict cause there are many variables,it exists obviously.
Maybe i misrepresented my ideas.
Also.
Chaos is a more loose word,in this case i used it to represent true randomness ,to add a dramatic effect.
Chaos is usually used to show unpredictability or extreme conditions etc.


Unpredictablity isn't randomness sure there are many variables but is it absolutely impossible that the universe is deterministic non-causally or pre-determined? The truth is no it's not. The more I think about it seems that the universe can't exist without being pre-determined, our existence is sequential i.e. in time which makes it seem deterministic to me. Perhaps true randomness requires 100% efficiency, or absence of sequences or change like time which the universe certainly isn't.

Unpredictablity isn't randomness sure there are many variables but is it absolutely impossible that the universe is deterministic non-causally or pre-determined? The truth is no it's not. The more I think about it seems that the universe can't exist without being pre-determined, our existence is sequential i.e. in time which makes it seem deterministic to me. Perhaps true randomness requires 100% efficiency, or absence of sequences or change like time which the universe certainly isn't.

While obviously if you read my post you'll see that we almost share the same opinion on the determinism of universe.

Though you dont agree with Unpredictability which is matter of semantics.

1.Unpredictability=We can't predict the outcome ,but we can roughly estimate=Deterministic Randomness=Common sense Randomness.

2.Unpredictability=We can't predict the outcome ,neither we can't estimate=Quantum Randomness.

Many words have different ways of use just like chaos you mentioned before,you understand it by reading the whole sentence instead of focusing in a word.I explained in what form i meant "unpredictability" in my previous post.

So instead of me explaining what each word means would you wanna add something else to this lil almost meaningless conversation of ours?

If not then i wanna hear what nondeterminists have to say.

But these iterations of rules all still obey causality / randomness.

Do they? Are you sure? I'm not. And, that certainly hasn't been proven....(not that I think it could be..)



It is not that causality stops working at a certain level.


Agreed. However, unlike yourself (just assuming based upon your comments herein..), I do not equate causality with determinism.



Certainly we can see that the micro gives rise to patterns of behaviour that are not visible at the micro... a molecule of water in isolation can not tell you about a pattern of ripples.
But causality/randomness surely applies across the board.

Agreed.
Note however, that this says absolutely nothing about election.



And as such, there is no "choice" - just an illusion of it - a post-event realisation and justification.

I don't think we can move to conclude this.
Perhaps, at best, we could stretch things to admit that yes, within the realm of 'dumb matter', strict deterministic causality is the force majeur. Beyond this realm, I don't think so...




But the agent still acts causally (or randomly)

Entirely contingent upon definition.
(This area, methinks, is where you and I are having the greatest disagreement/confusion.)



Only because you cherry-picked an application that is not ;).

Ah, but as we all know via scientific method generally, and logic specifically, it only takes one case to disprove.... :-)



I am assuming smooth gradation of application of causality/randomness... are you saying that this aspect is not applicable to all things?

Applicable? Yes. 'Enforced' (i.e. necessary)? No.




And the reason can be broken down and down and down... all the while causality still holding... until you end up at the micro-level. ...

Right, but not evenly so. That is to say, not only can we not follow the pattern of causality regressively (to its 'starting point, so to speak) (which is why 'causality' is still, at best, a metaphysical notion..), but we can't even directly observe it (at any scale whatsoever..). As Hume said, all we can ever observe is patterns of constant conjunction. Never causality.




No! I can not agree with this. This seems to applying some "immaterial soul"-like attribute to the agent.


Moi?!!

lol

There are many here who would be shocked to see such an accusation made of me. :-)

Nonetheless, yes, I can see how you might think that.
Again, this is me focusing on the specific human element to the equation. I do think that our cognitive perspective can, and does have a great influence on our environment...




The agent being involved does NOT alter the causal chain. It is PART of the causal chain. There is only the chain. The chain began before the agent and will continue after the agent.
The Observer Effect does NOT alter the causal chain... observation merely crystallises the probability function into a specific case (or "collapses the wave-function)... but either way the observation itself is part of the causal chain... the specific case was the effect of the observation, which was caused by X which was caused by Y... etc.
Nothing "changes" as a result. To suggest change as a result of the agent is to suggest that the agent has the ability to alter the causal chain... and therefore that the actions of the agent are necessarily uncaused and non-random.

Ah, but it does definitively alter the chain. The observer 'collapses' the eigenstate right? In the absence of an observer, things would have taken a different path.

I think your last sentence is a non sequitur.
Just because one can affect change, it doesn't follow that the affector in question was somehow uncaused. You're still mixing up causality with determinism.

Moreover, you seem to be assuming that there's some Aristotelian teleological 'causality line' for the entirety of reality. It can be the case that both an event and an agent have each their own deterministic line. In this case, the two lines converge at a point, where the agent has an affect on the other (and, one assumes, vice versa..).



I can not see how this can be the case if you accept causality/randomness.

Not as a totality, no. But as a plurality.



Which are all still part of the causal chain.

Post hoc, yes. But not in any teleological sense.



I'm not arguing out of a strict-deterministic position... I disagree (as previously posted) with strict determinism. But I still don't think we can interfere with the causal chain. To do so requires an uncaused and non-random event.

It sure seems that you are. At least, if we cannot interfere with the (grand) causality chain, then it must be the case that everything that happens, must happen (in that precise way). Thus: no free will, no choice = strict determinism.




I'm happy to have you move it to a new thread... or even to PM... seems to be just you and me here anyway. ;)


Oh I'm cool keeping it all here.
It really depends on how much, and to what extent, we get into the specific human element.

Do they? Are you sure? I'm not. And, that certainly hasn't been proven....(not that I think it could be..)It is the rational assumption to take... given that nothing has yet been shown to be both uncaused and non-random.


Agreed. However, unlike yourself (just assuming based upon your comments herein..), I do not equate causality with determinism.If by determinism you mean strict determinism, nor do I. As previously stated, I assume everything is either caused or (as in the case of radiocative decay, for example) random. If something is caused then the effect follows a probability function rather than a strict output.


Agreed.
Note however, that this says absolutely nothing about election.If by election you imply choice as opposed to a mere random output among the possibilities then it does say something about election - it negates the possibility of election.


I don't think we can move to conclude this.
Perhaps, at best, we could stretch things to admit that yes, within the realm of 'dumb matter', strict deterministic causality is the force majeur. Beyond this realm, I don't think so...I'm NOT talking about "strict" determinism. I haven't done and I won't. It is not a position I adhere to.
Strict determinism (as I understand it) is "same cause = same effect".
I am predominantly coming from a far softer view of determinism where "same cause = same probability function of effects", and the actual effect is random, as well as taking note of random non-caused events such as radioactive decay.
All events, under this view, are either caused or random. And if caused then the resultant effect is random within the probability function.

Therefore for there to be choice/free-will then an effect has to be both uncaused and non-random.


Ah, but as we all know via scientific method generally, and logic specifically, it only takes one case to disprove.... :-)Indeed - but we're not discussing the general principle of applicability but of the specific case. You merely threw up a logical fallacy by cherry-picking. :p


Applicable? Yes. 'Enforced' (i.e. necessary)? No.Then provide an example of where it is not necessary... where there is "choice" without cause?


Right, but not evenly so. That is to say, not only can we not follow the pattern of causality regressively (to its 'starting point, so to speak) (which is why 'causality' is still, at best, a metaphysical notion..), but we can't even directly observe it (at any scale whatsoever..). As Hume said, all we can ever observe is patterns of constant conjunction. Never causality.Now you're just stirring up the mud to hide behind. ;)
Are you saying that there are effects that are both uncaused and non-random? Care to name but a single one?


There are many here who would be shocked to see such an accusation made of me. :-)
Nonetheless, yes, I can see how you might think that.
Again, this is me focusing on the specific human element to the equation. I do think that our cognitive perspective can, and does have a great influence on our environment...:D I know it's not something you would do - which is why I was suprised to see your comments phrased in such language.


Ah, but it does definitively alter the chain. The observer 'collapses' the eigenstate right? In the absence of an observer, things would have taken a different path.Which is why the observer is an important cause, but it is still just a cause - and it leads to a random effect (within the probability function / waveform) - there is no certainly no choice in the outcome.

Further, the observer doesn't "alter" the chain - it merely acts as a cause within the chain - a cause that crystallises the effect of a previous cause.

Your argument would equally apply to ANY of the links within the cause/effect chain... remove any one cause and the overall chain takes a different path.


I think your last sentence is a non sequitur.
Just because one can affect change, it doesn't follow that the affector in question was somehow uncaused. You're still mixing up causality with determinism.No - I'm not.

Each cause leads to an effect that is not strictly determined - but is random within the probability function.
The only other alternative are uncaused things, such as radioactive decay. Which again is random.
Surely for there to be "choice" the output/effect can not be random?


Moreover, you seem to be assuming that there's some Aristotelian teleological 'causality line' for the entirety of reality. It can be the case that both an event and an agent have each their own deterministic line. In this case, the two lines converge at a point, where the agent has an affect on the other (and, one assumes, vice versa..).I am certainly not assuming that chains are discrete. If I talk of "cause" and "effect" as being singular it is masking the complexity of the influences that make up a "cause" and an "effect".
The "cause" would be everything with influence on the "effect".
Ultimately this would be expanded to everything at one moment being the cause for everything at the next moment (being the effect).

But there is nothing teleological about what I am saying.


Post hoc, yes. But not in any teleological sense.Again - nothing teleological here.
As for being post hoc... are you implying the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy??
I'm assuming not - so I'm not sure why it should be an issue?


It sure seems that you are. At least, if we cannot interfere with the (grand) causality chain, then it must be the case that everything that happens, must happen (in that precise way). Thus: no free will, no choice = strict determinism.Misconception of strict determinism on your part, I think - or perhaps mine.

Strict determinism is (as I understand it, correct me if you think differently) "same input = same output", and does not allow for randomness.
I am arguing from mere causality and non-caused randomness: same input = same probability function (i.e. random output within the probability function), but with things being non-caused but random (e.g. radioactive decay).
This is not strict determinism but also does not allow for free-will or choice.


Oh I'm cool keeping it all here.
It really depends on how much, and to what extent, we get into the specific human element.Since (in this thread) I see no difference between the "human" element and any other, I have no desire to explore it specifically here.

Since I am not sure of my conclusions, I try to go step by step.
In my opinion, the three-dimensional material lifeless world is strictly deterministic.
We can say that all Laws of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science) are valid and are not random.

The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world.[dubious – discuss] Laws of science may, however, be disproved if new facts or evidence contradicts them. A "law" differs from hypotheses, theories, postulates, principles, etc., in that a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory may contain a set of laws, or a theory may be implied from an empirically determined law.
So these laws operate independently of human will.
Therefore in this thread I'm interested in free-will in terms of possibility changing causality.
A complete analysis of free-will is really the subject of another thread.

In my opinion, the man is an agent, as glaucon says, or operator.
He can initialize these laws but can not intervene on these laws, in the sense of changing the outcome or the effect.
He has no power of god to change laws.
He has a limited opportunity to change the outcome by initializing other laws that stop the first.
For example he starts a fire which is a violent oxidation described by the laws of chemistry.
To stop the fire he has to use another law of chemistry,eliminate oxygen around the fire with a fire extinguisher.
So, the man introduces a limited indeterminism on the three-dimensional material lifeless world wich is strictly deterministic.
I believe that life introduces an indeterminism and not only humans.
And animals or plants can act on the three-dimensional material lifeless world and introduce a limited indeterminism.For instance, an animal can trigger an avalanche, or plants via photosynthesis process acting on on the three-dimensional material lifeless world.
I understand by limited indeterminism,they can not change the laws,they do not have the power of God.
I can not draw conclusions yet and am curious if you have anything to add.

P.S. I think an analysis of relations between "agent" and "agent" (or "operator" and "operator") will be much more difficult.

Since I am not sure of my conclusions, I try to go step by step.
In my opinion, the three-dimensional material lifeless world is strictly deterministic.

So these laws operate independently of human will.

Therefore in this thread I'm interested in free-will in terms of possibility changing causality.


Based on the premise that humans have free will... give an esample of how the causality you'r talkin about can be changed.!!!

Based on the premise that humans have free will... give an esample of how the causality you'r talkin about can be changed.!!!

Extinguish a fire.

Based on the premise that humans have free will... give an esample of how the causality you'r talkin about can be changed.!!!


Extinguish a fire.


Then yes... based on the premise that humans have free will (are not meerly a part of the causal chane).!!!

Prollem is... that concluson is perty wortless unless thers evidence that the premise is valid.!!!

While obviously if you read my post you'll see that we almost share the same opinion on the determinism of universe.

Though you dont agree with Unpredictability which is matter of semantics.

1.Unpredictability=We can't predict the outcome ,but we can roughly estimate=Deterministic Randomness=Common sense Randomness.

2.Unpredictability=We can't predict the outcome ,neither we can't estimate=Quantum Randomness.

Many words have different ways of use just like chaos you mentioned before,you understand it by reading the whole sentence instead of focusing in a word.I explained in what form i meant "unpredictability" in my previous post.

So instead of me explaining what each word means would you wanna add something else to this lil almost meaningless conversation of ours?

If not then i wanna hear what nondeterminists have to say.


I don't care to play word games with you but you just gave me the most non-sequitur reply I ever encountered it doesn't matter if the universe is probabilistic or not I think the universe must be deterministic just to exist, it doesn't matter if it seems unpredictable to us. Our existence is finite and completely specified can we honestly answer the question why our universe is the way it is out of infinite possiblities our perception itself is finite. It's not that I'm a causal determinist it's that the universe doesn't seem truly random.

...
I think the universe must be deterministic just to exist, it doesn't matter if it seems unpredictable to us.

Alas, simply because you just "think" the universe must be deterministic, that doesn't make an argument. Any defense of a position requires a little more than you just saying it must be so...


Mod Note:

deicider, Big Chiller,

This forum is a place for philosophical discussion, not simple opining and the tossing out of abuse.
Any more such posts will be summarily edited and/or deleted.

This forum is a place for philosophical discussion, not simple opining and the tossing out of abuse.
Any more such posts will be summarily edited and/or deleted.



:yay:

i would vote for editing as a tool for teaching what is abuse.

:yay:

i would vote for editing as a tool for teaching what is abuse.

lol

I'm hoping it doesn't come to that, but, in any case, it shouldn't be necessary. It's understood here that, as a poster, you have read and understood the Site Rules and Regulations. Woe unto those who have not...

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2632212&postcount=123

Very strong arguments an seems to perty much close this notion of "free-will".!!!

I am not conviced that a particular causal chain has anything to do with Freewill.
The reason is that the moment of choice or decision is always at a particular moment and it is at that moment that very small instance that freewill as a concept lives or dies.

Regardless of the causation do we have the ability to ignore it?
Do we have the ability to make choices concerning all causation chains.

If your choices are determined by absolutely every causal chain does this not imply freedom of choice regarding all the alternative causations provided?
Quoting my earlier post [#106] which appears to have been ignored or over looked.






Fully determined free will....
"If your choices are determined by absolutely everything then those choices must therefore be free of limitations unless you consider being "determined by absolutely everything" as a limitation"

Therefore free will and determinism can quite happilly co-exist but only when your choices are determined by absolutely everything
So Freewill exists as an ideal that we Humans may never acheive despite our constant quest to do so. [rel: to the human God Complex.]
and after years of thinking on this subject I have found that it is the ability we have to choose NOT TO CHOOSE that is a key factor in the "reality or no" of free will.
Afterall [referring to a famous tv commercial]
"Is it not the fish that JOHN W*ST rejects that makes JOHN WE*T the best"

and after years of thinking on this subject I have found that it is the ability we have to choose NOT TO CHOOSE that is a key factor in the "reality or no" of free will.


if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice..

red barchetta, rush

(i could be wrong about song)

if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice..

red barchetta, rush

(i could be wrong about song)

You are; it's "free will" (oddly enough... :-) ).

if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice..

red barchetta, rush

(i could be wrong about song)
well you know uhm....you gotta do something to do nothing [when awake at least -chuckle]
Free will comes at a cost so to speak....[called ..uhm...living]

I ask those argue that free-will does not exist and is only an illusion.
If the choice is just an illusion,
this means that man is not responsible for his own choice?

I ask those argue that free-will does not exist and is only an illusion.
If the choice is just an illusion,
this means that man is not responsible for his own choice?


That's one logical ethical extension derived from such an assertion, yes.
But, let's stay on topic here.

