Free Will and Determinism

[finchfeeder]

I think that is a desparate attempt trying to marry Determinism and Morality. U said "Determinism doesn't mean you have to let things happen..." and try to make the individual "responsible", but if whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter? The existance of one's "ABILITY" TO CHOOSE is a metaphysical given and the only variable for the existance of RIGHT and WRONG.

No, an "ability" is something you "can" do, and what you can do is not necessarily identical to what you "will" do. In fact, abilities have no necessary connection with reality whatsoever, and is thus not, a metaphysical given. For it to be a metaphysical given it must be a necessary principle of "reality", not our "predictions" of reality, for that is the role of epistemology, not metaphysics. Reality is by its very nature mysterious. Determinism revolves around merely what does, will, and has happened, it is a necessary principle of reality, but it says nothing about what "can" happen or "might" have happened, those are not principles of reality, they are principles of our speculation of reality, and they are thus not metaphysical terms they are epistemological terms. Just because a coin "might" land on tails doesn't mean it "will", and just because it landed on heads rather than tails doesn't mean it landed on heads for no reason, there was a reason it landed on heads and not tails, we just don't know what it is. The fact that we don't know something, doesn't mean it isn't real. It is important to separate epistemology from metaphysics on this issue.

As for ethics, abilities are not the only variable for the existence of right and wrong. If I "can" do something but didn't, then why should I be held responsibile for a crime that I did not commit? Reality also, is a factor. To be held accountable you must not only have an ability, but exercise it also. The fact that it was never going to happen differently is completely irrelevant, because that doesn't change the fact that it happened, and is thus a problem that needs dealing with.

"If whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter?" - I think you mean "why" does it matter. The answer to this I would have thought was obvious, it matters because it HAPPENED. Why does it matter to us that we cure ANY illness? Why does it matter that we lock up those with contagious diseases? Its not the person's "fault" they have the disease but what would happen if we didn't lock them up as a result? When it comes to treating illnesses, your hardly concerned with the trivial matter of whether or not they "might" have not got the illness, its irrevelant, they have got it now and you can't change that. Fretting over whether or not things "could" have turned out differently is a complete waste of time! Deal with the probem in the here and now!

Yes. Well-said. Good Gestalt perspective. That brings us back to one's responsibility regarding the process (the here and now) not necessarily the outcome. If I choose to intervene somehow to protect someone from a gang rape, for instance, I am responsible for that choice. However, regardless of whether my intervention is successful or not, I am ultimately not responsible for the outcome, only the process (my choices). One could argue that my choice is an outcome but that leads us down a slippery, very impractical, and dangerous slope where no one is ultimately responsible for their actions. Wouldn't that be a lovely society? Not.

[Dawoel]

I might perhaps coin the term "responsibile duality", in that there are two types of responsibility. First, there is responsibility for your future actions. In this sense responsibility is a verb "to act responsibly", or is that an adverb? Whichever! Anyway the point is, this kind of responsibility is a psychological motivation, to be predisposed (and thus maybe cause) an avoidance of immoral behaviour, now success here is not guaranteed, but the predispostion is factored into the causal equation and thus often stands a good chance causing success in this endevour. Yes it sometimes fails, and it was always going to fail, but, now that the event is in the past, then the nature of the responsibility changes into the 2nd type.

The second is responsibility for your past actions, which is slightly different. The future is mysterious but the past is significantly less so, we actually "know" what happened, we remember. The past is less mysterious than the future because our memories take us back not forward, and so we have more evidence to work with. When dealing with your pst actions, the knowledge that it could have happened differently becomes totally irrevelvant, because regardless, it happened, and so that does not solve any problems. So "taking responsibility", (here responsibility is now used a noun and not a verb) is about solving the problem. If you failed your "future responsibility" then you must now deal with the problems that is your "past responsbility", either by learning your mistake, giving back what you took from your victim or merely giving something back in place of what you took. Ultimately, attoning for what you have done, and using it as a learning experiance. If you can learn from others' mistakes that's great, but it is inevitable that in your life, you will make mistakes, you will occationally fail your "future responsibility" and be required to solve the problems caused by your past actions, there is no avoiding this!

[melkam]

I think that is a desparate attempt trying to marry Determinism and Morality. U said "Determinism doesn't mean you have to let things happen..." and try to make the individual "responsible", but if whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter? The existance of one's "ABILITY" TO CHOOSE is a metaphysical given and the only variable for the existance of RIGHT and WRONG.

