Free Will Vs Determinism

Free Will Vs Determinism...

What are you thoughts??

If free will is to choose, then a choice is from options and choosen based on desire for a result. And so desire is to foresee the future. But free will is desire. Then desire has to be chosen? But how can you choose desire??

Your idea can't be presented like that.

The whole debate is too contingent upon definitions and semantics to be properly argued though, so I'll stop wasting my time.

Why can't I represent it like that?

It argues for determinism which is what you just said. Read it again

Well, you CAN present it like that obviously, but it seems like you use a modified version of the transitive property. Either way, I stand by my last statement:

"The whole debate is too contingent upon definitions and semantics to be properly argued"

This argument can only be had by people that do not properly understand determinism. This argument is much better if it is called Predestination vs Free Will.
Predestination says that all things are planned out ahead. The preplanning mechanism is a subjective issue.
Free Will says that you can choose and create your own, and nothing is predetermined.
Determinism, when understood properly, is the reconcilliation of these ideas. It states that we have free will and are completely free to make our own decisions, but that the decisions we do make are wholly predictable given the proper information. Pierre-Simon LaPlace stated it best.

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

This explains how determinism applies to physics. Then one only has to see that chemistry is simply small scale physics applied in a big scale, and biology in turn is built on chemistry. This means that all biological functions, ie thought, are based fundamentally on physical law, and wholly deterministic. Chance could then be defined as a deterministic event in principle, of which the observer has not enough information in practice to predict it. Chance, luck, whatever you want to call it, is not real, wholly deterministic.

Determinism is a very very compelling idea because it has the infalsifiability of most longstanding philosophies and religious ideas, with the backing of fundamental science.

No...the title will remain as Free will Vs Determinism.

I'm not talking of predeterminism. I don't believe in that as because of quantum physics.



Cause and effect...Chaos theory....within the mind, none of them suggest free will to choose. Like I ask, you can 'choose' out of desire, but how can you choose what you desire??

You choose what you desire based on your biological makeup, which is made up of chemical reactions and such, which is decided by the particles (composition and position.) This is all deterministic. Conciousness is simply the product of chemical interactions. To say otherwise is to boldy express human vanity and apply an illogical credit and power to humans. The world as we see it is the world as it is, there is nothing else, no invisible, formless entity that controls us(souls.) We simply are the product of complex physics, and thus are subject to determinism.

how can you choose what you desire??

Ah, when you pose the question like that it makes more sense. In short, you can't.

Refer to Vilkata. We can't choose what we desire, but we have the conscious nature to try and rationalize and come up with reasons for our desires. At the same time, we can still make choices for other options...just ones that don't have to do with our genetic and mental makeup.

You choose what you desire based on your biological makeup, which is made up of chemical reactions and such, which is decided by the particles (composition and position.) This is all deterministic. Conciousness is simply the product of chemical interactions. To say otherwise is to boldy express human vanity and apply an illogical credit and power to humans. The world as we see it is the world as it is, there is nothing else, no invisible, formless entity that controls us(souls.) We simply are the product of complex physics, and thus are subject to determinism.

Apart from that I would actually argue conscious is a produt of language, I agree.

I'm quite interested in this subject...but I can't see to find a good argument for free will

The way I see it, is free will is a logical symptom of conciousness. Like Descarte said, "I think, therefore I am." If I am given a choice between A, B and C, I can, based on any number of factors, choose any of the 3. Determinism gives us a way, in principle at least, to predict this. However, my choice being predictable does not mean that i can't pick the others, it simply means I won't.

Quote from: edlloyd on May 26, 2007, 03:18:25 PM

how can you choose what you desire??

Ah, when you pose the question like that it makes more sense. In short, you can't.

Refer to Vilkata. We can't choose what we desire, but we have the conscious nature to try and rationalize and come up with reasons for our desires. At the same time, we can still make choices for other options...just ones that don't have to do with our genetic and mental makeup.

Pose the question like what? It's actually the same as the original.

Vilkata sounds very contradictory to me "we can't choose what we desier...we can still make choices for other options"

The way I see it, is free will is a logical symptom of conciousness. Like Descarte said, "I think, therefore I am." If I am given a choice between A, B and C, I can, based on any number of factors, choose any of the 3. Determinism gives us a way, in principle at least, to predict this. However, my choice being predictable does not mean that i can't pick the others, it simply means I won't.