You are; it's "free will" (oddly enough... :-) ).

i was never good at rock trivia...

i was never good at rock trivia...

I am Canadian.
So.. Rush is required knowledge...

:-)

I am Canadian.
So.. Rush is required knowledge...

:-)

funny..two different threads speaking about two different rush's..(stargate universe)

That's one logical ethical extension derived from such an assertion, yes.
But, let's stay on topic here.


hmmm.....right ,but I could not resist. :D

That's one logical ethical extension derived from such an assertion, yes.
But, let's stay on topic here.

Edit:::

I will start a new thred "Free will discusson issues" to continue on wit issues which are off topic in this thred.!!!

A question:
Do you think freewill is able to be qualified by it's potency to determine outcomes?

Rational:
Just because free will is impotent doesn't diminish it's validity as a concept.

For example: You can always say "NO" to an approaching 1 km high tidal wave and just because you fail to stop it from killing you doesn't restrict yor ability to choose. "Choose away" so to speak for what ever difference that may make.

A bit like a gambler in a pokey venue.....
The reason I post this is that I feel that the concept of free will is often obscured by potency issues.
"The Power to freely choose from all alternatives or to do nothing, in an ocean of absolute determinism does not equate to power to effect change"

hmm...although choosing to do nothing can be a very effective causation of change. [ by default ]

A question:
Do you think freewill is able to be qualified by it's potency to determine outcomes?


Yes.

Yes.

why? or should I just state: "That's nice Emil!" and put a little smiley next to it:)

why? or should I just state: "That's nice Emil!" and put a little smiley next to it:)


I can not prove,it is my conviction.post 124 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2632422#post2632422)

I can not prove,it is my conviction.post 124 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2632422#post2632422)


snip from that post:


Therefore in this thread I'm interested in free-will in terms of possibility changing causality.
I guess what I was attempting to explore is that having the will to effect change doesn't equate to the ability to effect change. Free will can be a real fact of life but it can also a fact of life that it is often rended impotent.
So I ask you Emil, to maybe ask yourself why you feel the existance of will of any sort, is dependant upon the potency to effect change.

Example:
A quadraplegic patient may very well have the will to move his legs but simply can't due to physical reasons. His will to change is not effected but his ability to satisfy that will is. [ frustration of will is an all too common occurance yes?]
Same can be said for an amputee who tries to move a missing limb.

snip from that post:


I guess what I was attempting to explore is that having the will to effect change doesn't equate to the ability to effect change. Free will can be a real fact of life but it can also a fact of life that it is often rended impotent.
So I ask you Emil, to maybe ask yourself why you feel the existance of will of any sort, is dependant upon the potency to effect change.

Example:
A quadraplegic patient may very well have the will to move his legs but simply can't due to physical reasons. His will to change is not effected but his ability to satisfy that will is. [ frustration of will is an all too common occurance yes?]
Same can be said for an amputee who tries to move a missing limb.


Please read carefully the post 124 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2632422#post2632422)
You have all the answers to your questions.

Please read carefully the post 124 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2632422#post2632422)
You have all the answers to your questions.


emil..even in the science field some things have to be expressed in more than one format..
to just say see what i said before..only indicates your lack of desire to have someone understand what you are saying..

emil..even in the science field some things have to be expressed in more than one format..
to just say see what i said before..only indicates your lack of desire to have someone understand what you are saying..


No,
is an expression of my belief that he simply did not read that post.
But do not think we are out of topic?

No,
is an expression of my belief that he simply did not read that post.
But do not think we are out of topic?

ahh but I did or at least attempted to..
did you read mine?

the thing that stand out the most from your post is this snip:

I can not draw conclusions yet and am curious if you have anything to add.
which I did.
By suggesting, note the word "suggesting", that the premise that freewill or any will for that matter, is dependant on outcome may be nonsense.
I am sorry if this is offensive to your position but you did ask for "anything" to add.

I believe that most persons when discussing free will fail to draw the line between will and it's potency to effect change, so your position is not unexpected.

However if you do not wish to discuss your position and rebut or refute or dare I suggest agree [even in part] with my comments then we have nothing further to discuss on this issue.

ahh but I did or at least attempted to..
did you read mine?
I have carefully read everything you posted.
With many have not agreed but I know we have different positions so I have not commented.





By suggesting, note the word "suggesting", that the premise that freewill or any will for that matter, is dependant on outcome may be nonsense.
I am sorry if this is offensive to your position but you did ask for "anything" to add.
No, your position does not offend me.




I believe that most persons when discussing free will fail to draw the line between will and it's potency to effect change, so your position is not unexpected.

Yes,
If you read my posts,then you had to know,what I shall respond,
by that I was confused by your questions.





However if you do not wish to discuss your position and rebut or refute or dare I suggest agree [even in part] with my comments then we have nothing further to discuss on this issue.
Yes,
I think our positions are too far to get to agree,
given the limited possibility to exchange ideas here and now.

The point is that you imply in your post a desire to further your thoughts by asking for input from others.
Yet simultaneously you reject with out any real assessment any contrary ideas offered. I am just as guilty of this as any one however I try to recognise it when my emotional investment is too strong in the ideas I present.

Today we may not get even to the point of discussion [postulation only] But maybe in the years to come there may be change in both of us....

Congrats' on at least formulating such a complex idea but be careful possibly, that it doesn't become an idea-ology because when it does you are lost to the world of philosophy...as self agnotism is essential in maintaining an open mind. ....IMO
best of luck!:)

I will try to simplify things and draw some conclusions.
For me if a theory can not be verified in practice then remains a theory and only after they check in terms of practice, becomes a fact.
If a theory is contradicted by the practice then I say that theory is not good.
I try to go from the particular to general(Inductive reasoning) and not from general to particular(Deductive reasoning).

All Scientific laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_laws_named_after_people) are valid and are not random.
I suppose that is not true and there is indeterminacy.That also means the Law of Conservation of Energy might not be true.So it is possible perpetuum mobile.This assumption is unacceptable for me.
So,scientific laws all are valid and are not random and the three-dimensional material lifeless world is cauzal deterministic .

I suppose there is no free will.It means that man is not responsible for his actions.But a man who is not responsible for his actions is not convicted by the court.The idea that no man can be condemned because it is not responsible for his actions,is unacceptable to me.
So,in conclusion man is responsible for his actions and has free-will.

The only option that I see,to make compatible the scientific laws with free-will.
When glaucon spoke first of "agent" and causality without determinism, I did not get it.
I have reached similar conclusions.
If determinism means the projection in the future a single effect , so the future is already decided then I give up determinism.

But I do not give up causality which means that every effect has a logical explanation and a set of unique cases,I also take into account the intervention of free-will.Due to the intervention of free-will can not project into the future a single effect.

Free-will also have limited possibilities of intervention.
Because of this I use the notion of operator.He has no power to change the laws of nature.He has not "power" of god.
The operator can initialize the start of a laws of science, a chain of causal effect.Once these law started he can not even stop.To stop them, other law should start to stop the first law.

Much like a computer operator.The computer operator have limited operating capabilities.
He is not a programmer.He is unable to make programs, it only uses them.


If there is random and if QM is the evidence of random,then his influence must be sought in the free-will and not in the three-dimensional material lifeless world.
Maybe somewhere in the level of thinking that is an electrical phenomenon?Or in the activation of instincts?Or both?

Sarkus,

My apologies for the delayed response.
I actually had this ready to post earlier in the week, and then my browser crashed...



It is the rational assumption to take...


I'll grant you it's the rational course, to be sure.
However, that doesn't mean that we need say it applies exclusively. Other factors may play a role.



...
given that nothing has yet been shown to be both uncaused and non-random.


Nor has anything yet been shown to be either caused or determined....

Thus, non sequitur.




If by determinism you mean strict determinism, nor do I. As previously stated, I assume everything is either caused or (as in the case of radiocative decay, for example) random. If something is caused then the effect follows a probability function rather than a strict output.


I totally agree.

Note: probability.
It is this probability that allows choice.




If by election you imply choice as opposed to a mere random output among the possibilities then it does say something about election - it negates the possibility of election.

Absolutely incorrect.
See above.






Therefore for there to be choice/free-will then an effect has to be both uncaused and non-random.


Ah, well then, I disagree with your definition of both choice and free will.

To me, all these terms imply is that an opportunity exists, whereby one can affect the probabilistic outcome.




Indeed - but we're not discussing the general principle of applicability but of the specific case. You merely threw up a logical fallacy by cherry-picking. :p


Oh, I was selective, you're right.. but it wasn't fallacious at all...

:-)




Then provide an example of where it is not necessary... where there is "choice" without cause?


You've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that "not necessary" equals "choice without cause". Choice is always 'caused' (as we've definied it herein... ??), but the result of any choice is not necessarily determined. The application of causality in its deterministic flavour is only 'enforced' within certain scenarios, in particular, those that are probabilistically restricted. In other words, when no interfering power comes into play. Sometimes, agents who have access to the probabilities involved can, and do interfere with the causal chain. Yes, this still means that causality plays out, but not in its 'original' deterministic way.






Now you're just stirring up the mud to hide behind. ;)


Not at all. Hume's point remains today the major stumbling block.




Are you saying that there are effects that are both uncaused and non-random? Care to name but a single one?


I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that purported causation is not remotely understood. Given that, it would be foolish to assume that it works in exactly the way we commonly ascribe to it.




:D I know it's not something you would do - which is why I was suprised to see your comments phrased in such language.


Yeah, well, we're in murky metaphysical waters here... thus, language can get equally vague....




Which is why the observer is an important cause, but it is still just a cause - and it leads to a random effect (within the probability function / waveform) -


I agree with you entirely so far....




...
there is no certainly no choice in the outcome.


But disagree with this. The choice was made by the agent to interfere.




Further, the observer doesn't "alter" the chain - it merely acts as a cause within the chain - a cause that crystallises the effect of a previous cause.

But to assert this it to assert that the whole scenario could not have 'run' any other way. I fail to see how this doesn't mean you're a strict determinist...





Your argument would equally apply to ANY of the links within the cause/effect chain... remove any one cause and the overall chain takes a different path.


Precisely. And so it is...




No - I'm not.

Then I'm misunderstanding you for sure...



Surely for there to be "choice" the output/effect can not be random?


I agree completely. However, this doesn't mean that the output of choice must have been precisely that output. I readily admit that the output was both determined and caused, but not necessarily so. One can, and does, successfully chose the output of various situations successfully.
What's bugging me about your POV is that you seem to be saying that 'because any given result has been caused, that output, and only that output, had to be. To me, this seems far too strict (not to mention scarily teleological).






But there is nothing teleological about what I am saying.


See above.





As for being post hoc... are you implying the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy??
I'm assuming not - so I'm not sure why it should be an issue?


No, I wasn't referring to that, but rather, using the Latin literally: "after the fact". In other words, cause/effect X is (as you say) "still part of the causal chain", but only after it has manifest itself as such (which is to say, certainly not before..).



Misconception of strict determinism on your part, I think - or perhaps mine.


Probably mine.



Strict determinism is (as I understand it, correct me if you think differently) "same input = same output", and does not allow for randomness.
I am arguing from mere causality and non-caused randomness: same input = same probability function (i.e. random output within the probability function), but with things being non-caused but random (e.g. radioactive decay).


OK, I agree with all of this, and recognize your allegiance to the latter. However, it seems to me that you're adding something on to the latter: some sense of inexorability, of 'fate'. This is odd because, as you note above, non-strict determinism would logically allow for one to 're-run' part of a chain of events and end up with a different result.



This is not strict determinism but also does not allow for free-will or choice.


See, I think it does allow for it.
Specifically, by a manipulation of the probability function noted above.

However, see by next comment below.



Since (in this thread) I see no difference between the "human" element and any other, I have no desire to explore it specifically here.

Alas, as is generally the case via online discussions, I think our disagreements are predominantly due to language. Throughout this most recent post of yours, I'm finding myself in complete agreement with you, with the exception of a few drawn conclusions. I imagine that were we in a pub discussing this over pints, we'd have settled and agreed on all this...lol

In any case, with respect to the 'human element' I've introduced, I suspect that it's of vital importance here, for a number of reasons.
One I hinted at above: our recognition (perception??) of probabilities enables us to manipulate them (I'm thinking here of John Nash...). The human place within this material universe then is indeed a 'special' one (I'm not granting other creatures with 'probabilistic recognition', though not excluding it either.): our ability to imagine allows us to be creative [yes, I again realize I'm sounding spiritual.. :-)].

Seriously, I think we are in agreement for the most part, but, understandably, misstepping on interpretation. :-)

I've got to let my brain rest now....

cheers.

Alas, as is generally the case via online discussions, I think our disagreements are predominantly due to language. Throughout this most recent post of yours, I'm finding myself in complete agreement with you, with the exception of a few drawn conclusions. I imagine that were we in a pub discussing this over pints, we'd have settled and agreed on all this...lol

which brings up the question of how much our tone and body language communicates..

i think for the most part..this hinders communication as it addresses an emotional content to our communication..but there are many times it enhances the communication..(confused yet?)

which brings up the question of how much our tone and body language communicates..

i think for the most part..this hinders communication as it addresses an emotional content to our communication..but there are many times it enhances the communication..(confused yet?)

Agreed.
But that's another topic for another thread...

Agreed.
But that's another topic for another thread...

agreed..and done..

I'll grant you it's the rational course, to be sure.
However, that doesn't mean that we need say it applies exclusively. Other factors may play a role.And when they are shown to play a role then the rational position will be that it doesn't apply exclusively. But until then...


Nor has anything yet been shown to be either caused or determined....Thus, non sequitur.You posted, I responded... causation demonstrated. ;)


Note: probability.
It is this probability that allows choice.
...
Ah, well then, I disagree with your definition of both choice and free will.

To me, all these terms imply is that an opportunity exists, whereby one can affect the probabilistic outcome.To me probability does not imply choice. A probability function can strictly only exist if the output is randomly generated... in that as the number of times the action is carried out approaches infinity, the output tends to the probability function.
If you introduce "choice" then there is no probability - there is only whatever is chosen - unless you accept that the choice is random within the probability function.


You've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that "not necessary" equals "choice without cause". Choice is always 'caused' (as we've definied it herein... ??), but the result of any choice is not necessarily determined. The application of causality in its deterministic flavour is only 'enforced' within certain scenarios, in particular, those that are probabilistically restricted. In other words, when no interfering power comes into play. Sometimes, agents who have access to the probabilities involved can, and do interfere with the causal chain. Yes, this still means that causality plays out, but not in its 'original' deterministic way.Not "strictly" determined, I'd agree.[/quote]Several points: can you name a scenario that is not "probabilistically restricted"?
Can you name an agent that has access to the probabilities involved... at the micro level?
And I remind you that I am not advocating "strict" determinism.

Further, I do not consider any probability function to have been set prior to all the causes being in place. You seem to be advocating that there is a probability function set up and then the ability to influence this probability function. To me that influence is already taken into account when the probability function is created. There can be no time between the cause and effect with which to make such influences.


I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that purported causation is not remotely understood. Given that, it would be foolish to assume that it works in exactly the way we commonly ascribe to it.Now, where have I heard that sort of argument before... "Well, we don't understand how everything works, so it would be foolish to discount Him...". :P


I agree with you entirely so far....Woohoo!

But disagree with this.Doh!

The choice was made by the agent to interfere.But the agent is still bound by a causal chain, and the "choice" was merely a (random) probabilistic output of all the causal chains / influences culminating at that point.

But to assert this it to assert that the whole scenario could not have 'run' any other way. I fail to see how this doesn't mean you're a strict determinist...To you "choice" seems to be the mere selection between various possibilities, even if that "choice" is random (albeit within the confines of a probability function).
And secondly, to assert what I did does NOT assert that it could not have 'run' any other way... I allow for random selection within the probability function... but that is not "choice".
To me "choice" is a (dare I say it) conscious act. It is something that is only applicable to the macro. And as such is, philosophically, an illusion - or at best a word used to describe a pattern of activity that displays certain properties etc.

And I do concede that if analysis of a cause is limited equally to the macro then "choice", "free-will" etc do exist (metaphorically speaking). But only because at some point in such an analysis we ask ourselves "so what caused X?" (where X is some few links back in the chain) and we can only say "don't know". This sense of free-will thus allows us to mask our lack of knowledge of the causes. And thankfully so. If we knew all the causes, right down to the initiating randomness, I have a hunch we would not be conscious / self-aware. (That might be why a rock is not conscious - as it knows exactly what it is and how it works. ;D)


No, I wasn't referring to that, but rather, using the Latin literally: "after the fact". In other words, cause/effect X is (as you say) "still part of the causal chain", but only after it has manifest itself as such (which is to say, certainly not before..).Sure - and I can not see how this can not be so, as we (as humans) can only ever look at such things after the event. If we try to identify the causes up to now, the moment has already passed. And any attempt at prediction becomes increasingly difficult the smaller scale you get.


