Page: ...
Jomember
517 posts
Location: Sheffield, England


Posted:
Ok, another psychological hot potatoe this one. Basically if proven a lot of good lawyers could get a lot of dangerous people released from prison, which is why it has not yet become a 'mainstream' concept.



IMHO! wink



Whenever you do anything - ANYTHING! - your concious self has not used free will at all to make that decision.



Actually, your subconcious has decided to do it.



You can then, if you wish, execute 'free won't'.



How many times did you realy have no reason to reach over there? Failed free won't execution.



Ever hit someone? Shouted?......... smile



Jo.

Educate yourself in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


babajagaBRONZE Member
old hand
863 posts
Location: Berlin, Germany


Posted:
hmmm in my view... the human action is determined in many ways that is true but in a certain range there is a free will just limited... you can make decisions but it is hard to find out if that were your own or influenced from environment it is actually all the time playing together... in addition with your experiences and which of them come into your mind in a particular moment...
discussions about free will you can find a lot in human history and there are a lot theories and it will go on and on

What is psychology?- Looking for a black cat in a dark room. What is psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis is looking for a black cat in a dark room -- in which there is no cat -- but finding one anyway.


TheWibblerGOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand


Posted:
But Jo, if you could execute free won't then that would be free will because you have the choice not to do something smile The thing about there being no free will is that you have absolutely no control over your desires. Everything just happens.

And it's not your subconcious that decides what to do, it's all down to causality and quantum foam.

And if it was proven that no one had free will then it wouldn't make any difference in a law suit because the judge and jury would still do whatever the quantum foam desired.

There are some excepts to having no free will. By observing your lack of free will you can minimise the effect it has on you. But I doubt even the greatest yogis can escape it's influence entirely.

IMO

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.


nearly_all_goneSILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom


Posted:
(more philosophical than psychological wink )



I'm doing this at the moment in Philosophy. Go determinism! Wooh! Determinism! Yeah! biggrin

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau


babajagaBRONZE Member
old hand
863 posts
Location: Berlin, Germany


Posted:
redface me too a lot...

What is psychology?- Looking for a black cat in a dark room. What is psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis is looking for a black cat in a dark room -- in which there is no cat -- but finding one anyway.


Jomember
517 posts
Location: Sheffield, England


Posted:
interesting...

Spherculist, I hear what you're saying here:

"But Jo, if you could execute free won't then that would be free will because you have the choice not to do something"

I would however, honestly describe my thought processes as follows:

Walking down a corridor with loads of doors. Some doors your desires will want to open, but also some of these are systematically locked by subconscious.

Your 'free will' is the choice of which doors are desired and unlocked.

In that way what you say here:

"By observing your lack of free will you can minimise the effect it has on you. But I doubt even the greatest yogis can escape it's influence entirely."

makes total sense to me (I agree btw). I think by observing the dynamics of these thought processes long-term and really trying hard to 're-route' subconcious, the door 'locking system' can indeed be altered....

Jo. smile

Educate yourself in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


MikeGinnyGOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA


Posted:
Well, duh. I don't even have the free will to disagree with you. wink

-Mike

Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella



A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Apologies for this if it's not strictly relevant, but it's a copy-and-paste from a post I did some time ago on the subject of free will, and my view that free-will can only take place within the frame work of constraint (eg deterministic).

==================

I would argue that it is only if the universe is deterministic that we can truly have free will.

In philosophy free will has long been considered a problem as the universe appears to be deterministic (ie effects are pre-determined by the preceeding causes) and this is generally considered incompatible with human free will (on the grounds that if one could not have chosen otherwise, then choice is meaningless).

Quantum mechanics was lauded by some as the saviour of free will, as one of it's features was the existence of truly random occurences at the quantum (very small/subatomic) level. (randomness on the scale of the large is actually only apparently random- eg a dice seems random as it can't be predicted, but, as it obeys the laws of large scale physics, its fall could, in principle, with sufficiently sensitive measuring equipment and computing power, be accurately predicted).

The reasoning was that the human brain could possibly be influenced by these microscopic random events, leading to non-deterministic human behaviour that, even in principle, could not be predicted and would therefore be 'free'.

To me that reasoning is deeply flawed as it means that free wil and human choice rest effectively on the throw of a subatomic dice; to me random behaviour is the opposite of human choice.

For me, human choice is the consequence of a deterministic mind that makes decisions based on its store of memories and experiences and the views and opinions it has derived from them.