The idea of Determinism is not to predict the full extent of actions, but simply a notion that is the opposite to the notion of having free will.

As from the oxford dictionary...

"the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

"However, my choice being predictable does not mean that i can't pick the others, it simply means I won't" That is predeterminism though my friend

sounds very contradictory to me "we can't choose what we desier...we can still make choices for other options"

If you were to watch a TV show, you'd instinctively know if you enjoy it or not. As you grow older, your vocabulary increases and your experience increases. With that, you're able to apply reasons and rationale as to why you like it. That's what I mean by not being able to choose things you desire. Over time, you're able to claim things you desire in foods, TV shows, movies, and just life in general. This just isn't as literal as one might think.

Now with that, depending on your definition of free will, you'd notice it to be false. I do not believe in FREE will.

Quote from: edlloyd on May 26, 2007, 03:41:24 PM

sounds very contradictory to me "we can't choose what we desier...we can still make choices for other options"

If you were to watch a TV show, you'd instinctively know if you enjoy it or not. As you grow older, your vocabulary increases and your experience increases. With that, you're able to apply reasons and rationale as to why you like it. That's what I mean by not being able to choose things you desire. Over time, you're able to claim things you desire in foods, TV shows, movies, and just life in general. This just isn't as literal as one might think.

I don't quite understand what you're saying. But I am least in agreement with you about ultimately that desire. There seems to be an infinite amount of things that influence desire.

Hmm, how to explain this better.

Essentially think of anything you like. Why do you like it? Traveling down the thought process...like a child would do, you'll come to an "I just do" point, mainly because you have no answer. However, in the case of human desires, it's not because of lack of information, but rather that you're left with the biological makeup of genetics as the only underlying cause. In that respect, you have no choice and no free will, depending on your interpretation.

exactly...like i say..almost an infinite amount of things that influence desire.

I would to hear someones argument that is in favour of free will. I just can't seem to think of anything that can support.

The fact that we would contemplate whether we have free will or not makes me lean highly in the favor of free will. Of course, it COULD be that EVERYTHING that we do is on a set path, including contemplating upon free will and contemplating on how we can contemplate on free will and wondering why we can possibly contemplate on contemplations of free will if we don't actually have free will. But honestly, why SHOULD I believe in the possibility of things being decided for me? I feel like I'm deciding things, and I have no evidence or experiences to suggest that I do NOT have free will, so to think that I am not blessed with such a dignity is just silly.

~D-Draw

Nobody can really know for sure if we do or if we don't.  The point is really moot, 'cuz if there was a way we could find out we wouldn't be debating it right now.

The fact that we would contemplate whether we have free will or not makes me lean highly in the favor of free will. Of course, it COULD be that EVERYTHING that we do is on a set path, including contemplating upon free will and contemplating on how we can contemplate on free will and wondering why we can possibly contemplate on contemplations of free will if we don't actually have free will. But honestly, why SHOULD I believe in the possibility of things being decided for me? I feel like I'm deciding things, and I have no evidence or experiences to suggest that I do NOT have free will, so to think that I am not blessed with such a dignity is just silly.

~D-Draw

It isn't about anything being decided for you. Paths are not set. The universe is not deterministic, at least not according to our current understanding of its most basic mechanisms.

However, the fact that our existences do not follow a pre-laid out path does not imply free will. It seems to me that our thoughts, our actions, our very being can be extrapolated from the universe's laws. Our brains are no more than biological machines, and our minds are entirely the products of said machines; this much is fact. If the workings of our brains depend on nothing more than biology, which in the end is no more than an exceedingly complex manifestation of the laws of physics, and our consciousness depends entirely on the workings of our brains, then how can we be said to possess free will?

The fact that we would contemplate whether we have free will or not makes me lean highly in the favor of free will. Of course, it COULD be that EVERYTHING that we do is on a set path, including contemplating upon free will and contemplating on how we can contemplate on free will and wondering why we can possibly contemplate on contemplations of free will if we don't actually have free will. But honestly, why SHOULD I believe in the possibility of things being decided for me? I feel like I'm deciding things, and I have no evidence or experiences to suggest that I do NOT have free will, so to think that I am not blessed with such a dignity is just silly.

~D-Draw

Not everyone contemplates free will though. Only those exposed to such a subject might contemplate it. Im pretty such the vast majority of the world's population does not even comtemplate what it is or to it's fullest extent.

Wow there are a lot of people in this topic who don't know what they're talking about. 