OK, I agree with all of this, and recognize your allegiance to the latter. However, it seems to me that you're adding something on to the latter: some sense of inexorability, of 'fate'. This is odd because, as you note above, non-strict determinism would logically allow for one to 're-run' part of a chain of events and end up with a different result.I'd like to know where you're getting this notion of me adding some sniff of "fate" into the equation. Chaos theory alone should discount such tosh! :)


See, I think it does allow for it.
Specifically, by a manipulation of the probability function noted above.And I see no possibility for manipulation of something that can not be set until the precise moment before the effect.

At a macro level - no disagreement in that what people call "free-will" and "choice" certainly allow for that, due to the possible time between a cause and effect, not to mention the greater accuracy with which one can foresee macro probabilities and can thus seemingly manipulate them. But while these are practical usages of the term, philosophically I feel that what they actually stand for are mere illusions of what is going on.


I imagine that were we in a pub discussing this over pints, we'd have settled and agreed on all this...lolOr been kicked out for being too rowdy!

In any case, with respect to the 'human element' I've introduced, I suspect that it's of vital importance hereWhereas I suspect not.

...our recognition (perception??) of probabilities enables us to manipulate them (I'm thinking here of John Nash...).At the illusory macro level, yes - but we can no more manipulate the state our observations collapse a wavefunction to than we can tell a specific atom of radioactive material to decay on command.

The human place within this material universe then is indeed a 'special' one (I'm not granting other creatures with 'probabilistic recognition', though not excluding it either.): our ability to imagine allows us to be creative [yes, I again realize I'm sounding spiritual.. :-)].I'm sorry... you're breaking up... Glaucon? Can you hear me? Glaucon?... [thumps radio]... Glaucon? Repeat last transmission... over?
Nope - I think we lost him.

And when they are shown to play a role then the rational position will be that it doesn't apply exclusively. But until then...



But until then it's the best approach, but neither ideal, nor perfect.



You posted, I responded... causation demonstrated. ;)


But not determined...

:-)




To me probability does not imply choice. A probability function can strictly only exist if the output is randomly generated...


I disagree.
However, even if one granted that...



- unless you accept that the choice is random within the probability function.


Yes! This is what I have been saying. I wholeheartedly agree.

whew.




Several points: can you name a scenario that is not "probabilistically restricted"?


As I mentioned, any where an agent interferes..



Can you name an agent that has access to the probabilities involved... at the micro level?


I cannot. However, I don't believe I need do so.

Again, I don't believe (as you do..) that the micro level behaviour of a system directly and necessarily determines the outcome.




There can be no time between the cause and effect with which to make such influences.


Or, as Hume would remind us, there is no such differentiation possible at all.
Thus, the temporal element doesn't matter....




Now, where have I heard that sort of argument before... "Well, we don't understand how everything works, so it would be foolish to discount Him...". :P



lol

Nice.

I don't believe the two situations to be metaphorically equivalent.
Still, good eye...




But the agent is still bound by a causal chain, and the "choice" was merely a (random) probabilistic output of all the causal chains / influences culminating at that point.


Again then, you're back to strict determinism: "bound" and "culminating" are problematic here.




To you "choice" seems to be the mere selection between various possibilities, even if that "choice" is random (albeit within the confines of a probability function).


Precisely!!



And secondly, to assert what I did does NOT assert that it could not have 'run' any other way... I allow for random selection within the probability function... but that is not "choice".


It is if it appears to be such....




To me "choice" is a (dare I say it) conscious act. It is something that is only applicable to the macro. And as such is, philosophically, an illusion - or at best a word used to describe a pattern of activity that displays certain properties etc.



I agree.

See above.



And I do concede that if analysis of a cause is limited equally to the macro then "choice", "free-will" etc do exist (metaphorically speaking). But only because at some point in such an analysis we ask ourselves "so what caused X?" (where X is some few links back in the chain) and we can only say "don't know". This sense of free-will thus allows us to mask our lack of knowledge of the causes. And thankfully so. If we knew all the causes, right down to the initiating randomness, I have a hunch we would not be conscious / self-aware. (That might be why a rock is not conscious - as it knows exactly what it is and how it works. ;D)



Right. Exactly.


OK.. I think we understand each other now.




Sure - and I can not see how this can not be so, as we (as humans) can only ever look at such things after the event. If we try to identify the causes up to now, the moment has already passed. And any attempt at prediction becomes increasingly difficult the smaller scale you get.



Yup.



I'd like to know where you're getting this notion of me adding some sniff of "fate" into the equation. Chaos theory alone should discount such tosh! :)



lol

Even the chaoticians seem to suspect that there's really no such thing as a truly chaotic system.... :-)





At a macro level - no disagreement in that what people call "free-will" and "choice" certainly allow for that, due to the possible time between a cause and effect, not to mention the greater accuracy with which one can foresee macro probabilities and can thus seemingly manipulate them. But while these are practical usages of the term, philosophically I feel that what they actually stand for are mere illusions of what is going on.



Right. But what I'm saying is: this 'illusion' is all there is to "choice".


Coupled with the appearance of causation, we ascribe to ourselves the power of election.
At no point did I claim that this is what's 'really'(sic) going on. Now, of course, the vast majority of people do actually think that they know exactly what's 'really' going on... but that's another discussion entirely..... (poor silly bastards..)




At the illusory macro level, yes - but we can no more manipulate the state our observations collapse a wavefunction to than we can tell a specific atom of radioactive material to decay on command.


Right.
But I think it's still important precisely because of this (mis-)apprehension.

As a side note, there's also the problematic assumption you're making with respect to this 'really going on' notion. Of course, we'd be going offtopic by bringing up that beaten horse...



I'm sorry... you're breaking up... Glaucon? Can you hear me? Glaucon?... [thumps radio]... Glaucon? Repeat last transmission... over?
Nope - I think we lost him.

lol

Yeah, yeah. I'm waxing mystical these days....

lol

It seems we are gravitating to some... agreement?? :o

But not determined...I assure you I was determined to reply (ho ho ho!)

I'll get my coat.

Yes! This is what I have been saying. I wholeheartedly agree.So you can "choose" which face a die lands on when rolled? Not sure I could accept "choice" to include such (albeit apparent) randomness.


Again then, you're back to strict determinism: "bound" and "culminating" are problematic here.Why? If one accepts an assumption (e.g. cause and effect) then is it not valid to say that one is bound by that assumption?
Take the causal chain of where cause X leads to effect Y which is cause for Z.
Effect Y and Z are both random "choices" (to use your strange language) within their respective probability functions. This is therefore not strict determinism yet follows cause/effect, and X, Y, and Z (irrespective of what they end up being) are "bound" to the causal chain.
As for the term "culminating" - this is to suggest that each cause is actually the totallity of influence. It says nothing of the resulting "effect".

It is if it appears to be such....Said the one who still believes in magic?

Even the chaoticians seem to suspect that there's really no such thing as a truly chaotic system.... :-)Never really got too far into the realm of chaos, other than the basic susceptibility of a system to changes in starting conditions etc.

Right. But what I'm saying is: this 'illusion' is all there is to "choice".
Coupled with the appearance of causation, we ascribe to ourselves the power of election.
At no point did I claim that this is what's 'really'(sic) going on.And lo, the sky did clear and the sun did shine.
And all was well with the world. :D


Time for bed, said Zebedee.

So you can "choose" which face a die lands on when rolled? Not sure I could accept "choice" to include such (albeit apparent) randomness.


this comment made me think about, we role the dice, we choose which path to go down..the paths that were made are set in stone IE there are only a limited number of paths we can go down..

in that respect choices can be predetermined only when looking at the whole game board..only we as humans cannot see the whole board..

this comment made me think about, we role the dice, we choose which path to go down..the paths that were made are set in stone IE there are only a limited number of paths we can go down..

in that respect choices can be predetermined only when looking at the whole game board..only we as humans cannot see the whole board..
But this is where the entire current debate between Sarkus and Glaucon fails IMO.
You may very well choose to roll the "metaphorical dice" but you can also choose to throw the result in the bin any time you like.
You may also find the path the die has inspired may be blocked and your Freedom of choice although intact has now been rendered impotent due to frustration.
Frustration of outcome in no way diminishes the ability to freely choose.

So the arguement that Free will is in someway "determined" by external events is potentially falacious and invalid.
Sure external events influence your decisions but in no way do they make them for you. You still have to decide to either continue as previously planned or throw the plan out the window, or come up with a new one.

Internal events such as conditioning are all subject to self management as well. The degree of freedom one feels is dependant on that conditioning but this again does not invalidate the Freedom of choice other than the self-oppression one has chosen to live under.
I fail to see how causation has been logically proven to diminish Free will other than restrict our perception of choice rather than the reality of our alternatives.
Just because a die is thrown means jack sh*t as you can always change your mind and do nothing instead. [regarding the die outcome] or go watch TV instead...etc

in that respect choices can be predetermined only when looking at the whole game board..only we as humans cannot see the whole board..
is this not more an issue of "quality" of choices made rather than the freedom to choose?
"To choose or not to choose? That is the question and answer.....

But this is where the entire current debate between Sarkas and Glaucon fails IMO.
You may very well choose to roll the "metaphorical dice" but you can also choose to throw the result in the bin any time you like.
You may also find the path the die has inspired may be blocked and your Freedom of choice although intact has now been rendered impotent due to frustration.
Frustration of outcome in no way diminishes the ability to freely choose.

So the arguement that Free will is in someway "determined" by external events is potentially falacious and invalid.
Sure external events influence your decisions but in no way do they make them for you. You still have to decide to either continue as previously planned or throw the plan out the window, or come up with a new one.

Internal events such as conditioning are all subject to self management as well. The degree of freedom one feels is dependant on that conditioning but this again does not invalidate the Freedom of choice other than the self-oppression one has chosen to live under.
I fail to see how causation has been logically proven to diminish Free will other than restrict our perception of choice rather than the reality of our alternatives.
Just because a die is thrown means jack sh*t as you can always change your mind and do nothing instead. [regarding the die outcome] or go watch TV instead...etc

this reminds me..

there have been times in my life that i have dragged me feet when it comes to making a choice..most of the times when that has happened the choice was made for me...
IOW..if you don't make a choice,sometimes you won't have a choice..

this reminds me..

there have been times in my life that i have dragged me feet when it comes to making a choice..most of the times when that has happened the choice was made for me...
IOW..if you don't make a choice,sometimes you won't have a choice..
self disempowerment hey?
The world is a competitivie place no doubt about it... if you want to slack off there are many others ready to take your place so to speak...
However I might add, you can always still make the choice but in this case it is rendered impotent... self delusion is a choice we make alot of the time [ vid games, movies, fantasy, religion, etc etc...]

Example:
Lets say you need to get somewhere and you have 4 methods of transport available.
1] car
2] train
3] bus
4] walk
You freely choose to catch the 9 am train.
You catch a 8.30am bus for the station and after arriving nearby walk to the metro train ticket office.
You are told the train has been cancelled because some nutter decided to blow up the rails.
It was only then you remembered a choice you forgot about : "Do nothing and stay at home"

Was you Freedom of choice [re: 4 methods of transport] diminished or was only the outcome frustrated?

So you chose a method that turned out to be a mistake...Freewill in action yes?
another:
"Every one has the freedom and the fundamental human right to break any law they choose to break." ~ and suffer the consequences for doing so...

But this is where the entire current debate between Sarkus and Glaucon fails IMO.
You may very well choose to roll the "metaphorical dice" but you can also choose to throw the result in the bin any time you like.But the "choice" to throw the result in the bin is similarly caused - and examine those causes in more and more detail and all you seem to see is randomness within the confines of a probability function etc. Glaucon calls this random selection "choice" whereas I do not, but either way it only seems to have the appearance of free-will on a macro scale.


So the arguement that Free will is in someway "determined" by external events is potentially falacious and invalid. Sure external events influence your decisions but in no way do they make them for you. You still have to decide to either continue as previously planned or throw the plan out the window, or come up with a new one.Your decisions would be made by every influence that gives rise to the thought... both internal and external.


I fail to see how causation has been logically proven to diminish Free will other than restrict our perception of choice rather than the reality of our alternatives.I don't think the intention was to diminish "free-will" (or what I would consider to be the illusion of free-will). Even if one accepts it as illusory, one is still caught up in it - and possibly necessarily so. At which point it is just a question of semantics as to whether one considers the illusion to be "free-will" or whether it is considered an "illusion of freewill". (Which I think was/is a cause of the discussion between Glaucon and I).

Just because a die is thrown means jack sh*t as you can always change your mind and do nothing instead. [regarding the die outcome] or go watch TV instead...etcAll you are doing is demonstrating "free-will" / "illusion of free-will" in action. It speaks nothing for whether it is an illusion or not.

Your decisions would be made by every influence that gives rise to the thought... both internal and external.
The thing even if as you say is true we still have the ability to be irrational if we choose to be so. We have the ability to ignore our own thoughts any time we choose to do so.
We have the ability to act entirely arbitarilly simply because for no other reason "we can"
To me this indicates a very strong case for the reality not illusion, of freewill irrespective of outcomes or causation. We can ignore causation and we can ignore effect....
Years ago here at Sciforums a poster put up a gedanken where by we had a horse in a stable and two identically tempting food sources.
Imagine a situation where by you have two apparently identical alternatives.

The horse may vey well starve to death because it can not choose either alternative because they are identical. [ a hung horse so to speak ]
A human on the other hand can simply choose arbitarilly either alternative to, if anything, just to break the impasse or choose to starve to death. It requires no reason nor expectation of success we simply can toss our own "mental" coin and go for it... [ one of the main difference between a computer and the human mind is we can handle hung situations much better due to our abiity to drop the programming and act without logic or reason.]
Does this support the notion that freewill is more than an illusion?
I think it does.

But the "choice" to throw the result in the bin is similarly caused - and examine those causes in more and more detail and all you seem to see is randomness within the confines of a probability function etc. Glaucon calls this random selection "choice" whereas I do not, but either way it only seems to have the appearance of free-will on a macro scale.
you must try a different approach to the old word association game.
You know..think of a word associated with such and such...
try doing a word dis-association game.
I used it as therapy years ago when I realised that it helped in removing patterns in my thinking.
pick a word that is as far removed in association to the word given...

we are capable of being random and that is why we can say we have free will...
afterall "What is the meaning of life?" answer = 55 [not 42]

afterall we know how inferior our random number generators are and how do we know this....if not because we are masters at it ourselves.IMO
any ways...just a few thoughts to toss around...:)

What I consider a choice?
Throw a coin in the air and choose,head or tail?
In some cases, we can not find the result and then we are forced to choose between possible alternatives.

I am also totally agree with the following:

I read just the other day an excellent quote. "We believe we have free will because we have no other choice."

Does this support the notion that freewill is more than an illusion?
I think it does.

indeed
furthermore we can invoke occam and accuse the illusionist camp of violations


we still have the ability to be irrational if we choose to be so

true. despite clinging to primitive superstitions like destiny and gods divine plan clothed in scientific jargon such as causation, we all know we can leave a idyllic life and walk off a cliff anytime we choose. the option is there. its just that some lack the faculty of introspection to recognize and acknowledge it

Having precise numbers for something uncertain should only present more uncertainty at the roulette table...

Yes the problem is choice. But the issue is a spinning ball. If you were to calculate exactly how the ball spins before it stopped, I wonder if they would still allow you to place any bets.

Having precise numbers for something uncertain should only present more uncertainty at the roulette table...

Yes the problem is choice. But the issue is a spinning ball. If you were to calculate exactly how the ball spins before it stopped, I wonder if they would still allow you to place any bets.
I like this for reasons beyond this threads topic....nice one!
"the more you attempt to define the moment the more undefined it becomes due to an increased knowledge/awareness of probabilities expanding towards infinity"

indeed
furthermore we can invoke occam and accuse the illusionist camp of violations



true. despite clinging to primitive superstitions like destiny and gods divine plan clothed in scientific jargon such as causation, we all know we can leave a idyllic life and walk off a cliff anytime we choose. the option is there. its just that some lack the faculty of introspection to recognize and acknowledge it
I have often held to the notion, as funnilly enough most women have known for ages...that it is the power of NO that grants you freedom...whether that NO is rational [if respected] or irrational [if it isn't], the ability to say NO, for example, to life grants one the ability to say yes to it. [ IMO this is an exercise of our inherant freewill ]

:) free won't

:) free won't

maybe!?:D

Yes or no, red or black. There is always a chance to land on zero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)#Rules_of_Brahmagupta), but placing a bet on that is subconscious suicide. Still it is the only option that is inherently unobvious... Option C the miss-understood yet infinite number you never even see.