So good people behave in ways that are mainly good; responsible people behave, on the whole, responsibly; idiots behave idiotically etc, etc.

On this view, only a mind in a determined world can be said to be choosing freely- random elements in that process would only diminish the free choice.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


TheWibblerGOLD Member
old hand
920 posts
Location: New Zealand


Posted:
But some consider the Random quantum stuff to be the 'Will of the Absolute" or "Gods Will". It appears random to us but is an effect caused by the divine creator.

Written by:

So good people behave in ways that are mainly good; responsible people behave, on the whole, responsibly; idiots behave idiotically etc, etc.




But what made them good, responsible or idiotic in the first place?

I'm confuddled,

Spherculism ~:~ The Act of becoming Spherculish.


SCRUBSerm....can you smell parafin or is it me?
146 posts

Posted:
trues observation of the situation is impossible.
all we can do is hope that we have both choices and destiny
(didn't forestgump say some thing like this?) confused meditate

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: spherculist



But what made them good, responsible or idiotic in the first place?

I'm confuddled,




Many things which could include:-

genetics, environment, people in their lives, education and their own developed opinions (by which I mean their own efforts to bring about self-change).

Some of those factors are beyond their control, others are within it.

Bad people can become good, either through fortunate circumstance, their own effort, or some comination of the two; and vice-versa.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


CaszGOLD Member
stranger
15 posts
Location: Chattanooga TN, USA


Posted:
I feel like I just read a short book on free will.

"Firework shops are like porn shops for Pyros"


dafunkymahnmember
54 posts

Posted:
Can anyone define free will for me? Or an even harder question, can someone come up with a definition of free will that we all pretty much agree on?

If we can do that, I will explain my stance on free will.

.... I really do not see everyone jumping to define free will, so I guess I will say my little bit later on.

i8beefy2GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA


Posted:
Free will vs. determinism debate: essentially, two warring schools that claim contradictory views. Namely:

Free will - to most views, exclusive to humans, but can be extended to all higher order lifeforms. Any action attributable to such beings is "free" in as much as the choice to act or not to act is not causally determined by prior states of matter, and mind. While these things may influence the "choice", or execution of the will, they do not causally lock the person into acting in one and only one manner. "Though this may happen, I can chose to act this way or this way".

Determinism - Everything is causally determined by prior states. Though it appears any of our actions are "free" in that we "can imagine having acted otherwise, thus it is possible to have acted differently", prior mental states which are caused by experience of the universe and biological determinism are the true attributable cause, not a real "will" that is free. Like gears in a clock, "if this happens, then this happens".

Good enough working definition to begin now dafunkymahn? I hope so because I'[m about to go another diatribe....

Why is free will a problem? Well if you believe in the tri-omni God (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and most importantly, omniscient or all seeing) it provides a contradiction for the definition. Is free will compatible with God knowing everything, including what you have not even done yet? If God knows the entirety of the existence of the universe at the beginning of the universe, then this seems to imply determinism: things were kicked off in a certain way to evolve according to precise rules to a certain end. You could say God doesn't know something or other at some time or other, but then your contradicting the TRADITIONAL THEISTIC definition of God to save free will. There are some attempts by philosophers to save free will in different ways... few of them are compelling with the God problem. It seems either the definition of "God" needs to be refined, or free will must be thrown out.

The second half of this problem is omnibenevolence. God is infinitely good. If the world IS deterministic as the omniscience seems to imply, then the idea of a "Just" God that sends people to hell is completely out of the question. How can you punish someone for something they had no free choice in? Unless we are pawns even in the afterlife. Not to mention that being infinitely good, and omnipotent as WELL, he should make the Best Possible World. Then theres all that "Why's there evil in the world" and stuff, and if you consider free will good, it needs to be part of the Best Possible World too, so it seems free will is necessary but illogical following from ALL of God's properties.

As I said, free will is important to preserve many parts of religions, and justice in general... thus why it is important to many people who may be religious. But because arguing this from a religious point of view presents many contradictions in logic, religions say you must just take this on faith. And for this reason, free will can not be argued from this point of view to any conclusive end.

So then we can move onto scientific views to argue this. General Relativity presents a view of the universe that is strictly deterministic. Strictly. Einstein knew this. Quantum Theory was thought of as saving free will by introducing quantum indeterminacy. It does seem to help. Others can comment on this. I won't try because my understanding of quantum mechanics is limited and I havn't read anything in it for two years.