Anyway I think the debate is a good one, and I've been reading a lot of work on the subject recently (Blackmore, Crick, Dennett, the Churchlands, Metcinger, Ramachandran and Wegner amongst others).

I like the idea that consciousness is only a record of what's going on, rather than actually the place where decisions are made.  Your brain makes the decision and then lets your conscious know (to attempt to state it in the most simple manner).  The experimental evidence that backs this up (such as people with blind-sight) is pretty interesting, and I think makes the question of free will vs determinism a lot harder. 

It's clear that almost all neuroscientists have rejected Descartes, and all the tangible breakthroughs in consciousness study have come from science, not philosophy.

Essentially it seems that we don't make conscious decisions, but that doesn't mean our brain isn't capable of making decisions, rather than simply reacting.  It just means we become aware of the decision after we've made it.

So it really comes down to how you define free will.  People like Daniel Dennett argues that of course we have free will, even though the decisions we make are completely due to our brain chemistry.  It's still our brain chemistry that's making the decision.  I tend to agree with this sentiment.  I think the whole debate around the question comes from the false idea of Cartesian dualism, and we can now see that that's false.  The idea that we don't have free will really comes from the idea that the physics of our brain controls our mind, but I think most cognitive scientists these days would agree that the physics of our brain is our mind.  You can't separate those.  If our brain can make decisions, we can make decisions, and we know that our brain can make decisions.  Reactionary decisions are still decisions. 

I think the idea that things can happen without a reason is ludicrous.  Obviously there are reasons why we make decisions, that doesn't mean we don't have the potential to make a different decision.

How does the experimental evidence make the question of free will harder? Surely it leans more towards determinism than leaving the question more open??

Philosophy can provide some answers, in the sense it gives direction and poses the question in the first place.

Decisions dont necessarily refelct a free will though mate. All decisions to me seem subject to form of stimulus or desire, which i believe you can't control either

"I think the idea that things can happen without a reason is ludicrous." Quantum??

Please.  The only people who claim that there is a link between free will and quantum are people who know nothing about either.

The experimental evidence makes the question of free will harder because it suggests that our consciousness is our awareness of what our brain is doing, not in control of what our brain is doing.  Dualists may see this as evidence that free will does not exist, but dualism was dismissed 40 years ago.  Our brain is our mind, they are not separate entities. 

Please.  The only people who claim that there is a link between free will and quantum are people who know nothing about either.

The experimental evidence makes the question of free will harder because it suggests that our consciousness is our awareness of what our brain is doing, not in control of what our brain is doing.  Dualists may see this as evidence that free will does not exist, but dualism was dismissed 40 years ago.  Our brain is our mind, they are not separate entities. 

I didnt claim there was a link...but you said you dont believe nothing happens without cause. what about quantum then?

If evidence suggests that we control less than what we think we do...than that leans to more determism does it not? Its like the half second delay, you're brain responds to a situation a half second beware you even become aware of it.

http://web.mac.com/dylanwiliam/iWeb/Site/Publications_files/ECER99.pdf

I think that every decision we make, whether we realize it or not, is based on past experiences in either that particular or some similar situation.  Therefore we have the illusion of free will, but we do not actually have free will, because we never really make any unbiased choices.  It's not really the same as determinism, because there's nothing about it that implies that anything has been set in the past.

It isn't about anything being decided for you. Paths are not set. The universe is not deterministic, at least not according to our current understanding of its most basic mechanisms.

However, the fact that our existences do not follow a pre-laid out path does not imply free will. It seems to me that our thoughts, our actions, our very being can be extrapolated from the universe's laws. Our brains are no more than biological machines, and our minds are entirely the products of said machines; this much is fact. If the workings of our brains depend on nothing more than biology, which in the end is no more than an exceedingly complex manifestation of the laws of physics, and our consciousness depends entirely on the workings of our brains, then how can we be said to possess free will?

Ahh, you see, this makes much more sense, but then you have to contemplate what is actually consciousness and if consciousness is really meaningful at all whatsoever. Is it free will if a neuron synapse flashing is what causes the decision to be made? Can our brain, full of electric signals really decide anything at all? It's a question of what you determine is free will then, and much less about whether or not we have free will.