Oh... one of the main questions here is the Laplace demon isn't it?

Its physically impossible to know everything at once... Unless you have people in different times telling you what to do. There has to be some chain of command amongst some sort of collective that bears the idea of consent to free will. Otherwise the mind just kind of stops for a time. The only lack in our ability of free will is allowing another to control you. But how would you know the difference if your only subconsciously committing to the reign of a higher power...

"On this perfect day, when everything is "ripening" and not only the grape turns brown, the eye of the sun just fell upon my life: I looked back, I looked foreward, and never saw so many and such good things at once. It was not for nothing that I buried my 21'st year today; I had the right to bury it; whatever was life in it has been saved, is Immortal The first book of the Revaluation of all Values, the Songs of Zarathustra, the Twilight of the Idols, my attempt to philosophize with a hammer.-all presents of this year, indeed of its last quarter! How could I fail to be grateful to my whole?- and so I tell my life to myself."(Nietzsche)

Tell your life To itself. (http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7501919888/m/34519162001?r=34519162001#34519162001)(Period)

its just that some lack the faculty of introspection to recognize and acknowledge it

How come they have that lack? Or is their belief that free will is an illusion that brings on that lack?

Do post here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104623

indeed
furthermore we can invoke occam and accuse the illusionist camp of violationsFeel free to invoke away and explain how the illusionst camp are guilty of "violations".

Feel free to invoke away and explain how the illusionst camp are guilty of "violations".

Indeed.

I too was wondering just what was meant by this...

LunarSun post #68 from the link below.!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104623&page=4



Where it is true disease and birth defects are genetic, and we personally do not have a choice...


Som causes are mor obvous than others... but name a free choise you have made... ie... a choise which was free from influence of you'r genetics or inviroment.???



...the idea of choice can then be tied into the factor that all lives our connected. If one person makes a decision to do something, it then affects the next person, who has a specific experience to make an impact on a choice which will hold an affect on the next person, and the chain goes on.


You have jus demonstrated the logic of how cause an effect works which makes the case of free will bein an illusion :shrug:... unless you can show how the chain of cause an effect is "broken" in such a way that allows for free will.!!!

Emil post #77 from the link below.!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104623&page=4



What you think?
Your dreams during a sleep are determined by a causal chain from the real world?
If we have the same reality we will have the same dreams?



Good queston... as far as the causal chain is concerned... dreams are jus anuther part of the "real world".!!!

Som causes are mor obvous than others... but name a free choise you have made... ie... a choise which was free from influence of you'r genetics or inviroment.???



You have jus demonstrated the logic of how cause an effect works which makes the case of free will bein an illusion :shrug:... unless you can show how the chain of cause an effect is "broken" in such a way that allows for free will.!!!

To name a choice free from influence of genetics or environment, I admit, is not possible, for all of our choices are reactions. However, free will still is not an illusion. Though we are all either directly or indirectly affecting each other, there are always more than two choices. We never have to pick only left or right, correct or incorrect, etc. In almost every situation there are multiple choices to choose from, which still allows us to make a choice. So yes, where it is true we are affected by our environment and other people in our lives, we can still always make a choice, whether it is morally sanctified or not, it is still choice.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Som causes are mor obvous than others... but name a free choise you have made... ie... a choise which was free from influence of you'r genetics or inviroment.???


To name a choice free from influence of genetics or environment, I admit, is not possible, for all of our choices are reactions.


...which makes the case of free will bein an illusion... unless you can show how the chain of cause an effect is "broken" in such a way that allows for free will.!!!


However, free will still is not an illusion. Though we are all either directly or indirectly affecting each other, there are always more than two choices. We never have to pick only left or right, correct or incorrect, etc. In almost every situation there are multiple choices to choose from, which still allows us to make a choice. So yes, where it is true we are affected by our environment and other people in our lives, we can still always make a choice, whether it is morally sanctified or not, it is still choice.

So you acknowledge that all choises are influenced... you jus dont except that they are 100% influenced... an that the only choise avalable is the choise you choose... but unless you can show how the chain of cause an effect is "broken" in such a way that allows for uninfluenced choises... thers zero posibility for free will.!!!

Give an esample of a free choise in which som aspect of that choise is not influenced by prevous causes.???

...what is a choice?


The issue is free will/uninfluenced choise... you'r deterministicaly controled autonomous agent dont fill the bill.!!!



I assume that you think there is no such thing as a "choice" because...

...you clearly think there is no choice made by deterministic systems.

...so no such thing as choice exists, according to you. Is that correct?


My position is... thers no such thang as "free (uninfluenced) choise"... ie... free will is an illusion.!!!



NOTE: never have I said anything that rules out this agent with desires, and basis for expectations of consequences cannot be a deterministic program. So I think choice is possible, if such an agent with wishes, etc. exists (and clearly they do in humans). Probably in a few hundred years autonomous agents with hope, desires, wishes, fears, expectations, wants, etc. will exist in what we call machines also, but not one of these aspects of an autonomous choosing agent is present in your calculator.

While both the autonomous self I postulate to be part of the RTS being executed in parietal brain tissue is just a complex self-aware self-evolving deterministic program like the deterministic calculator, the autonomous self of the RTS has wishes, expectations, etc. so it ("you") can choose, but the calculator cannot.


The diference between a calculator of today an a "robot" from a hundred years from now... is like comparin an amoeba to a human brane... ie... of course a calculator is not yet "evolved" to a pont of bein indistinguishable from the intelegence/emotions of a human brane... but nether the calculator or a human brane has free will.!!!

My position is... theres no such thang as "free (uninfluenced) choise"... I agree, but you avoided answering my question: (Please define what is a "choice"?) Again I ask: Are you stating that "choice" does not exist?

I claim that even though an autonomous agent, with wishes, desires etc., makes a selection between "a" & "b" based on its deterministic controlling program, it is still making a choice as it has selected what it believes will advance its desires. Are you stating that no choice was made by this agent? (because choice does not exist in any deterministic system, even one with desires and beliefs, such as all humans have)?

Please give a simple, clear answer. Thus far you have only told what choice is not. I am asking what choice is, or a clear statement that it does not exist, if that is your position.

The essence of the difference between the simple calculator and the equally deterministic, constantly-evolving, "self program" of my RTS, is that the "self" ("you") do have desires, etc. and the calculation program does not so it can only respond, not chose to advance it desires. I.e. there is a more important difference than just complexity - a difference in PRINCIPLE. "You" Chose. The calculator just behaves as it has neither desires nor beliefs.

I claim that even though an autonomous agent, with wishes, desires etc., makes a selection between "a" & "b" based on its deterministic controlling program, it is still making a choice as it has selected what it believes will advance its desires. Are you stating that no choice was made by this agent? (because choice does not exist in any deterministic system, even one with desires and beliefs, such as all humans have)?


In a philosophical dicusson such as this... that a or b is chosen is an illusion... ie... i take the term choice to mean free choice... an i see no evidence that free choice esists.!!!

Of course a calculator an a brane are vastly diferent... an the pont of my comparison between a calculator an a human brane was for the purops of pontin out that reguardless of that vast diference... nether have free-will/free-choice.!!!

In a philosophical dicusson such as this... that a or b is chosen is an illusion... ie... i take the term choice to mean free choice... an i see no evidence that free choice {= choice} exists.!!! Thanks now you have clearly said "choice" does not exist. Belief by many that it does is at best illusion and always an error. In your POV calculators and human selections of output responses are just selections, not choices.


... the pont of my comparison between a calculator an a human brane was for the purops of pontin out that reguardless of that vast diference... nether have free-will/free-choice.!!!But you cannot conclude that as they have very a great difference OTHER THAN DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY. - Humans have desires and beliefs, calculators don't.
Humans believe that one selection (the choice) is more likely than another to help achieve those desires.

What you are doing is much like concluding a bird can not fly because it is just a biological organism like an amoeba, only much more more advanced and complex. I.e. you are ignoring their main differences: birds have wings and amoebas don't and that humans have desires and calculators don't.

What makes a selection a choice is that it is made by an agent acting on the belief that that selection will help it achieve its desires.

If you have trouble letting go of free will, all you have to realize is that you never had it to begin with. What you think is free will is just an illusions - it refers to the fact that your experiences deterministically control your actions as opposed to someone else's behavior.

If after anything you did, I asked you why you did it, there would be an answer. There is even an answer for why you chose one thing over another. Some people have to be more aware than others to understand what that answer is. You are hungry - do you work another hour or do you go grab a taco now? The system governing this choice may be chaotic - a second long surge of hunger might force you to go grab the taco now... but that is not a lack of determinism. It's just a lot of variance in how things are determined.

There is no real thing to even point to and call free will - what people point to when talking about it are always examples of deterministic events.

“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
... the pont of my comparison between a calculator an a human brane was for the purops of pontin out that reguardless of that vast diference... nether have free-will/free-choice.!!! ”



But you cannot conclude that as they have very a great difference OTHER THAN DEGREE OF COMPLEXITY. -

Humans have desires and beliefs, calculators don't.
Humans believe that one selection (the choice) is more likely than another to help achieve those desires.
What you are doing is much like concluding a bird can not fly because it is just a biological organism like an amoeba, only much more more advanced and complex. I.e. you are ignoring their main differences: birds have wings and amoebas don't and that humans have desires and calculators don't.


No... i dont conclud that humans do not have free will because they are just a biological organism like an amoeba, only much more more advanced and complex... i conclude that nether have free will dew to both are bound by an unbroken chane of cause an effect... an unless you can show how that causal chane is broken in such a way that permits uninfluenced choise... then free will can not esist.!!!



What makes a selection a choice is that it is made by an agent acting on the belief that that selection will help it achieve its desires.


No... such thangs as desire are irrelevent to whether or not free will esists... ie... wit or wit-out desire... no choise is free from influence... an agent actin on beleifs" is jus a mor complex influence than somone pushin a calculator key... but the result is
the sam... no free choise.!!!

PS
Have you read this thred... if not i suggest you do so... viewponts from people other than myself mite make the positon of free will bein an illusion mor clear to you.!!!

I am going to choose hard determinism. Doesn't make much sense to choose freewill. And here is my reasoning.

Everything in the universe acts/reacts according to universal law, or the laws of universe, or physics. For example, gravity. Now, my understanding of physics isn't such that I can say that with absolute confidence. But each particle reacts according to some physical law. Sure, maybe not all particles react according to gravity, that is to say some particles may not be affected by gravity. But even so, those particles which are unaffected by gravity STILL act in accordance with SOME law. We as humans are composed of these particles which act/react in accordance with some law. So what makes us think that our thoughts and actions remain unrestricted to physical law when we are composed of these predetermined particles?

Now all of science is based on logic. If we are to question a science which has been tested and tested over and over again and has always been proven true based on the standards of science.. then we must not question our science. But rather our reasoning or logic. And our logic will NEVER be questioned. For to question our reasoning, is to question everything else which we have concluded from our reasoning.

Now, I bring up logic because it's especially important in my decision to be a hard determinist. The principle which ultimately led to me believing this was that of consistency. And from consistency we have the law of causality. Everything that happens, has happened or will happen has a cause. And from causality we have determinism. That is to say determinism is a corollary of causality. To accept causality is to accept determinism. Everything is the result of prior states. This is how the universe works. We know that a wooden board will break with a certain amount of force applied to it, given the state of the board.

In any case. I have a question for those who believe in free will and determinism. How did it come to be that a deterministic universe came up with non-deterministic entities?
It makes not much sense. And also it is apparent that humans are deterministic. I myself am able to accurately predict how others will react... of course given their prior states.

Also, I've heard several erroneous arguments that... if you cannot predict a person yourself then it proves that free will exists. This is a really, really stupid position. From here I argue the primacy of existence. Which states that existence is independent of consciousness. That is to say that humans can only control reality in so far as their abilities allow them. Just because you think something to be true doesn't make it true.
Also another thing that bugs me. If you at first don't believe in hard determinism you must concede at the very least that you are ONLY in control insofar as genetics and psychology has allowed you. You cannot control that you were going to be born with the hair color that you have. You cannot control that you hurt when you touch something burning hot.

Sorry everything is scattered in this post.

Edit: Here is a good quote I have found. "Man is free to do what he wills but cannot will what he wills."

To cluelusshusbund:

We may as well stop as we are at an impasse:

You state “choice” and free will do not exist because everything that happens is caused. {And I agree that everything has a cause, but for me that fact does prove non-existence of choice. I require some proof, not just your assertion of that.}
I state that even a self-caused selection* is a choice and free will in action if that selection is made by an agent in the belief that it will help it achieve its desires.

Our definitions of choice and free will obviously differ.

-------------
*I have a model of this agent being only an informational process (nothing material and thus not limited by physical laws) taking place in parietal brain. The agent is like a subroutine, in a larger computational process that is making a Real Time Simulation* of the external world, which the agent perceives and acts upon according to its wishes, desires and beliefs. I.e. this “self code” subroutine is “you” and it alone causes the selection made. “You” are not a physical body, following the laws of nature. “You” are following your evolved program code (and constantly refining it as you learn, but that fact does not enter upon this discussion).

We agree that most informational processes that make selections (E.g. your calculator display 4 after being stimulated by key sequence 2+2= is not making a choice.) I agree with that as the calculator is not an agent with desires or beliefs. In fact at the present stage of man technical progress no machine makes any choice as none are agents with desires and beliefs.

*For more about the RTS, see: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66
The RTS mainly is an alternative POV about how perception works, but the possibility that free will is not inconsistent with the laws of nature “falls out” as “you” are immaterial and thus not governed / restricted by those laws

To cluelusshusbund:

We may as well stop as we are at an impasse:

You state “choice” and free will do not exist because everything that happens is caused. {And I agree that everything has a cause, but for me that fact does prove non-existence of choice. I require some proof, not just your assertion of that.}


You want proof from me of the non-existence of the thang (free will) that YOU clame exists... well i thank youv'e got it a bit bakwards as to who needs to show "proof".!!!

To be clear on my position on this particular issue... you agree that everything has a cause... an unless you can show how the causal chane is broken in such a way that allows for uninfluenced choise... then it is not logical that free will esists.!!!



We agree that most informational processes that make selections (E.g. your calculator display 4 after being stimulated by key sequence 2+2= is not making a choice.) I agree with that as the calculator is not an agent with desires or beliefs. In fact at the present stage of man technical progress no machine makes any choice as none are agents with desires and beliefs.


What you'r missin is... that desires an beleifs are jus anuther part of the causal chane of events (not seperate from it).!!!

You didnt answr... have you read this thred.???

You want proof from me of the non-existence of the thang (free will) that YOU clame exists... well i thank youv'e got it a bit bakwards as to who needs to show "proof".!!!No, not what I asked for. No one can prove the non-existence of anything (out side of mathematics) as the universe is mostly unexplored. For example unicorns may be pulling plows on some distant planet.

You made an assertion that if there is a causal chain, then free will can not exist -that is only your assertion and I wanted your assertion to be proved.

Your assertion was of the form: If A, then B. I want you to show that B follows from A. Show that "if selection is made by causal chain" (= "A") Then "choice cannot exist." (= "B") follows.

I think our impasse is caused by my POV that the self can and does make a choice if it, and it alone, makes the selection. You claim it can not if the self is a set of logical steps in a dynamic program.


... You didnt answr... have you read this thred.???last two or three pages of it. If you think there is an agruement against my POV, tell the post number.

Speaking of not answering, you have yet to tell what would be a choice or correct my definition, which was:

A choice is made by an agent with desires and beliefs when that agent selects an alternative that it believes will aid in achieving its desires.

You simply assert that choice does not exist because everything has a cause. - Is product of an unbroken causal chain. Yet you also, in conflict with this, claim thing are not predestined.
{post 139 here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2646760&postcount=139}
I dont have beleifs that thangs are predetermined... but whenever posible... i put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor an that requires the use of logic.!!!
Do you not understand that if everything now happening was caused by prior happenings, that is an unbroken causal chain extending back to the big bang origin of the universe? (Yes you need to use logic, but don't here with these mutually contradictory positions.) When two statements mutually contradict each other, at least one of them is wrong. You can chose which of yours is wrong: "Choice does not exist" or "World is not predestined."