There is another thing that quantum mechanics open up. To those people who believe in the whole "As below as above" thing, and the "man as microcosm, universe as macrocosm" thing... Quantum mechanics opens up the idea there there are two particles on the wave function of a particle and a change in one simultaneously changes the other one. What if the particles that make up one side of the waves are consentrated in US and the other ends are out all over the universe? Wouldn't that make the man the microcosm: an exact duplicate of the macrocosm assuming those particles are equally spread to every corner of the universe? Any Casteneda or Don Juan followers here? Does this description sound oddly and erily similar to the metaphysical claims about second vision of living organisms and the world? No idea if this is defendable, just postulating.

If cause-effect turns out to be a real constituent part of the universe and not just part of the way we PERCEIVE the universe, it also paints a deterministic view. Unless somehow humans exist outside and seperate from the Universe and are not subject to it's underlying natural laws. This seems silly to me to consider humans as different somehow. I'm sure some better arguments are available for both sides, but theres a starter. Unless you throw out cause-effect as a constituent part of the universe... which I do.

-------------------------

That being said... I give you this: does it matter outside of a religious standpoint? It really doesn't seem to matter if you look at the universe in a strict materialist viewpoint. If everything is determined, then you will live your life just the same; specifically as if you have free will. If you have free will... well great, still going to live the same way. Sure you could argue this would breed apathy, but there is this concept called Controlled Folly that I like to pull on. Though in the big picture we must remember that everything goes as it must, is deterministic, we must act in the world as if we possess freedom because it is determined that we must. Any chance we have of extending ourselves to our full potential, our destiny, lies in the exercissing of this concept.

And THAT being said... I personally look at it like this. We ARE determined to act a certain way by biology, which in turn shapes our initial conceptions and experiences of the world which in turn make us act in a more different way... hehe. And on and on, our reactions and past experiences shaping who we are. In essence, every memory is only about 50% real. We make up the rest based largely on what we took from the experience, and is readily apparent at any time in our actual personality. Thus every thought is generated from perceptions and reflections that are triggered by perceptions initially. We are slaves to our past. This in no way makes me a pesemist, nor does it conflict with my current overall philosophy of Taoism; I'm quite content in knowing that everything is going how it is determined to and walking my personal path. However I am not entirely attached to this view. I believe duality must disperse on the grand scheme of things, so free will must also have a component. The best answer I have yet without being able to adequately defend it yet is this: We are determined by our past to respond in certain ways, but are free in that our environments are never the same, and are only similar in nature. I want to maintain free will somehow I just havn;t come up with a real good answer yet.

onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: i8beefy2


Free will vs. determinism debate: essentially, two warring schools that claim contradictory views. Namely:

Free will - to most views, exclusive to humans, but can be extended to all higher order lifeforms. Any action attributable to such beings is "free" in as much as the choice to act or not to act is not causally determined by prior states of matter, and mind. While these things may influence the "choice", or execution of the will, they do not causally lock the person into acting in one and only one manner. "Though this may happen, I can chose to act this way or this way".

Determinism - Everything is causally determined by prior states. Though it appears any of our actions are "free" in that we "can imagine having acted otherwise, thus it is possible to have acted differently", prior mental states which are caused by experience of the universe and biological determinism are the true attributable cause, not a real "will" that is free. Like gears in a clock, "if this happens, then this happens".





I disagree with your definitions- using those definitions is actually setting yourself up for the 'problems' of free-will you later expand on.

The issue of whether an individual 'could have acted differently' is substantially meaningless- time can't be re-run to create the exact same circumstances/states of mind etc, to make that meaningful.

But, just suppose time could be re-run; in that situation the person with free-will would act exactly the same as they did before- they would act in accordance with their own nature, and the choices that come about from that nature.

If they acted differently, then that is far from free-will; it's down to some random fact that they have no input towards and thus is the antithesis of free-will.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


spiralxveteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
Does it really matter? I personally don't see that it does - it makes no difference to my perceived existance.

Your body reacts to stimuli before there's time for the signal to travel to your brain and back e.g. when you touch something hot your hand flinches away before your brain receives the signal saying "hot!". Damage to certain parts of your brain will take away your ability to make decisions. Again though, neither of these facts changes how I see myself and my "actions".

"Moo," said the happy cow.


nearly_all_goneSILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: onewheeldave


I disagree with your definitions- using those definitions is actually setting yourself up for the 'problems' of free-will you later expand on.