No, an "ability" is something you "can" do, and what you can do is not necessarily identical to what you "will" do. In fact, abilities have no necessary connection with reality whatsoever, and is thus not, a metaphysical given. For it to be a metaphysical given it must be a necessary principle of "reality", not our "predictions" of reality, for that is the role of epistemology, not metaphysics. Reality is by its very nature mysterious. Determinism revolves around merely what does, will, and has happened, it is a necessary principle of reality, but it says nothing about what "can" happen or "might" have happened, those are not principles of reality, they are principles of our speculation of reality, and they are thus not metaphysical terms they are epistemological terms. Just because a coin "might" land on tails doesn't mean it "will", and just because it landed on heads rather than tails doesn't mean it landed on heads for no reason, there was a reason it landed on heads and not tails, we just don't know what it is. The fact that we don't know something, doesn't mean it isn't real. It is important to separate epistemology from metaphysics on this issue.

As for ethics, abilities are not the only variable for the existence of right and wrong. If I "can" do something but didn't, then why should I be held responsibile for a crime that I did not commit? Reality also, is a factor. To be held accountable you must not only have an ability, but exercise it also. The fact that it was never going to happen differently is completely irrelevant, because that doesn't change the fact that it happened, and is thus a problem that needs dealing with.

"If whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter?" - I think you mean "why" does it matter. The answer to this I would have thought was obvious, it matters because it HAPPENED. Why does it matter to us that we cure ANY illness? Why does it matter that we lock up those with contagious diseases? Its not the person's "fault" they have the disease but what would happen if we didn't lock them up as a result? When it comes to treating illnesses, your hardly concerned with the trivial matter of whether or not they "might" have not got the illness, its irrevelant, they have got it now and you can't change that. Fretting over whether or not things "could" have turned out differently is a complete waste of time! Deal with the probem in the here and now!

I am claiming the ability of a Human Being to choose b/n different possiblities of action is a naturally existing fact. "A man can choose" is a similar claim with "Gravity pulls". They are both Metaphysically given.

Why is ethics works for human beings and not for animals? Nobody ethically evaluate the action of an animal and pronounces as right or wrong because an animal DONOT have the ability to (at least consciouslly )choose its actions from range of possible actions. The fact that man could have acted diferently is the only thing what makes him responsible for his actions. If he doesn't have choice or control over his actions how can he be different from other animals(in the realm of ethics)?

[jiohdi]

I think that is a desparate attempt trying to marry Determinism and Morality. U said "Determinism doesn't mean you have to let things happen..." and try to make the individual "responsible", but if whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter? The existance of one's "ABILITY" TO CHOOSE is a metaphysical given and the only variable for the existance of RIGHT and WRONG.

No, an "ability" is something you "can" do, and what you can do is not necessarily identical to what you "will" do. In fact, abilities have no necessary connection with reality whatsoever, and is thus not, a metaphysical given. For it to be a metaphysical given it must be a necessary principle of "reality", not our "predictions" of reality, for that is the role of epistemology, not metaphysics. Reality is by its very nature mysterious. Determinism revolves around merely what does, will, and has happened, it is a necessary principle of reality, but it says nothing about what "can" happen or "might" have happened, those are not principles of reality, they are principles of our speculation of reality, and they are thus not metaphysical terms they are epistemological terms. Just because a coin "might" land on tails doesn't mean it "will", and just because it landed on heads rather than tails doesn't mean it landed on heads for no reason, there was a reason it landed on heads and not tails, we just don't know what it is. The fact that we don't know something, doesn't mean it isn't real. It is important to separate epistemology from metaphysics on this issue.

As for ethics, abilities are not the only variable for the existence of right and wrong. If I "can" do something but didn't, then why should I be held responsibile for a crime that I did not commit? Reality also, is a factor. To be held accountable you must not only have an ability, but exercise it also. The fact that it was never going to happen differently is completely irrelevant, because that doesn't change the fact that it happened, and is thus a problem that needs dealing with.

"If whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter?" - I think you mean "why" does it matter. The answer to this I would have thought was obvious, it matters because it HAPPENED. Why does it matter to us that we cure ANY illness? Why does it matter that we lock up those with contagious diseases? Its not the person's "fault" they have the disease but what would happen if we didn't lock them up as a result? When it comes to treating illnesses, your hardly concerned with the trivial matter of whether or not they "might" have not got the illness, its irrevelant, they have got it now and you can't change that. Fretting over whether or not things "could" have turned out differently is a complete waste of time! Deal with the probem in the here and now!

I am claiming the ability of a Human Being to choose b/n different possiblities of action is a naturally existing fact. "A man can choose" is a similar claim with "Gravity pulls". They are both Metaphysically given.