If you are tempted to remind me of quantum uncertainty, I note that it only produces chance or random events. Logic is not produced by chance. Where would the logic you say you use to "put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor" come from if the causal chain is broken only by random chance events? I think you are making selections based on your beliefs that your CHOICES will aid your desires to be achieved.

No, not what I asked for. No one can prove the non-existence of anything...


Thats my pont.!!!



For example unicorns may be pulling plows on some distant planet.


Yes... an if you clamed ther was such a thang as unicorns i coudnt prove ther wasnt... jus like you clame thers such a thang as free will... i cant prove ther ant... ie... if you make the clame that these thangs esist... the burdon of proof is on you... but you'r demandin that prove the non-existence of unicorns/free will.!!!

You agree that everthang has a cause... you jus dont except the implication of you'r own assertion which is... sinse ever event has a cause... each event is the cause of the nest event... ie... cause an effect (like a row of dominos fallin into each other) is an unboken chane of events an is self esplanitory... sinse you accept that everthang has a cause... yet can not understan that the notion of free will is an illogical position dew to ther bein an unbroken chane of events... i cant force you to make that connection... i can only show you the illogic of you'r position.!!!

You agree that everything has a cause... so to make you'r case that free will realy does esist... you need to show how the causal chane is broken in such a way that allows for free will to exist... otherwize its not logical that free will esists.!!!



I think our impasse is caused by my POV that the self can and does make a choice if it, and it alone, makes the selection. You claim it can not if the self is a set of logical steps in a dynamic program.


Is it you'r POV that the "self" is not subject to cause an effect.???



...you have yet to tell what would be a choice or correct my definition, which was:

A choice is made by an agent with desires and beliefs when that agent selects an alternative that it believes will aid in achieving its desires.


Is it you'r position that desires an beleifs are not part of the causal chane.???

"Choise" is jus a word to denote selection... i dont see any evidence that choice (free-choice) exists.!!!



You simply assert that choice does not exist because everything has a cause. - Is product of an unbroken causal chain. Yet you also, in conflict with this, claim thing are not predestined.
“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
{post 139 here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2646760&postcount=139}

"I dont have beleifs that thangs are predetermined... but whenever posible... i put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor an that requires the use of logic.!!! ”

Do you not understand that if everything now happening was caused by prior happenings, that is an unbroken causal chain extending back to the big bang origin of the universe?


Well yes i do... i thank its you who doesnt understan it :-)

But thanks... i ment to use the term predestined (insted of predetermined) an i corected that post.!!!

The animals can choose? :scratchin:


If you have ever owned a pet, you would know that animals can choose and do.

If you have ever owned a pet, you would know that animals can choose and do.

So they have free will?
But human beings?

... You agree that everything has a cause... so to make you'r case that free will realy does esist... you need to show how the causal chane is broken in such a way that allows for free will to exist... otherwize its not logical that free will esists.!!!
Is it you'r POV that the "self" is not subject to cause an effect.???...No. I have said just the opposite several times, but once again: The self ("You") are a subroutine in a simulation program /code which executes in parietal brain tissue. This self is causal. It causes your voluntary movements and your choices. It is the "agent" with desires and wishes in the following definition of choice:

DEFINITION: A Choice is a selection made by an agent in the belief that that selection will help achieve its desires.

Note that the self alone is the cause of its choices. Yes you cause your choices. These choices can be externally influenced as I have noted before (a gun held to body's head, etc) but most choices are the self's own uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)

You just keep making the same ASSERTION that choice and free will are impossible unless their prior causal chains can be broken.* I have several times asked you to defend / prove this assertion, but you never attempt to do so - you only keep repeating the same assertion - at least 10 times now. You don't comment on my definition of choice or show any reason one should believe your assertion, which claims the choice of my definition cannot exist. You don't offer any alternative definition of a choice but that is understandable as you ASSERT there is no such thing as a choice - every selection is just the end result of an unbroken chain of prior events in your POV.

-----------------
*You have also not yet explained how you can use logic to produce favorable outcomes yet believe that everything, every behavior, is the result of an unbroken chain of causes back to the big bang origin of the universe. Is your behavior entirely determined by an unbroken chain of prior events, some of which happened before you were born, or do you, yourself, make choices? You seem to hold two internally self contradictory beliefs, which would imply at least one is wrong.

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
Is it you'r POV that the "self" is not subject to cause an effect.???



No.
The self ("You") are a subroutine in a simulation program /code which executes in parietal brain tissue. This self is causal. It causes your voluntary movements and your choices. It is the "agent" with desires and wishes in the following definition of choice:

DEFINITION: A Choice is a selection made by an agent in the belief that that selection will help achieve its desires.

Note that the self alone is the cause of its choices. Yes you cause your choices. These choices can be externally influenced as I have noted before (a gun held to body's head, etc) but most choices are the self's own uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)


So its you'r clame that the "self" can make uninfluenced selections... but wit out som sort of influence... what does the "self" base its selections on.???



You just keep making the same ASSERTION that choice and free will are impossible unless their prior causal chains can be broken.*


Mine is the logical position which you have yet to refute... by showin how the causal chane is broken in such a way that allows for free will to exist.!!!

Do you thank its a soul... or som other sort of magic that brakes the causal chane in such a way that allows for free will to esist.???

"Choise" is jus a word to denote selection... i dont see any evidence that choice (free-choice) exists.!!!



*You have also not yet explained how you can use logic to produce favorable outcomes yet believe that everything, every behavior, is the result of an unbroken chain of causes back to the big bang origin of the universe. Is your behavior entirely determined by an unbroken chain of prior events, some of which happened before you were born, or do you, yourself, make choices? You seem to hold two internally self contradictory beliefs, which would imply at least one is wrong.


My pov is... that the illusion of free will has evolved along wit humans... i lived the firs 20 years of my life under the illusion that free will is real... ive understood for about 40 years that free will is an illusion... but i still live my life as if free will is real even tho intelectually i understan that free will is an illusion.!!!

... So its you'r clame that the "self" can make uninfluenced selections... but wit out som sort of influence... what does the "self" base its selections on.??? No, I do NOT claim the self is not influenced. The self is a set of code / a computational program / running in parietal brain tissue. It has ability to control the voluntary mussels (tongue etc. for speech included of course). It also has self awareness, and wishes and desires (and all the feelings that are called "qualias"). The self also has access to all of your memories, which include the results/ consequences/ of prior choices it has made. These are the things that influence its current decisions/ choices. It is also influenced by the RTS representation of the external world (not the external world directly) so a gun held to the head will influence its choices. I have clearly stated all this several times.

Even my definition of "choice" includes two of these influence (the self's wishes and beliefs). I have no idea how you can so erroneous think I claim the self has no influences, except that you repeated assert, without any proof, that choice does not exist if there is an unbroken chain of prior causal events. The self does not choose at random, but it choice is strongly influenced by its belief that the choice will aid it to achieve its desires.

Instead of making suggestions as to what I must believe, based on your false idea / assertion that choice is impossible without some break in a causal chain, why not:

(1) Prove or at least support your often repeated assertion.
(2) Explain how you can “use logic" to “put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor" (quoting your post 139 of another thread) yet assert that all acts are the result of an unbroken chain of prior causes. Do you have some “spirit” that comes in and delivers this logical choice, instead of what the unbroken chain would select?
(3) Define choice or tell what is wrong with my definition, which was:

Choice is a selection made by an agent with the belief that that selection will help the agent obtain its desires.

BTW, I cannot define “free will” so I seldom speak of it. My essay on the Real Time Simulation, RTS*, is mainly about how human perceptions works: I refute the commonly accepted POV that perception “emerge” following a long chain of neural computational transforms of the signals coming from your sensory transducers and offer an alternative POV, which is much more consistent with known facts of both psychology and neurophysiology. My comments at the end of that essay about free will are only to note that since one is only a computational process, not a material body, within this RTS, “you” are not constrained to follow the laws of nature. Thus the standard conflict between the laws of nature controlling the firing of every nerve in your body with the concept of free will is removed. As I state there, free will need not be in conflict with the laws of nature if “you” are only a subroutine in a very complex, self evolving, program running in parietal tissue. I have several times stated, there and elsewhere that my essay is NOT proof that free will exists. – The RTS essay only shows that free will could exist and not be in conflict with the laws of nature.

I can, and have, defined “choice” and, even though the self is a set of complex code, which is constantly evolving by learning, this self can (and does) make choices (as they are defined here).

*Read RTS essay at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66

To quickly understand the main flaws of the accepted theory of perception read:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2502342&postcount=12

This post 12 is less than one page, but the RTS essay is longer as I tried to explain a new complex alternative view about perception and give many supporting facts which it easily explains but the accepted theory cannot. To mention just one of dozens of supporting facts: Your perception of most of the visual space in front of you is equally clear over a wide angle, but if perception “emerged” from retinal inputs it would be clear only over about one degree as only the fovea has the high density of rods needed for clear image perception. What you perceive is being created in the RTS model of the external world.

So they have free will?
But human beings?


I know that if I give my dog a choice between dry food and fresh chicken, it will go for the chicken. If we are out walking there are occasions when it will refuse point blank to go in the direction I choose. When it wants to play it goes and brings me its toys. If that is Free Will then the dog does indeed have it and by default so must all animals.

This is not to dismiss Determinism, there could be no effect without a cause. However, during the course of your time living 'the effect', and we are always in a state or multiple states of 'Effect/s', you do have choices, preferences and even epiphanies where you can and do act with Free Will and you can even refute or go against 'the effect', more commonly known as changing your mind or forgiveness or giving them a second chance. This is Free Will.

Look; Determinism is like a network of roads and you are like a car on one of those roads. That particular road leads to XYZ but you know, you can change your mind and you can always go to W if you so wish, you just make a detour.

Please, read post 124 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2632422#post2632422) and post 156 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2634183#post2634183) and say what do you think?

Billy T
Note that the self alone is the cause of its choices. Yes you cause your choices. These choices can be externally influenced as I have noted before (a gun held to body's head, etc) but most choices are the self's own uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.) ”

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
... So its you'r clame that the "self" can make uninfluenced selections... but wit out som sort of influence... what does the "self" base its selections on.???



No, I do NOT claim the self is not influenced.


That wasnt my queston... earlier you said... "most choices are the self's own uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)”

Sinse mos of the selections the "self" makes are uninfluenced selectons (which seems to be an atempt on you'r part to make an argument for free choise sinse those selections woud not be a part of the causal chane)... begs the queston... sinse mos of the "selfs" selectons are not influenced... those selections mus be random... an how does random selections equate to free-choise.???

... what does the "self" base its selections on.??? ...

I have, several times already, told you. Here is the most recent time:


post 204... The self is a set of code / a computational program / running in parietal brain tissue. It has ability to control the voluntary mussels (tongue etc. for speech included of course). It also has self awareness, and wishes and desires (and all the feelings that are called "qualias"). The self also has access to all of your memories, which include the results/ consequences/ of prior choices it has made. These are the things that influence its current decisions/ choices. It is also influenced by the RTS representation of the external world (not the external world directly) so a gun held to the head will influence its choices. I have clearly stated all this several times. ...
Concisely the self is influenced by its:

(1) Wishes
(2) Desires
(3) Memories, especially of results from prior choices.
(4) Moods & Feeling ("qualias")
(5) Perception of the external world (via the RTS, not directly) Gun to head example, etc.

How many times must I ask you to respond to my three questions? Now concisely listed in that last post, which were:

(1) Prove or at least support your often repeated assertion (no choice unless causal chain is broken).
(2) Explain how you can “use logic" to “put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor" (quoting your post 139 of another thread) yet assert that all acts are the result of an unbroken chain of prior causes. Do you have some “spirit” that comes in and delivers this logical choice, instead of what the unbroken chain would select?
(3) Define choice or tell what is wrong with my definition, which was:

Choice is a selection made by an agent with the belief that that selection will help the agent obtain its desires.

With following partial quote of me in brown color you are intentionally distorting by quoting only last part of my sentence making a contrast.
"most choices are the self's own uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)” ...Sinse mos of the selections the "self" makes are uninfluenced* selections (which seems to be an atempt on you'r part to make an argument for free choise sinse those selections woud not be a part of the causal chane)... begs the queston... sinse mos of the "selfs" selectons are not influenced... those selections mus be random... an how does random selections equate to free-choise.???* Another of your false conclusions about what I am saying. Here is my full sentence making a contrast between choice that are influence by factor 5 above and those that are not influenced by it:


... choices can be externally influenced as I have noted before (a gun held to body's head, etc) but most choices are the self's own {i.e. not influenced by external factors}uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)...Clearly from both the five above listed causes and many prior posts I have stated: ALL OF THE SELF'S CHOICES ARE "INFLUENCED" - My sentence is contrasting the choices that are strongly influenced by external factors with the more trivial choices that are not. I am not and never have claimed the self's choice have no cause - they ALL do, such as the five causes concisely listed above, but some are only caused by the self program only, not by external factors. (I.e. cause 5 above is not always operating such as when choosing which juice to drink.).

Part now in red is clearly implied by the first part of the sentence. Stop putting words in my mouth. I have many times said that the self is NOT making random choices and that ALL of the self's choices are caused. After all it is a program running in parietal tissue. If you are not intentionally distorting you must have a reading problem.

I am not and never have claimed the self's choice have no cause - they ALL do, such as cause listed above, but some are only caused by the self program only, not by external factors.


To help keep the discusson on the issue insted of personal type atacks i will ignore you'r accusations.!!!

So is it you'r POV that only the causes from the self program cause free-choise... that causes from external factors can not cause free-choise.???

... So is it you'r POV that only the causes from the self program cause free-choise... that causes from external factors can not cause free-choise.???Yes. To again cite my extreme example of a gun held to your head, what you chose to do then is NOT a free choice, but to use my other example, choosing tomato instead of orange juice usually is your self's "free choice," (uninfluenced by external factors) but it is still "caused." Perhaps, for example, caused by your desire not to increase your intake of vitamin C and memory of the acid indigestion you had the last time you drank OJ.
To help keep the discusson on the issue insted of personal type atacks i will ignore you'r accusations.!!!...No personal attack intended but yes I do accuse you of repeatedly ignoring my requests for answer to specific and listed questions.

I know that if I give my dog a choice between dry food and fresh chicken, it will go for the chicken.

If it will always go for the chicken, that would seem to suggest the dog has a simple "program" that runs in its head on that question and, if anything, seems reminiscent of things that lack free will.


If we are out walking there are occasions when it will refuse point blank to go in the direction I choose.

When it wants to play it goes and brings me its toys. If that is Free Will then the dog does indeed have it and by default so must all animals.


That it doesn't do what you want is not a question of free will. There are times when I have turned on my computer and it has refused point blank to boot properly. That my computers do not cave to my desires is not evidence of their having free will.

Imagine, though that you had a robotic dog, and it was run by a program, and the programmer set things up to that there was a 1% change of the dog pulling to go in a different direction (and in moments where you are not interacting with it, a 25% chance that it will bring you its toys). Each time you walked with the dog, then, there would be a chance that it tried to go in a direction different from the one you wanted...and yet the robotic dog would not have "free will", it would have a program that governs its so-called "choices" quite exactly and deterministically. The dog would have no meaningful choice at all, it would simply be doing things that from your perspective seem mildly unexpected from time to time.



This is not to dismiss Determinism, there could be no effect without a cause. However, during the course of your time living 'the effect', and we are always in a state or multiple states of 'Effect/s', you do have choices, preferences and even epiphanies where you can and do act with Free Will and you can even refute or go against 'the effect', more commonly known as changing your mind or forgiveness or giving them a second chance. This is Free Will.

Look; Determinism is like a network of roads and you are like a car on one of those roads. That particular road leads to XYZ but you know, you can change your mind and you can always go to W if you so wish, you just make a detour.

If you agree that computers lack free will (and philosophically, it's not clear that anyone would need to do that, though if one does not, then presumably many inanimate objects have free will), then you can imagine the brain as nothing more than a very sophisticated computer running a very sophisticated program. In the deterministic view there is no "choice" when a program runs, there is only a set of well defined instructions, and we brain dependent beings are automatons that are subject to a complex delusion that we are making choices when in reality the program completely defines and determines the courses of action we undertake.