The issue of whether an individual 'could have acted differently' is substantially meaningless- time can't be re-run to create the exact same circumstances/states of mind etc, to make that meaningful.

But, just suppose time could be re-run; in that situation the person with free-will would act exactly the same as they did before- they would act in accordance with their own nature, and the choices that come about from that nature.

If they acted differently, then that is far from free-will; it's down to some random fact that they have no input towards and thus is the antithesis of free-will.



But Dave, this definition is determinism. I'm yet to see how your definition of determinism is compatible with free will - it seems as if you're arguing that free will is another name for a "feeling" or something within a wholly deterministic universe. If we are truly making choices based on earlier causes, then that's just determinism. If causes are affecting the course of our thought or actions, and they are the basis of our activity (so that if we reached the same point in our lives in a possible world where the causal chain was the same we would act in the same way again), the universe is deterministic and we have no free will.

Of course the whole "first cause vs infinite casual chain" problem rears its ugly head here, as does the existance of god blah blah.. it's a bit of a mess smile

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau


toweryGOLD Member
Member
32 posts
Location: Wakayama-ken, USA


Posted:
"I want to maintain free will somehow I just havn;t come up with a real good answer yet." --i8beefy2

I thought you already did. We act in accordance with apparent and percieved free will either because we must or because we have actual free will. Relative to ourselves it seems that we have free will, so does it matter whether it's reality or just another feature of determinism? I don't think so, personally.

That being said, whether of my own perfect volition or as a predetermined result of cosmic forces, I'm going to apparently choose to make some food--'cause I'm freakin' hungry. biggrin

"To my delight, I discovered that poi are amazing movement exploration tools. They are guides. They are teachers. They are like Yoda, only smaller and on strings." --Nick Woolsey, also known as Meenik


Jomember
517 posts
Location: Sheffield, England


Posted:
Hahahaha biggrin

I think the ongoing discussion about universal cause and effect has really helped me understand why the subconscious apeears to behave like that.

Consciousness though lies in an uncharted unphysical domain, and has some kind of two-way synergy with the subconscious.

Maybe this puts the human mind beond our current understanding of quantum mechanics and means we do have some kind of 'physics rule breaking' systems in our 'souls'?

Jo smile

Educate yourself in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: nearly_all_gone



But Dave, this definition is determinism. I'm yet to see how your definition of determinism is compatible with free will - it seems as if you're arguing that free will is another name for a "feeling" or something within a wholly deterministic universe. If we are truly making choices based on earlier causes, then that's just determinism. If causes are affecting the course of our thought or actions, and they are the basis of our activity (so that if we reached the same point in our lives in a possible world where the causal chain was the same we would act in the same way again), the universe is deterministic and we have no free will.





The point of what I'm saying is that free-will is based on determinism.

I'm claiming that the traditional view, that free-will and a deterministic reality are incompatible, is incorrect.

In fact I'm going further and saying that determinism is a pre-requisite for meaningful free-will.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


nearly_all_goneSILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: onewheeldave



The point of what I'm saying is that free-will is based on determinism.



I'm claiming that the traditional view, that free-will and a deterministic reality are incompatible, is incorrect.



In fact I'm going further and saying that determinism is a pre-requisite for meaningful free-will.




I don't see how you are, to be honest. It seems that you're saying that in a deterministic universe we can "take charge" at any moment, but that can be accounted for by determinism. We may have the illusion of choice, but if the course of our actions is defined by causal influences then there is no free will. Your posts haven't yet expressed how free will enters the equation at all - only that though we appear to have choice, we will always choose in the way that is dictated to us by causal, fundamentally deterministic influences. Hence it's still just determinism.



I believe free will and determinism to be incompatible still, because every argument in favour of their compatibility seems not only wholly implausible but full of logical holes (and I'll admit that holes can be found the the inncompatibility arguments too, they just seem far more plausible and intuitive). Free will would mean some possibility of breaking free of a causal chain, or at least exerting influence upon it at a given point, but in fact I don't believe this is possible. The very nature of causality means that even trying to exert this pressure is the result of thinking about the chain, which is the result of reading too many post in Social Discussion, which is the result of being bored because it's snowing so you can't poi, which is the result of.. blah. Infinite causal chain.
EDITED_BY: nearly_all_gone (1109774059)

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau


babajagaBRONZE Member
old hand
863 posts
Location: Berlin, Germany


Posted:
I couldnt say it better... and agree with your views on that...