Quote from: Edmunds on May 26, 2007, 07:08:20 PM

The fact that we would contemplate whether we have free will or not makes me lean highly in the favor of free will. Of course, it COULD be that EVERYTHING that we do is on a set path, including contemplating upon free will and contemplating on how we can contemplate on free will and wondering why we can possibly contemplate on contemplations of free will if we don't actually have free will. But honestly, why SHOULD I believe in the possibility of things being decided for me? I feel like I'm deciding things, and I have no evidence or experiences to suggest that I do NOT have free will, so to think that I am not blessed with such a dignity is just silly.

~D-Draw

Not everyone contemplates free will though. Only those exposed to such a subject might contemplate it. Im pretty such the vast majority of the world's population does not even comtemplate what it is or to it's fullest extent.

I meant the fact that I am ABLE to contemplate it suggests greatly that I do have the possibility to think for myself.

~D-Draw

Quote from: dysfunction on May 26, 2007, 08:28:28 PM

It isn't about anything being decided for you. Paths are not set. The universe is not deterministic, at least not according to our current understanding of its most basic mechanisms.

However, the fact that our existences do not follow a pre-laid out path does not imply free will. It seems to me that our thoughts, our actions, our very being can be extrapolated from the universe's laws. Our brains are no more than biological machines, and our minds are entirely the products of said machines; this much is fact. If the workings of our brains depend on nothing more than biology, which in the end is no more than an exceedingly complex manifestation of the laws of physics, and our consciousness depends entirely on the workings of our brains, then how can we be said to possess free will?

Ahh, you see, this makes much more sense, but then you have to contemplate what is actually consciousness and if consciousness is really meaningful at all whatsoever. Is it free will if a neuron synapse flashing is what causes the decision to be made? Can our brain, full of electric signals really decide anything at all? It's a question of what you determine is free will then, and much less about whether or not we have free will.

Alright, so if we both used the same definition of free will, we would agree on whether we have it or not. I guess I use a definition that means we don't have it, and you use a definition that means we do. I suppose my definition is a little unfair, however, because it would preclude anything in this universe from having free will.

Quote from: dysfunction on May 26, 2007, 08:28:28 PM

It isn't about anything being decided for you. Paths are not set. The universe is not deterministic, at least not according to our current understanding of its most basic mechanisms.

However, the fact that our existences do not follow a pre-laid out path does not imply free will. It seems to me that our thoughts, our actions, our very being can be extrapolated from the universe's laws. Our brains are no more than biological machines, and our minds are entirely the products of said machines; this much is fact. If the workings of our brains depend on nothing more than biology, which in the end is no more than an exceedingly complex manifestation of the laws of physics, and our consciousness depends entirely on the workings of our brains, then how can we be said to possess free will?

Ahh, you see, this makes much more sense, but then you have to contemplate what is actually consciousness and if consciousness is really meaningful at all whatsoever. Is it free will if a neuron synapse flashing is what causes the decision to be made? Can our brain, full of electric signals really decide anything at all? It's a question of what you determine is free will then, and much less about whether or not we have free will.

Quote from: edlloyd on May 27, 2007, 02:50:14 AM

Quote from: Edmunds on May 26, 2007, 07:08:20 PM

The fact that we would contemplate whether we have free will or not makes me lean highly in the favor of free will. Of course, it COULD be that EVERYTHING that we do is on a set path, including contemplating upon free will and contemplating on how we can contemplate on free will and wondering why we can possibly contemplate on contemplations of free will if we don't actually have free will. But honestly, why SHOULD I believe in the possibility of things being decided for me? I feel like I'm deciding things, and I have no evidence or experiences to suggest that I do NOT have free will, so to think that I am not blessed with such a dignity is just silly.

~D-Draw

Not everyone contemplates free will though. Only those exposed to such a subject might contemplate it. Im pretty such the vast majority of the world's population does not even comtemplate what it is or to it's fullest extent.

I meant the fact that I am ABLE to contemplate it suggests greatly that I do have the possibility to think for myself.

~D-Draw

No its not my son....the defination of free will is pretty text book, I don't see how it can be defined any other way.

To think/reflect mate does not reflect free will

Edmunds...think about what you're saying here....

"It's a question of what you determine is free will then, and much less about whether or not we have free will."

Very contradictory

Edmunds...think about what you're saying here....

"It's a question of what you determine is free will then, and much less about whether or not we have free will."

Very contradictory

No, it makes perfect sense. If you define free will one way, we have it, if you define it another way, we don't. You may assert that the definition is 'pretty textbook', but the fact remains that philosophers have argued for centuries over what actually constitutes free will, and we still don't have any sort of definite answer.