Determinism is not a network of roads. Determinism is a program that tells you whether to take the left fork of the right fork, and when the program says "right" you go right. The brain tricks you into thinking you could have gone left, but really that illusion is just another part of the same program. You always do what the program tells you to do and can never do anything differently.

When you change your mind, that would also be the program behaving in those "mildly unexpected" ways. You could not have *not* changed your mind at that moment, because the program will not permit you any other course of action. (The trick being that the program does make you feel like you could have chosen the other course, but that is an illusion, since your brain is just an organic computer and nothing more.) Sometimes my computers will boot up and start running a program, but the system will then crash. They were doing what I wanted at first, but then they "changed their mind" and stopped cooperating. That change is not free will at work, it's just that complex things behave in complex ways.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
... So is it you'r POV that only the causes from the self program cause free-choise... that causes from external factors can not cause free-choise.??? ”



Yes. To again cite my extreme example of a gun held to your head, what you chose to do then is NOT a free choice, but to use my other example, choosing tomato instead of orange juice usually is your self's "free choice," (uninfluenced by external factors) but it is still "caused." Perhaps, for example, caused by your desire not to increase your intake of vitamin C and memory of the acid indigestion you had the last time you drank OJ.


Do som people have mor free-choise than others... such as people wit various types an severities of mental illness.???



No personal attack intended but yes I do accuse you of repeatedly ignoring my requests for answer to specific and listed questions.


You may not be satisfied wit my answrs but that woud be irrelevent to the fact that i did answr you'r questons.!!!

If it will always go for the chicken, that would seem to suggest the dog has a simple "program" that runs in its head on that question and, if anything, seems reminiscent of things that lack free will.

It may not be chicken it may be any number of other tasty morsels. The dog simply prefers other things to dry food.


That it doesn't do what you want is not a question of free will. There are times when I have turned on my computer and it has refused point blank to boot properly. That my computers do not cave to my desires is not evidence of their having free will.

A computer simply runs programs, it cannot think for itself or make decisions. Animals can. I agree that the brain (any animal brain) is like a computer. However, compared to your average MAC or DELL, it's a super sophisticated computer that creates its own programs on the fly, and that is the key, the capacity to evolve its thinking capacity. When a computer is capable of thinking for itself and making its own choices then it's like the car that wants to go to W, it has free will. Even if that free will is an acquired program of the same brain it still demonstrates a capacity for changing an outcome through a specific choice. If you have a better description for it than free will then let's hear it.


Determinism is not a network of roads. Determinism is a program that tells you whether to take the left fork of the right fork, and when the program says "right" you go right. The brain tricks you into thinking you could have gone left, but really that illusion is just another part of the same program. You always do what the program tells you to do and can never do anything differently.

Why does it have to be a trick of the brain and not a positive action of the brain?.


When you change your mind, that would also be the program behaving in those "mildly unexpected" ways. You could not have *not* changed your mind at that moment, because the program will not permit you any other course of action. (The trick being that the program does make you feel like you could have chosen the other course, but that is an illusion, since your brain is just an organic computer and nothing more.)

The brain is an organic computer, and nothing more. That is so flippant, it reduces the potential of the brain to an i-pad.

Well, you know, it's easy to reduce everything to illusion, even our concepts of reality can be described as illusion. I can actually subscribe to this point of view in part. However, if that is the case, then what is the point of anything? If everything is a trick of the mind then that is it isn't it? No more questions to be asked, no more discoveries to make; everything's a sham, an illusion, every life form is a robot going through the motions of some illusory deterministic program created by some illusory super programmer in the illusory universe. It does in fact call into question the very nature of existence; do we actually exist or is it the illusory program telling us that we do?

...Do som people have mor free-choise than others... such as people wit various types an severities of mental illness.???Yes. in the sense that they have choices others do not have. For example the rich have more choices than the poor. The physically and mentally handicaped can not chose to do many things the healthy can but most every one has nearly an infinite set of choices, especially if doing "a" now or five minutes from now are considered to be two alternative choices.

...You may not be satisfied wit my answrs but that woud be irrelevent to the fact that i did answr you'r questons.!!!Only question (2) did you even respond to. On (1) You have never tried to defend or prove you often made assertion that choice is impossible unless the chain of prior causal events is broken. On (3) You have never defined choice or made any critical comment on my definition.

For (2) your answer as to how you could interject logic instead of simply be driven by that unbroken chain is essentially no answer at all, but at least you did try. I.e. You said that you did not believe you had a real choice but acted as if you did in practical life.

My question was how is that possible if you are controlled / driven by that unbroken chain of prior causal events. Again, I ask: Do you have some "spirit" that comes in to break that chain and let you use logic instead of have your selections be driven by that unbroken chain of prior causal events?

If I missed your answer to either (1) or (2) please give the post number where you made a reply.

A computer simply runs programs, it cannot think for itself or make decisions. Animals can.

But that is the whole question. Can they? Or do they simply appear to do so because their "programs" are so complicated?

There is no way to prove that animals (humans included) have any real choice. The flow of electrons and electrochemical reactions in their brains all obey precise (if probabilistic) scientific laws, and their (and our) thoughts and actions may be entirely caused by those reactions (and therefore by those laws).

That is not to say there is no free will, but just that there is no evidence that irrefutably shows there is free will. Certainly the fact that I have pizza for dinner, when I could have chosen the chicken, is not irrefutable evidence that I have free will.


I agree that the brain (any animal brain) is like a computer. However, compared to your average MAC or DELL, it's a super sophisticated computer that creates its own programs on the fly

That's also an assumption. There is no reason to believe that all of human behavior doesn't simply start with hardwired architecture and programs that are directly and deterministically caused by interaction with the environment. If the program is complex enough, it becomes hard for us to predict, but that the program does something unexpected (when it could have behaved in the way we expected) is not evidence of much of anything save its complexity.

In any event, if I design a computer program that creates other computer programs, that initial program does not necessarily have a choice about what it creates. It can easily be entirely deterministic.


and that is the key, the capacity to evolve its thinking capacity.

The argument is this: "Thinking" is just a name we give to particular flows of electrons through a particular neural architecture. The flow is precisely governed by physics. Arguably, there is no way for a human to make the electrons do anything that is not entirely governed by what the physics and the architecture force those electrons to do. So the electrons will do what they are caused to do, and we call the result a "thought". If we can't independently cause immediate variations in the architecture (and we surely cannot cause the electrons to violate the laws of physics), then the way the electrons will flow is, in effect, pre-determined and not a function of our "choices". Since our actions are governed by those electrons and that brain, though, our supposed "choices" may also be forced on us by those factors.

In that view "choice" is just the lie we tell ourselves about a control over our actions that we do not really possess.

If you could prove indisputably that we can force the electrons to behave differently than the brain/quantum mechanics of the situation would, that would be evidence of free will. Once path some philosophers have taken in that regard is to suggest that humans can as an act of will influence the the wave function of electrons to alter the probabilities of their behaving in certain ways. That could be a path to free will, but one has to ask where that ability comes from, and how the choice to alter those probabilities is itself made. It is, in effect, saying that we can alter physics with our minds, and that our minds are separate from our brains and the physics that govern brains


When a computer is capable of thinking for itself and making its own choices then it's like the car that wants to go to W, it has free will. Even if that free will is an acquired program of the same brain it still demonstrates a capacity for changing an outcome through a specific choice. If you have a better description for it than free will then let's hear it.

You seem to be assuming that "thought" is independent of the question--that in effect we choose to think about things and we choose to think about alternatives, but in the view of those who challenge free will, there is no "choice" about anything. You do it because you are forced to do it as a result of physics. You do not choose to think, thinking just happens, and you do not control your thoughts, and direct them to an outcome--what happens is that physics happens to make certain reactions happen in our brain, and we call that reaction "thought". We do not control that reaction--those thoughts--any more than iron chooses to rust in the presence of oxygen.

So, the argument goes, thought itself is not a choice, it is just a complex reaction, and the content of our thoughts is not a choice, and therefore the decisions we make as a result of those thoughts are not a real choice, just the inevitable outcome of fixed physical laws.

So I would turn the question around and ask, if you have proof that we can control our thoughts--that our thoughts are not the outcome of fixed scientific laws that govern the physical outcomes in our brains--please share it.

"Thought" being involved in an outcome is only meaningful to the question of free will if it can be shown that that thought is not the result of fixed natural laws, but rather is controlled in a way that allows us to defy those laws.



Why does it have to be a trick of the brain and not a positive action of the brain?.

It could be either, but that is the question. To date, neither side has any compelling proof one way or the other. If free will is real, in my incompatibilist view, then the universe cannot be entirely governed by science. In that case, the way physical objects behave is caused by scientific law, but thoughts and actions are causa sui.

If, on the other hand, we are our brains, and there is noo "mind" or "will" that exists separately from the physical brain, and that brain is governed by the laws of physics, then I do not see any room for free will.


The brain is an organic computer, and nothing more. That is so flippant, it reduces the potential of the brain to an i-pad.

A very complex IPad, yes. In that sense, one might equate a balloon filled with hydrogen to the Sun. The balloon and the Sun have similarities in that both contain hydrogen, but the Sun is vastly more complex. The Sun is so complex, that we cannot always explain how or why it behaves as it does, but that inability to predict its behavior, or explain that behavior does not mean the Sun has any "free will". Instead, we all understand that the way it behaves is a result of physical laws and nothing else.

Again, the question is: why is the functioning of the brain not entirely determined by physics or, if the functioning of the brain is entirely governed by physics, then what free will can there possibly be?


Well, you know, it's easy to reduce everything to illusion, even our concepts of reality can be described as illusion. I can actually subscribe to this point of view in part. However, if that is the case, then what is the point of anything? If everything is a trick of the mind then that is it isn't it? No more questions to be asked, no more discoveries to make; everything's a sham, an illusion, every life form is a robot going through the motions of some illusory deterministic program created by some illusory super programmer in the illusory universe.

Yes. And as a result, we have no "choice" about merely giving up and not soldiering on. We might have the illusion of a choice, but in the end, those that shut down and die did so because the program made them to that, and those that move forward and continue their lives also had no choice.

If free will is an illusion, in short, then it is true that we are all automatons. That said, we are complicated automatons, just as the Sun is complicated collection of hydrogen. So being an automaton does not mean that thoughts don't exist (or love or pleasure or our own decisions, or anything else), it just means that thoughts (love, pleasure, decisions) are no more subject to our control than is the weather.


It does in fact call into question the very nature of existence; do we actually exist or is it the illusory program telling us that we do?

The program need not be an illusion. The only thing that would certainly be an illusion if free will does not exist, is our very clear perception that we have free will. We could be real biological robots running a real and monstrously complex program, so long as that program created in us the illusion of free will. That world of biological robots would look exactly like the world we see around us.

I am not sold on the notion of there being no free will, there might be; but again, if that were true, then it must be that physicalism is wrongheaded. If physicalism is wrongheaded, it means that there is more governing the universe than science alone. There is nothing contradictory in that, though, as nothing can prove that science alone governs the entire universe.

For me, it creates an interesting split, though. I like to think I have free will, but I also like to imagine a universe entirely explainable by science. As I see it, one of those two preferences needs to be jettisoned.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...Do som people have mor free-choise than others... such as people wit various types an severities of mental illness.??? ”



Yes. in the sense that they have choices others do not have.


For esample... if a depressed person cuts ther wrists in order to kill therself... was the choise they made "free".???
--------------

Im not inclined to look up post numbers whare i have answred those questons but i will give quick answrs that mite refresh you'r menory for you to do a search.!!!



Explain how you can “use logic" to “put the odds of a desirable out-com in my favor" (quoting your post 139 of another thread) yet assert that all acts are the result of an unbroken chain of prior causes. Do you have some “spirit” that comes in and delivers this logical choice, instead of what the unbroken chain would select?


Even tho i intelectually understan that free-choise is an illusion... i live my life as if i have free-choise.!!!



Define choice or tell what is wrong with my definition, which was:

Choice is a selection made by an agent with the belief that that selection will help the agent obtain its desires.


The term "choise" is jus a word to denote selection.!!!



Prove or at least support your often repeated assertion (no choice unless causal chain is broken).


What ive said is... You agree that all effects have causes (such as a row of dominos fallin into each other)... an to make a case that free-choise does esist... you need to show how the causal chane is broken in such a way that allows for free-choise to exist (which you have yet to do)... an i cant help that you dont seem able to understan it... but an unbroken causal chane does not allow for free-choise... ie... logicaly... free-choise is an illusion.!!!
----------

This discussion reminds me of the issue we discussed about a hammer throw video... whare in the video... jus befor the hammer hit the ground it apeared to be rotatin CW... even tho when the hammer was released by the thrower it was rotatin CCW... Janus58 figered out the answr... that the perceived direction of rotation was dew to the sam type of illusion as the Rotatin Lady illusion.!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2162675&postcount=9

You argued that camera angles was responsible for the aparent change of direction of rotation... ie... that was anuther illusion that you was "caut by" an coudnt escept that it was in fact an illusion.!!!

Rotatin Lady Illusion

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5693171,00.gif

.... we discussed about a hammer throw video... whare in the video... jus befor the hammer hit the ground it apeared to be rotatin CW... even tho when the hammer was released by the thrower it was rotatin CCW... Janus58 figered out the answr... that the perceived direction of rotation was dew to the sam type of illusion as the Rotatin Lady illusion.!!! ...
You argued that camera angles was responsible for the aparent change of direction of rotation... ie... that was anuther illusion that you was "caut by" an coudnt escept that it was in fact an illusion.!!!...Off subject but I must respond to this false (now made bold in above quote) statement about me: NO it is a fact, not an illusion, that camera angle changed from the initial ground level with plane of rotation above the camera compared to a later view by camera in stands looking down on plane of rotation produces the illusion that the direction of rotation has changed.

The change of view point from above to below (or conversely) ALWAYS gives the illusion that the rotation has changed for CW to CCW (or conversely) - This is a simple FACT, which you can easily understand by holding a wall clock face up over your head (I.e."view" the clock from the backside) - if you could view thru it, you would see the sweep second hand is proceeding CCW, not CW as your point of view is now form below / behind the clock.

If you are not able to imagine the direction of rotation when viewing from behind the clock but have access to some stairs, you swing a weight at the end of a string CCW and have someone on the stairs above the plane of rotation tell you the direction of rotation they observe. (They will say it is CW, the reverse of what you observe.)

The ambiguity of rotation of the shadow only lady is a different psychological effect -She is always seen from one side but being only a 2D image, you must guess which way she is turning. Once you guess, it is hard to see her as turning the other way. Janus was merely noting that because the image of the rotating hammer is also 2D there is some ambiguity in its direction of rotation but in this 3D hammer case, unlike the shadow lady rotation, there are some clues telling the true direction of rotation so almost all percieve it to be the same and correct, once you understand the CCW rotation seen from above the rotation is the same as CW rotation seen from below the rotation plane. That it appears to be a change in direction of rotation is the illusion.

Use your imagination to "view" a wall clock from the back side and note is is going CCW for that POV! (A few such clocks are transparent to show their moving parts- then you can actual see that they go around CCW when viewed from the back.)

SUMMARY: Rotation which is CW becomes CCW rotation when viewed from the other side of the plane of rotation - a simple, easily verified, FACT, not an illusion.

Off subject...

Yes it is off Topic to rehash that issue here... my purpos was to illistrate how one can get caut up in illusions (includin free-will/free-choise) an not realize it... but i will respond to the hammer rotation illusion in that video in the "Hammer" thred later on today (hopefuly).!!!

In the mean time... how bout this issue:::

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...Do som people have mor free-choise than others... such as people wit various types an severities of mental illness.??? ”



“ Yes. in the sense that they have choices others do not have. ”


For esample... if a depressed person cuts ther wrists in order to kill therself... was the choise they made "free".???

In the mean time... how bout this issue:::
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...Do som people have mor free-choise than others... such as people wit various types an severities of mental illness.??? ” ...
For esample... if a depressed person cuts ther wrists in order to kill therself... was the choise they made "free".???Quite completely answered already in post 214. I will not respond to every special case you may invent.

BTW, did you do the clock experiment and see that CCW becomes CW when you switch to the other side of the rotation plane? I.e. this reversal with perspective change is REAL, not an illusion.

Quite completely answered already in post 214.

oK... im guessin that you consider suiside as a free-choise.!!!

in you'r POV free-choise only coms from the "self"... but un-chosen genetics are a determinin factor in how well the "self" can produce its "free-choises"... an genetics that pre-desposes somone to be depressed coud be a factor in whether the "self" chooses to cut its bodys wrists or not... sinse non-chosen genetics an *inviroment exerts control on the "self"... how are its choises considered "free".???