What is psychology?- Looking for a black cat in a dark room. What is psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis is looking for a black cat in a dark room -- in which there is no cat -- but finding one anyway.


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: nearly_all_gone





I don't see how you are, to be honest. It seems that you're saying that in a deterministic universe we can "take charge" at any moment, but that can be accounted for by determinism. We may have the illusion of choice, but if the course of our actions is defined by causal influences then there is no free will. Your posts haven't yet expressed how free will enters the equation at all - only that though we appear to have choice, we will always choose in the way that is dictated to us by causal, fundamentally deterministic influences. Hence it's still just determinism.






Of course it can be accounted for by determinism- my definition of free-will requires that determinism is a prime factor in free will.



The source of our disagreement lies soley in our different ideas of what the definition of free-will is.



For me, free-will is the act of a conscious being making a choice based on the deterministic workings of his/her mind.



Based on stored experiences and aquired reaction patterns, a being faced with options chooses- for true free choice it is vital that that minds processes are deterministic.



For example, a mind with multiple randomising factors- that, when faced with similar options, ends up doing widely varying actions, is not a mind equipped with choice or free will.



=======



If you're still disagreeing on reading that, then can I ask you to give me a clear and consise example of a free choice?



I'm asking here for what, in your view would constitute a free choice. Rather than just say 'it has to be undetermined' try and say what it would actually involve (eg quantum randomness or whatever).



It would help me greatly to see your viewpoint if you could give such an example.

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


nearly_all_goneSILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: onewheeldave


Of course it can be accounted for by determinism- my definition of free-will requires that determinism is a prime factor in free will.

The source of our disagreement lies soley in our different ideas of what the definition of free-will is.

For me, free-will is the act of a conscious being making a choice based on the deterministic workings of his/her mind.

Based on stored experiences and aquired reaction patterns, a being faced with options chooses- for true free choice it is vital that that minds processes are deterministic.

For example, a mind with multiple randomising factors- that, when faced with similar options, ends up doing widely varying actions, is not a mind equipped with choice or free will.

=======

If you're still disagreeing on reading that, then can I ask you to give me a clear and consise example of a free choice?

It would help me greatly to see your viewpoint if you could give such an example.



Free will means that we choose our actions based on past influences, but not solely upon them. We decide based on the meeting of various causal factors, but choose in a way that is free of any causal thought process. So if shown two cakes, I might choose cake a in one possible world and cake b in another for no reason other than I could have chosen to do differently.

I personally don't believe in such a thing as a free choice, that's the point I think smile It seems wholly implausible to me. There is no free will. It is an illusion humans make to endow themselves with elements of responsibility, powers which they in reality have no way of summoning.. all sorts of benefits which free will would endow us with.

And sorry Dave, but I think that your conception of free will is simply describing part of the deterministic process. If you called it determinism it would work in exactly the same way, hence free will is at best a wholly trivial element and in fact doesn't correspond to my (and I think most people's) definition of free will at all.

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau


onewheeldaveGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: nearly_all_gone


....... We decide based on the meeting of various causal factors, but choose in a way that is free of any causal thought process. So if shown two cakes, I might choose cake a in one possible world and cake b in another for no reason other than I could have chosen to do differently.





So what is that other factor, that causes a choice yet is independant of the causal ones?

Is it randomness, or something else?

"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!


nearly_all_goneSILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom


Posted:
It doesn't exist. But as I said, it's one definition of free will.. but it's not the same as the one you're arguing for, at least so I thought.

But I think we'll always choose cake 1 if we chose it this one time, unless the causal process itself had been different (which would require something pretty fundamental to have changed in the initial constitution of the world, as - being a determinist - I think that every cause is caused by an infinite string of causes, all of which couldn't have gone any way other than the way they did..

In fact I think the whole concept of possible worlds where the causal process was different would mean the world would have to be virtually unrecognisable, different in formation. Laws of nature couldn't obtain in the same way, for instance, otherwise the same causal process would have put this speck of dust here, that ocean there, made me type p there etc etc

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau


i8beefy2GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA


Posted:
Ahhh I think I see what your getting at. There is a story that might enlighten here...

Let's say you have a horse, standing exactly between two identical (let's not quible, for the sake of this example, on that word for now) hay bails. Which one will it choose? In this situation, no matter WHAT deterministic factors underlie the horses mind and the situation, what accounts for the horse MAKING A CHOICE and eating one or the other instead of standing between the two until it starves to death because there is nothing to give one choice a vallance over the other? We can conjecture based on what we know of horses, that it WILL make a choice because all things have a survival instinct.