It seems to me that the notion that a "self" coud be 100% isolated from the external influences which could effect its ability to produce free choises... is jus that... a notion.!!!

This "self" you have suggested is biological an is subject to cause an effect jus as the other parts of the brane.!!!

*Particular inviroments such as whether the mother did drugs or smoked while pregnant... or starvation or prolonged stress ect. on a new born are a determinin factors on how the body (which includes the brane/"self") developes.!!!


Billy T
SUMMARY: Rotation which is CW becomes CCW rotation when viewed from the other side of the plane of rotation - a simple, easily verified, FACT, not an illusion.


Of course thats a FACT... thats never been in dispute... it also has nuthin to do wit the issue or the soluton to the issue... an what i ment by you bein caut by that illusion... was you not bein able to realize that the rotatin lady is the sam illusion as the rotatin hammer in the slow motion video (which is the answr to the puzzle).!!!

My full reply an an further replys will be in the "Hammer Throw" thred (link below)

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2162675#post2162675

"...and the suicide bomber with 1 kg of c4 strapped to their waist renders all the causation, influences and opportunities in the universe entirely impotent because he/she has the power to say no to all of them any time he/she chooses to do so"
thus the freedom to choose: "to be or not to be?" and only a choice he/she can make.
Which is why "to be or not to be?" is more an answer than a question. IMO

... what i ment by you bein caut by that illusion... was you not bein able to realize that the rotatin lady is the same illusion as the rotatin hammer in the slow motion video.!!!...Still not correct. These two case are NOT the same, but entirely different.

The shadow of rotating lady is totally without any clues as to which way she is rotating - all you have is a 2D image with no background for any references. Thus approximate half of the viewers will see her rotating one way and half see her as rotating the other way.

In the case of the hammer throw there are many clues as which direction the rotation really is so all viewer agree on that. For example, when it is being swung by the thrower his body twists. The ball makes a smaller retinal image with less angular speed, but a definite direction of travel, when it on his far side from the viewer than when nearer to viewer. If there are clouds, the ball obscures them in a circular path with definite direction of orbit.

Later as it nears impact with the ground, the ball is making a small orbit (about the common center mass with the chain and handle) over the grass. You may not consciously notice this, unless you concentrate on what part of the field the ball is obscuring in its circular orbit (and the direction of that orbit). There is absolutely no ambiguity about this orbit's direction of rotation as sequential parts of the field are covered by the ball (and there are other clues too) I.e. unlike the shadow lady case, where half see CCW, half see CW rotation, everyone perceives the the same direction of rotation.

The hammer throw is slightly interesting for the ignorant only because first view is from below and second view presented in the film is from above the plane of rotation and many (in ignorance) think the direction of rotation has some how changed, in violation of conservation of angular momentum. It has not. All* perceive that motion that has changed from CCW to CW but they just don't understand why - i.e. That change is ONLY due to switching POV from one side of the plane of rotation to the other.

*I.e. All at least unconsciously process the many clues about the direction of rotation and all agree on it. (Very different from the clueless shadow lady case where half see one rotation and half see the other.)

Still not correct. These two case are NOT the same, but entirely different.

The shadow of rotating lady is totally without any clues as to which way she is rotating - all you have is a 2D image with no background for any references. Thus approximate half of the viewers will see her rotating one way and half see her as rotating the other way.

In the case of the hammer throw there are many clues as which direction the rotation really is so all viewer agree on that. For example, when it is being swung by the thrower his body twists. The ball makes a smaller retinal image with less angular speed, but a definite direction of travel, when it on his far side from the viewer than when nearer to viewer. If there are clouds, the ball obscures them in a circular path with definite direction of orbit.

Later as it nears impact with the ground, the ball is making a small orbit (about the common center mass with the chain and handle) over the grass. You may not consciously notice this, unless you concentrate on what part of the field the ball is obscuring in its circular orbit (and the direction of that orbit). There is absolutely no ambiguity about this orbit's direction of rotation as sequential parts of the field are covered by the ball (and there are other clues too) I.e. unlike the shadow lady case, where half see CCW, half see CW rotation, everyone perceives the the same direction of rotation.

The hammer throw is slightly interesting for the ignorant only because first view is from below and second view presented in the film is from above the plane of rotation and many (in ignorance) think the direction of rotation has some how changed, in violation of conservation of angular momentum. It has not. All* perceive that motion that has changed from CCW to CW but they just don't understand why - i.e. That change is ONLY due to switching POV from one side of the plane of rotation to the other.

*I.e. All at least unconsciously process the many clues about the direction of rotation and all agree on it. (Very different from the clueless shadow lady case where half see one rotation and half see the other.)

How com you refuse to continue the Hammer throw discussin in the Hammer throw thred.???

How com you refuse to continue the Hammer throw discussin in the Hammer throw thred.???Because you made false statements about me being unable to understand the illusion here in this thread. There is nothing to discuss, except why some people in ignorance think that the film shows violation of conservation of angular momentum when, like you, they did not understand why their view of the rotation switches from CCW to CW.

Because you made false statements about me being unable to understand the illusion here in this thread. There is nothing to discuss, except why some people in ignorance think that the film shows violation of conservation of angular momentum when, like you, they did not understand why their view of the rotation switches from CCW to CW.

I see... lol... but in my reply (post #34 in the Hammer Throw thred) i declared you the winner.!!!

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90458&page=2


But to get bak on topic in this thred... do you have a reply to my las post about the "self".???

oK... im guessin that you consider suiside as a free-choise.!!!

in you'r POV free-choise only coms from the "self"... but un-chosen genetics are a determinin factor in how well the "self" can produce its "free-choises"... an genetics that pre-desposes somone to be depressed coud be a factor in whether the "self" chooses to cut its bodys wrists or not... sinse non-chosen genetics an *inviroment exerts control on the "self"... how are its choises considered "free".???

It seems to me that the notion that a "self" coud be 100% isolated from the external influences which could effect its ability to produce free choises... is jus that... a notion.!!!Suicide could be a free choice but usually I would guess is not. I don't like to speak of "free choice" but of choices that are mainly the result the self's own causal activity mental processes - I.e.the first four causes of choices I listed in prior post are dominate. When the fifth cause in that list is important, then the the choice is to some degree "forced", not "free." - Again contrast: the gun held to head being as one extreme example and my choosing between OJ or tomato juice, which is usually mainly the self's own choice (assuming both are in the refrigerator, etc.)

Reason suicide is usually at least partly a forced choice is that there usually are bad external circumstance or pain etc. prompting it. It is true, however, that depression many not be caused by current external events, but usually they do trigger the sucide, to be now instead of tomorrow. The main external causes of depression associated suicide may be months in the past when one finally kills themselves. (Depression often "feeds on itself" to grow worse, if not treated.)

As for the rest of your post, I have many times said that ALL behavior is caused by prior (and current) events, including only one's earlier thoughts (which of course are mental events, nerves firing etc.) So yes part of these prior events could be years earlier brain damage from any cause. I don't intend to discuss detailed specific cases that are completely covered by these general statements. - I don't have time to waste on that.

Dear Libertarians,
if choices are not the result of determining factors, how are they made?
Conscience? This is an undeniably determined set of principles, or for the more religious of you perhaps the voice/laws of God, which again isn't very compatible with free will, which in my opinion is an absolute or non existent, it cannot be moderated, only destroyed.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
in you'r POV free-choise only coms from the "self"... but un-chosen genetics are a determinin factor in how well the "self" can produce its "free-choises"... an genetics that pre-desposes somone to be depressed coud be a factor in whether the "self" chooses to cut its bodys wrists or not... sinse non-chosen genetics an *inviroment exerts control on the "self"... how are its choises considered "free".???

It seems to me that the notion that a "self" coud be 100% isolated from the external influences which could effect its ability to produce free choises... is jus that... a notion.!!! ”


Billy T
I don't like to speak of "free choice"...

Eliminatin the issue of "free choice" woud make you'r positon much easier to defend... lol... i thank you woud have a beter chanse of success inventin a perpetual motion machine than creatin "free-choise" :)

Determinism is an old-fashioned concept for the narrow minded.

^ I think when people are using the term "determinism" they are also allowing for the random outputs that QM suggests (same inputs = same probability function of output), rather than the "hard" determinism of "same input = same input".

I don't like to speak of "free choice"
... Eliminating the issue of "free choice" would make you'r position much easier to defend... lol... . “Elimination” is not what I said or spoke of:

post 226:... I don't like to speak of "free choice" but of choices that are mainly the result the self's own causal activity mental processes ...You cannot just take a few words out of a sentences (as you often do) and then assert I said or suggested the opposite of what the sentence said.
That is dishonest distortion and I am growing tired of it as it forces me to reply when I would not otherwise comment on your posts.

Another example of your doing that I replied to in post 208:

post 208 ... With following parcial quote of me in brown color you are intentionally distorting by quoting only last part of my sentence making a contrast.
“

"most choices are the self's own uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)” ...Sinse mos of the selections the "self" makes are uninfluenced* selections (which seems to be an atempt on you'r part to make an argument for free choise sinse those selections woud not be a part of the causal chane)... begs the queston... sinse mos of the "selfs" selectons are not influenced... those selections must be random... an how does random selections equate to free-choise.???
”
* Another of your false conclusions about what I am saying. Here is my full sentence making a contrast between choice that are influence by factor 5 above and those that are not influenced by it:


... choices can be externally influenced as I have noted before (a gun held to body's head, etc) but most choices are the self's own {i.e. not influenced by external factors}uninfluenced selections (E.g. orange vs. tomato juice, etc.)... Here you misrepresent what I said by abrevated quote of me and then ask: "an how does random selections equate to free-choise?" - This is again exactly the opposite of what I have many times stated - Choice is never random but always the caused result of the self's mental processes, which can be strongly influenced by external factors (gun to head) or mainly only the Self (OJ vs. tomato juice).

SUMMARY: STOP PARCIAL QUOTING OF ME TO DISTORT WHAT I SAID

Billy T
post 226:... I don't like to speak of "free choice" but of choices that are mainly the result the self's own causal activity mental processes ... ”

You cannot just take a few words out of a sentences (as you often do) and then assert I said or suggested the opposite of what the sentence said.
That is dishonest distortion and I am growing tired of it as it forces me to reply when I would not otherwise comment on your posts.


I admit that you have lead me on a merry chase... from makin arguments for free-will to you'r curent postion of not wantin to speek of "free choice" by downgradin to the term "choice" (wit-out the free part)... you clearly dont have an argument for free-will OR free-choise .!!!

I admit that you have lead me on a merry chase... from makin arguments for free-will to you'r curent postion of not wantin to speek of "free choice" by downgradin to the term "choice" (wit-out the free part)... you clearly dont have an argument for free-will OR free-choise .!!!More mis quoting and distortion! I do have an argument which makes "free will" POSSIBLE, BUT

I have never said I believe free will exists. I have even said I am inclined to doubt it does. My essay on the RTS, posted back in 2005*, clearly state that the RTS only opens the POSSIBILITY that free will need not be inconsistent with the physical laws, if one accepts its POV that "we" are not a physical body, but a computational routine running in parietal brain tissue. All my post here are basically saying free will could exist, not that it does.

I don't like to speak of "free choice" for same reason I don't like to speak of "pure capitalism" - I.e. it does not exist, not even as an illusion!. Always to some extent your choices are forced by external factors, as is capitalism is never unconstrained by regulations, etc.

*http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 Here is how my RTS essay starts, in full, as a reply to PhilosopherKnight:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherKnight
...But the bottom line is that man's will is not free.
”Probably true, but not necessarily true:

Genuine Free Will is Possible

Before the advent of Quantum Mechanics, the future appeared to LaPlace to be exactly determined by the past state of the universe, even if it was clearly unpredictable. Chaos theory and measurement errors plus ignorance about small asteroid orbits, rupture stresses in tectonic faults or vascular systems, etc. makes LaPlace’s future unpredictable, perhaps fatally so in only a few seconds for some individuals. Quantum Mechanics destroyed LaPlace’s deterministic world. Thus, thanks to QM, a “probabilistic will” is at least possible. I.e. we can have the illusion of making “choices” that are actually made by the chance results of QM; however, Genuine Free Will, GFW, i.e. real choices made by one’s self, still appears to be impossible without some violation the physical laws that govern molecular interactions in our complex neuro-physiological processes.

If GFW does not exist, it is perhaps the most universal of all human illusions. This article will show that GFW is physically possible, even probable, without any violation of physics if one is willing to drastically revise the usual concept of one’s self. Furthermore, it argues that the required revision is a natural consequence of a better understanding of how the human visual system functions and the fact that we are highly visual creatures. The possibility that GFW is only an illusion is not excluded, ..."


SUMMARY: You are again misquoting and distorting what I have consistently said for more than five years. Note the bold above.

I have never said I believe free will exists. I have even said I am inclined to doubt it does.

My essay on the RTS, posted years ago, clearly state that the RTS only opens the POSSIBILITY that free will need not be inconsistent with the physical laws, if one accepts its POV that "we" are not a physical body, but a computational routine running in parietal brain tissue. All my post here are basically saying free will could exist, not that it does.


Yes... an then by a curent statment you shoot you'r essay in the foot:::

Billy T---"Always to some extent your choices are forced by external factors"

Then how in hell is ther a posibility that free-will could esist as you'r essay on the RTS clames.???

In Concluson:::

You'r arguments are all-over-the-place/convaluded an yet you acuse me of intentionaly mis-representin you'r position... but the botom line... you'r statment below demonstrates that free-will/free-choise is not posible... even in you'r RTS.!!!

Billy T---"Always to some extent your choices are forced by external factors"

In other words:::

Jus like a pregnant woman cant be a little bit not pregnant... free-choise cant be a little bit not free.!!!

I don't like to speak of "free choice" for same reason I don't like to speak of "pure capitalism" - I.e. it does not exist, not even as an illusion!. Always to some extent your choices are forced by external factors, as is capitalism is never unconstrained by regulations, etc.
Since when were their constrains on the black market? Its still worth whatever people make themselves believe it is worth.



*http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=905778&postcount=66 Here is how my RTS essay starts, in full, as a reply to PhilosopherKnight:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherKnight
...But the bottom line is that man's will is not free.
”Probably true, but not necessarily true:

Freedom isn't free you say? Anything that constrains a society places an action liable to consequences. Still it is not so much to say that, "we will never be free without consequences", but rather that people should understand the consequences of their actions if they intend to live within that society. Every place on this world has different laws, convoluted from the past and reconciled as traditions. I say as long as you don't hurt anyone else and realize what is fair, we could have less restrictions on our free will. This is something only good judges take into consideration.


Genuine Free Will, GFW, i.e. real choices made by one’s self, still appears to be impossible without some violation the physical laws that govern molecular interactions in our complex neuro-physiological processes.

Aren't most physical laws violated in the definition of being alive? Think about it: dead, dead, dead, dead..... wait what's this I see in the universe that violates physics? Something alive that moves only when its own electrical signals force it to change the channel on the T.V.!!!!??? Incredible!!! I could watch that for hours.

We have free will. We just do not have the thoughts to complete the full cycle of belief in this free will to all members of society. We play with ourselves in saying, "some things that are not known can never be known" because within that statement we instantly reject what our determinism at that point without leading it into a future. In having this statement it could also be said that you yourself have determined the stopping point of this path of thought. But still if we cast doudt on this statement oursleves we can say, "we know the question but we have not yet found the exact answer". The question then becomes simpler and simpler until a simple answer is found that satisfies the terms of the original question.

Since when were their constrains on the black market?
The black market, by virtue of the fact that is black is constrained. :rolleyes:
All markets are constrained to one extent or another.


Aren't most physical laws violated in the definition of being alive?
Of course not. Life is subject to physical laws.
Edit: you're not Bishadi revenant are you? That would explain a lot.


We have free will.
That's a supposition. Unsupported by anything you've written so far.

The black market, by virtue of the fact that is black is constrained. :rolleyes:
All markets are constrained to one extent or another.
Now your just being racist... And I said the "objects in the market are still subject to the buyers free will of negotiation as well as the sellers price" so is it constrained? "yes", by other peoples free will.



Of course not. Life is subject to physical laws.
Edit: you're not Bishadi revenant are you? That would explain a lot.
I didn't say life was not subject to the laws of physics I merely stated that free will is possible due to the electrical signals we posess that often run in the opposite direction of some "governing physical forces" in our surroundings. Your saying I can't choose when you have no idea what difficult choices I have had to make durring situations where you would have completely fallen apart both mentally and physically. Now I could explain to you the billions of coincidences and judgements that have led me to this decision but I chose not to describe my personal life in an objective arguement. The fact that no matter what you say your level of free will is never giong to be able to sway me from this decision is only an effect that comes from knowing that no other person has had a life story quite like mine up until this point in history, therefore my knowledge on the issue of free will surpasses you own ignorance of these simple conjectures. I have placed these conjectures in a very objective manner conserning the discussion and following what others have also said.



That's a supposition. Unsupported by anything you've written so far.
And your life is a type 2 statistical error. How would I be able to suppose free will if it was not in fact a double negative already. You are rejecting my supposition simply because it requires you to not think about the fullest answer that the future can provide So your saying I didn't have the free will to say "free will" and we are arguing that it is impossible to determine that we have free will? Then why is there even a tread for this? All articles containing the possibility for free will should be instantly terminated! No more arguing about it because if you say that word you commit a type 1 error!! It seems like you have made up your mind on your null hypothesis. Still you missed the main point to arge which is.....


we play with ourselves in saying, "some things that are not known can never be known" because within that statement we instantly reject what our determinism at that point without leading it into a future. In having this statement it could also be said that you yourself have determined the stopping point of this path of thought. But still if we cast doudt on this statement oursleves we can say, "we know the question but we have not yet found the exact answer". The question then becomes simpler and simpler until a simple answer is found that satisfies the terms of the original question.
Which is a string of words that you have neglected to think about in any of your quotes. Did you read it or just ignore it like I wish you would do to all my posts. Instead you have decided to take part in the "filler" words that did not provide a simple answer but are only semantics and conjectures that lead up to an actual answer for this thread or an area that can be expanded upon. I am yet to see any post of yours that gives any substance. Not having free will is the stupidest hypothetical supposition to ever ingraine intself within the imagination of any society. But the limits free will allows us to percieve are still very real and constraining.

Now your just being racist...
Racist?
WTF has black market got to do with race?
Or did you misuse the term?


And I said the "objects in the market are still subject to the buyers free will of negotiation as well as the sellers price" so is it constrained? "yes", by other peoples free will.
Presuming when you wrote "black market" you meant "black market" then no: it's subject to many constraints, not least of which is its illegality. :rolleyes:


I didn't say life was not subject to the laws of physics
Oops, wrong.
You wrote (and I quote)

Aren't most physical laws violated in the definition of being alive?
Which is incorrect. NO physical laws are violated. They can't be.


I merely stated that free will is possible due to the electrical signals we posess that often run in the opposite direction of some "governing physical forces" in our surroundings.
That's specious crap.


Your saying I can't choose when you have no idea what difficult choices I have had to make durring situations where you would have completely fallen apart both mentally and physically.
No I'm not.


And your life is a type 2 statistical error. How would I be able to suppose free will if it was not in fact a double negative already. You are rejecting my supposition simply because it requires you to not think about the fullest answer that the future can provide So your saying I didn't have the free will to say "free will" and we are arguing that it is impossible to determine that we have free will? Then why is there even a tread for this? All articles containing the possibility for free will should be instantly terminated! No more arguing about it because if you say that word you commit a type 1 error!! It seems like you have made up your mind on your null hypothesis. Still you missed the main point to arge which is.....

Which is a string of words that you have neglected to think about in any of your quotes. Did you read it or just ignore it like I wish you would do to all my posts. Instead you have decided to take part in the "filler" words that did not provide a simple answer but are only semantics and conjectures that lead up to an actual answer for this thread or an area that can be expanded upon. I am yet to see any post of yours that gives any substance. Not having free will is the stupidest hypothetical supposition to ever ingraine intself within the imagination of any society. But the limits free will allows us to percieve are still very real and constraining.
Blah blah blah. More specious unsupported crap.

Ok so what is you evidentiary basis for the rejection of free will? If you are not confirming nor denying this fact and all you can post is "crap", you should make your standpoint clear as well as provide a reason as to why you hold these judgements. "opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and they all stink equally". Saying it is crap does little to benefit anyone reading this discussion, it just keeps people from responding to your crap. In which case you might as well say, "some things that are not known can never be known". Is this in fact the position you take on this subject? If so then philosophy is not your area of expertiese my friend and you heven't the slightest clue what determinism or free will actually is.

To support you claims to my Question"as it was only a question as opposed to a statement" you can define what it means to be alive in your own terms. But i'm guessing one of your famous three words posts is comming regardless. This is not to insult, it's just to get more than a sentence out of your convoluted thoughts on any subject.

Ok so what is you evidentiary basis for the rejection of free will? If you are not confirming nor denying this fact and all you can post is "crap", you should make your standpoint clear as well as provide a reason as to why you hold these judgements. "opinions are like assholes, everyone has them and they all stink equally". Saying it is crap does little to benefit anyone reading this discussion, it just keeps people from responding to your crap. In which case you might as well say, "some things that are not known can never be known". Is this in fact the position you take on this subject?
There's as much "evidence" for the lack of free will as there is for it. Unfortunately you provide none in either direction, simply speculation that you then (in the following sentences) take to be incontrovertibly true.


If so then philosophy is not your area of expertiese my friend and you heven't the slightest clue what determinism or free will actually is.
Oh fail again. I actually did philosophy at uni not so long back, and a few decades ago at VIth Form College.


To support you claims to my Question"as it was only a question as opposed to a statement"
That you even thought the question worth asking shows a lack of understanding of life AND physical laws. Where, and how, does (or could) life violate physical law? Which ones? In what way?

You haven't replied to my querying your accusation of racism. Please do so.

So as I said before your standpoint on the subject seems to be a mute one of no valid input for either direction. You are not for, and you are not against. Therefore any explination you give in this area is doubly mute in the first place. You reject the hypothesis when you can't claim it true "type 1 error". Still you don't reject the null hypothesis "from your standpoint" despite you not being able to prove it false."type 2 error" I see what the problem is. You believe everyone to be insane and therefore not liable for thier moral actions giving your mind the ability to conclude that there is in fact no free will. That is the only concievable explination I can find in your mind.

So as I said before your standpoint on the subject seems to be a mute one of no valid input for either direction. You are not for, and you are not against. Therefore any explination you give in this area is doubly mute in the first place. You reject the hypothesis when you can't claim it true "type 1 error". Still you don't reject the null hypothesis "from your standpoint" despite you not being able to prove it false."type 2 error" I see what the problem is.
The word is "moot".
And wrong again.
My input is pointing out that what you are doing is speculating wildly and stating such speculation as if it were valid.


You believe everyone to be insane and therefore not liable for thier moral actions giving your mind the ability to conclude that there is in fact no free will. That is the only concievable explination I can find in your mind.
Wrong yet again.
Just not your day is it?

Are you going to answer my questions?
Are you going to retract the accusation of racism?

Your really serious about this racism thing. Have you not read some of my other posts? No notice that I employ but a slight bit of sarcasm when I speak. I will still fully retract the statement. The fact that my free will has lead me to not speak quite as such as I have just noticed against you, can only suggest that you are a more estute than I. Alright I will concede defeat on all levels of this current arguement since you have had more previous studies on its exactness. If you can guess the major of the current master I am. And I made it for somebody a while ago. In riddle form.http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=104824

But still I contest the only reason a person does not have free will is if they are insane or If something physically happens to them. What can go wrong "sometimes does" go wrong. I mean if any airplane drops a bomb on your house, yeah your pretty much screwed out of free will. If someones parents abused their children causing them tramautic stress in their life they can't cope with, yeah you might be screwed out of free will. If some jerkoff kills your daughter and you don't get to pull the switch for the electric chair, your screwed out of free will.

Your really serious about this racism thing.
I'm funny in that I do get serious about false accusations.


If you can guess the major of the current master I am. And I made it for somebody a while ago.
It's obvious what your major is: inane drivel. So far you've shown yourself to be deficient in science, philosophy, spelling, grammar and thinking.


But still I contest the only reason a person does not have free will is if they are insane or If something physically happens to them. What can go wrong "sometimes does" go wrong.
How about the fact that your personality is shaped by your upbringing, genetics and environment?
You're still assuming that each decision you make is freely made, yet once you start to examine them not a single one is free of external (or past) influence. Can state categorically that you choose freely and that you could have chosen otherwise? Can you state categorically that the choices you did not make were actually possible for you to make or is that simply an illusion that you like to maintain?

You want to hear my past experiences? I really don't think you do.

I met a girl not long ago who intelligently enough pulled me into her plot. She would say she was going to kill herself, and she had the cut marks to prove it. At first there was not a sight but I can not deny her plight was escape not me. But what did I learn and what did I see after she suffered strokes and coma. That was not in sight at all. But she was no monster. You see her sister is OCD and I have witnessed as well as heard of problems of abuse. Running was the best option she chose, and she drug me down with it. Still after I see her, bear whitness when she opens her eyes and comes back to life. But after her parents keep me out of sight. No mention of my name on her guestbook. Victory is decided by the writters of history in this case. The night the monster hid behind his pipe, while I lay in her bed.

She says, "He will kill you" like she means it. But we got him that night. The flint from the lighter had dried from a twist in the water, as his party went up in flames. What do I recieve for my deeds? Occasional text and to which her sister will attest. She is crazy, but I doubt that is her fault.

Sure I could respond back to her dellusional text messages. Which often includes this completely unanwerable question, "why weren't you there for me at the hospital?" I can never get that question right try as I might. I see now she is only meant to torment and this is if and only If i don't answer her. "having a nearly photographic memory doesn't help. Can I add up pieces to a bigger puzzle here, tell me it is not my fault. It's an Issue I struggle with daily.

So what of my free will in this day? should I call her and say, "Your parents have filled your head with dirty lies!", but still she filled so my head with so many lies that may have been true. The experience has only given me a way with words. Its like I can smell twisted words. Many times it is sarcastic because I choose it to be that way. Who knows maybe I will make an intelligent joke out of it in another time.

But my past experiences don't matter to any subject whatsoever in the history of humanity. My input is always negative and off base. I have read no philosophical litterature whatsoever. I have read no litterature on physics either. Nor have I read any astrology or cosmology books. Surely If I only had the "free will" to read any litterature I would have done so. How old do you think I am?

You want to hear my past experiences? I really don't think you do.
No I don't. It appears you missed the point of the question.


I have read no philosophical litterature whatsoever. I have read no litterature on physics either. Nor have I read any astrology or cosmology books.
That's becoming ever more apparent.


Surely If I only had the "free will" to read any litterature I would have done so.
Supposition.


How old do you think I am?
Irrelevant.

How about the fact that your personality is shaped by your upbringing, genetics and environment?
Just becase your parents control your free will till your 18, doesn't mean they haven't filled your head with some false beliefs. Of course the determinism in your behavior is bound by causailiy. Still the further away in time you get from the causality of your behavioral actions and cognitions that place constraints on your mind the further bounds you can come to a relization of free will. It is still an individual perspective which means that: (conditional statement) if you yourself deny free, Then will it does not exist to you. You can not deny that it exists to my perspective, you can only argue against the amount of control I have over the subject.


You're still assuming that each decision you make is freely made, yet once you start to examine them not a single one is free of external (or past) influence.

Really? When did I say each decision, I clearly stated many that have included times when a person would not have free will. That's like saying your past influences have not made you a target for this discussion. My past influences have prepared me for this type of thread. I have had this experience of being bound to the free will of another. A puppet if you will. She plays the tune and I dance, as I love the way she dances. But while I was in this trance you can bet I was paying attention. I was always more of an observer to others actions. I have not forgotten one single thought or action of any person since my tragedy was overcome that did not allow me to determine how much free will another allows themselves to have. It is present in their thoughts, actions, and words that that they express at different times to different people. I am still learning as to what action causes what reaction to anothers thoughts as well as their actions, but the emotional ones are simple enough. Their is always trust you must reach with another to point their free will in another direction, else your psychological plan to determine anothers path fails and falls appart.


Can you state categorically that the choices you did not make were actually possible for you to make or is that simply an illusion that you like to maintain?
Are you asking me if I could have instead of going to the beach on vacation with a friend durring the time she was in the hospital, that I have stayed with her. She woke up, she was alive, how was I supposed to know what mind she would have? I only got to see her because of her real father when this started. Worse my parents sent me away to make sure her parents did not press charges. Sure I could have done that, stayed , I remember the choice very vividly. But it was her not me that maintained the illusion after the facts. She had found her escape, her mom and stepdad got divorced, but her torment was never ending. She would pull me in with words very much like yourse, simple, elegant, exact. Always knowing the outcome of the next question. That is to say you remind me of my ex girlfriend in a way. But even she can not break the current level of free will that I have placed on my mind. But what of the body you ask? You have to build something that can give someone more free will over their body or erase the bad memories that place restraints on their thoughts.

"I doubt I have free will, I think I have free will, I do have free will, I am almost certain I have free will"

It's a level of confidence that I express in these last words. One is doubt where you have placed false beliefs. The next is the thought followed by the action. The last is the one that represents the concept after the action where you are given the choice to believe the action. It is when one is almost certain where choice happens and options that you take to determine your own future are wieghed. STOP Go back read that again. It is a general timeline not an exact science as memories spark different ideas. You weigh them with your past doubts and your past influences, but in the end the choice is yours on the belief.

The word is mute as that is usually what I did when my ex would ask, "why weren't you there for me in the hospital?" I now instead of succuming to anger should just say, "Oh, there are so many reasons: and i will speak of them in the present but i'll speak only with sarcasm:
1: my free will doesn't allow me to be there.
2: I thought you were going to die. That would have been so much better.
3: I Did. LOL would you look at that.
4: shutup crazy bitch. Love you."

Hell no that is a terrible idea. I'm "supposed" to think she is crazy. That is the "initial point" in her text. That is why it is the Type 2 error. Nobody is crazy from my standpoint it is just all different levels of free will. The doubt in your mind places the constraints on your abilities. There is always a way to find the constraints on a person's mind. It still does not change the fact that we both have our own individual levels of free will from a cognitive standpoint.

Just becase your parents control your free will till your 18
So you're still assuming (without evidence) that free will exists.


Of course the determinism in your behavior is bound by causailiy.
And environment, and genetics etc etc.


You can not deny that it exists to my perspective, you can only argue against the amount of control I have over the subject.
Wrong again. I can deny that free will exists and you merely believe it does because that's how you're predisposed.


Really? When did I say each decision, I clearly stated many that have included times when a person would not have free will.
Oh dear, focus on a single word and misinterpret it. How about if I write instead each and every decision?


My past influences have prepared me for this type of thread. I have had this experience of being bound to the free will of another.
And assumptions again. Can you prove this "other" had free will?


It's a level of confidence that I express in these last words.
A misplaced confidence. Like most unsupported beliefs.


One is doubt where you have placed false beliefs.
Uh huh. And my false belief would be... what?


It still does not change the fact that we both have our own individual levels of free will from a cognitive standpoint.
Incorrect again. We have individual beliefs in our free will, whether it's actual or not has yet to be shown.

Determinism is an old-fashioned concept for the narrow minded.

Whats narrow minded about it.???

So you're still assuming (without evidence) that free will exists.[\quote]
Your assuming without evidence that it doesen't hence confirming that your either insane or have decided god determines your """!each and every!"""" decision.
[quote]
And environment, and genetics etc etc.

factors that lead to determining forces not the cognitive choice itself


Wrong again. I can deny that free will exists and you merely believe it does because that's how you're predisposed.
Well now your getting the idea of this particular experience. I hope my ex girlfreind is as "recieving" as you are:D


Oh dear, focus on a single word and misinterpret it. How about if I write instead each and every decision?
LOOK UP towards GoD. LOL


And assumptions again. Can you prove this "other" had free will?

Sure If I personify you as my ex girlfriend and hope your nonsensical text stops eventually without me having to get a new number. Eventually your doudt will go mute in theory. Still I could write two books in one: of they people would learn "nothing" and in the other a statistical portion would learn very much.


Incorrect again. We have individual beliefs in our free will, whether it's actual or not has yet to be shown.
So? I said it was a "difference in individual beliefs" then you repeated my statement in simpler terms. Yes, it has yet to be shown. I haven't married you yet, find me a big cage and some Chlorpromazine, and I'll take away your relative free will for a while. I'll show you what it feels like so that you too can share in the great experience. You still have your free will until we get married. When that happens I'm the boss no matter what you say. Your freaking me out man quit acting like my ex. I mean do you really have to repeat everything I say.