If the world is WHOLLY deterministic, then it would seem the horse would starve because there is no REASON to choose one way or the other. Free will, the ability to make a choice outside the causilly deterministic elements, is sufficient to explain this, but is it necessary? Some could argue I suppose that certain elements of the horses past make it look one way or the other and choose based on this, thus saving determinism. Or randomness can be called on. Either way, this might help the discussion.

Cheers.

nearly_all_goneSILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom


Posted:
That's not my understanding of it though. I mean, yes, the horse WOULD choose one, let's call this bale 1, but if the same experiment were to happen again in a parallell universe, with everything being exactly as it was before, the exact same causal processes leading up to the same moment, the horse would still go for bale 1. It might be making a choice, but there is no free will involved in that choice, it is simply the result of certain causal processes. Whatever decision the horse comes to, the same process which lets it choose will happene every time given the causal nature of the deterministic universe.

I think.. smile

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau


i8beefy2GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA


Posted:
The horse argument... it's a theoretical problem, which applies only as a rejection to a specific type of determinism. One that was used to explain God's omniscience and free will. Namely, that God, because he can see all causal possibilties, knows what you are going to do, and yet you have free will because you can choose to do differently, your just not going to because of every little thing about the universe that (in our view) causes you to choose that way. But because God, in his infinite being, is the source of all possibility, he "just knows".

The horse in this theoretical world, where there is no cause that tells the horse to choose one over the other, the only answers are randomosity in the system, which makes it non-deterministic, or free will.

------------------------

There is a group of theories that hold what I am trying to maintain: determinism and free will are both constituent parts of the universe. It goes something like this I think. They are just different ways of looking at the same thing (like labeling something good, or bad), different perspectives. In essence, the world IS deterministic, but this does not interfere with free will. The ability to CHOOSE is still there, but we are victoms of the past and will choose exactly as is causilly determined. They are COMPATABLE.

There was once a person who carried this to the extreme and said something along the lines of "The only real freedom we have is suicide". I don't remember who he was, just an interesting side note... to me anyway.

nearly_all_goneSILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
1,626 posts
Location: Southampton, United Kingdom


Posted:
Written by: i8beefy2


The ability to CHOOSE is still there, but we are victoms of the past and will choose exactly as is causilly determined. They are COMPATABLE.

There was once a person who carried this to the extreme and said something along the lines of "The only real freedom we have is suicide". I don't remember who he was, just an interesting side note... to me anyway.



Was it Camus, maybe? Sounds like something he'd say..

But, to flog a dead horse once more, I don't agree that we do have the ability to choose if it is causally determined. We have an illusory feeling of choice, but if the choice we make is fundamentally determined by causality then we are not feally chhosing in a way which is free from causality - hence it is the result of causality - hence there is no freedom, only another effect of the causal chain.

I don't know if I'm expressing myself very well.. most responses to this seem to be open to this same thing, that whilst you admit that in a determinist universe means a causal chain for every action, thought, response etc etc there is still an unpredictable element, namely free will. If free will is simply the fact you did a, but claim you could have done b, I think that's illogical. You couldn't have done b at time x because you did a at time x. I don't think a determinist can support counterfactuals, I think a determinist must inevitably say they necessarily describe some fundamental difference in the causal chain (ie from the outset of the chain, which, being infinite if you're a non-first-cause believer in god or just an atheist) which I think would result in a lot more than the horse picking bale A in one universe and bale B in another..

I'm finding it very hard to express this in a clear way.. but I don't agree that free will in any meaningful, non-trivial sense (ie more than an idea or feeling which is in fact illusory) can exist in a deterministic, causally-defined universe.

smile

What a wonderful miracle if only we could look through each other's eyes for an instant.
Thoreau


babajagaBRONZE Member
old hand
863 posts
Location: Berlin, Germany


Posted:
it could be Sartre too... rolleyes

What is psychology?- Looking for a black cat in a dark room. What is psychoanalysis? Psychoanalysis is looking for a black cat in a dark room -- in which there is no cat -- but finding one anyway.


Page: ...

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [don t] we found the following existing topics.

  1. Forums > how to spin glowsticks with Zunis? [2 replies]
  2. Forums > Message for Flavio
  3. Forums > fire juggling balls [8 replies]
  4. Forums > wide-ass flames [12 replies]
  5. Forums > training regime [6 replies]

      Show more..

HOP Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest on sales, new releases and more...