Why is ethics works for human beings and not for animals? Nobody ethically evaluate the action of an animal and pronounces as right or wrong because an animal DONOT have the ability to (at least consciouslly )choose its actions from range of possible actions. The fact that man could have acted diferently is the only thing what makes him responsible for his actions. If he doesn't have choice or control over his actions how can he be different from other animals(in the realm of ethics)?

perhaps ethics is just a programming short hand for evaluating whether to reward or punish others based on ones own goals and objectives. It really has nothing to do with abilities to choose, but rather with how it harms or helps ones own ideals. I don't care if you are a robot or a godlike being with magical powers, if you violate my goals, I will attempt to undo what you have done... and that means hold you accountable for what you did, even if you could not help yourself... I identify you as a source of my frustration which must be handled.

[melkam]

perhaps ethics is just a programming short hand for evaluating whether to reward or punish others based on ones own goals and objectives. It really has nothing to do with abilities to choose, but rather with how it harms or helps ones own ideals. I don't care if you are a robot or a godlike being with magical powers, if you violate my goals, I will attempt to undo what you have done... and that means hold you accountable for what you did, even if you could not help yourself... I identify you as a source of my frustration which must be handled.

Nature could also be on ur way to achieve your goals and objectives. But u will not evaluate Nature as Evil and try to "punish" it unless u are a superstitious person. But u will try to "punish" a person who is on the way coz by punishing a person u can affect his "free" will or other persons "free" wills in the future. .

Nature is just "is" . It cannot RIGHT or WRONG (VIRTUE or EVIL)coz it doesn't have choice. But Man's action can be RIGHT or WRONG(VIRUE or EVIL) coz Man has got choice to make.

[finchfeeder]

I think that is a desparate attempt trying to marry Determinism and Morality. U said "Determinism doesn't mean you have to let things happen..." and try to make the individual "responsible", but if whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter? The existance of one's "ABILITY" TO CHOOSE is a metaphysical given and the only variable for the existance of RIGHT and WRONG.

No, an "ability" is something you "can" do, and what you can do is not necessarily identical to what you "will" do. In fact, abilities have no necessary connection with reality whatsoever, and is thus not, a metaphysical given. For it to be a metaphysical given it must be a necessary principle of "reality", not our "predictions" of reality, for that is the role of epistemology, not metaphysics. Reality is by its very nature mysterious. Determinism revolves around merely what does, will, and has happened, it is a necessary principle of reality, but it says nothing about what "can" happen or "might" have happened, those are not principles of reality, they are principles of our speculation of reality, and they are thus not metaphysical terms they are epistemological terms. Just because a coin "might" land on tails doesn't mean it "will", and just because it landed on heads rather than tails doesn't mean it landed on heads for no reason, there was a reason it landed on heads and not tails, we just don't know what it is. The fact that we don't know something, doesn't mean it isn't real. It is important to separate epistemology from metaphysics on this issue.

As for ethics, abilities are not the only variable for the existence of right and wrong. If I "can" do something but didn't, then why should I be held responsibile for a crime that I did not commit? Reality also, is a factor. To be held accountable you must not only have an ability, but exercise it also. The fact that it was never going to happen differently is completely irrelevant, because that doesn't change the fact that it happened, and is thus a problem that needs dealing with.

"If whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter?" - I think you mean "why" does it matter. The answer to this I would have thought was obvious, it matters because it HAPPENED. Why does it matter to us that we cure ANY illness? Why does it matter that we lock up those with contagious diseases? Its not the person's "fault" they have the disease but what would happen if we didn't lock them up as a result? When it comes to treating illnesses, your hardly concerned with the trivial matter of whether or not they "might" have not got the illness, its irrevelant, they have got it now and you can't change that. Fretting over whether or not things "could" have turned out differently is a complete waste of time! Deal with the probem in the here and now!

I am claiming the ability of a Human Being to choose b/n different possiblities of action is a naturally existing fact. "A man can choose" is a similar claim with "Gravity pulls". They are both Metaphysically given.

Why is ethics works for human beings and not for animals? Nobody ethically evaluate the action of an animal and pronounces as right or wrong because an animal DONOT have the ability to (at least consciouslly )choose its actions from range of possible actions. The fact that man could have acted diferently is the only thing what makes him responsible for his actions. If he doesn't have choice or control over his actions how can he be different from other animals(in the realm of ethics)?

Maybe determinism is naturally existing, as well (and the umbrella under which we all live). In other words, maybe it's a natural consequence of individual choices. I think the previous example of the human committing suicide by throwing himself off the ridge (say 3000 years ago) . . . and the ramifications of his behavior on future generations is a good example. His life-ending choice not only terminated his own existence (free will/personal responsibility) but also that of his (once-potential) offspring, which, in turn, has an affect not only on the immediate family tree but also associated genelogies (determinism). Ultimately, we are a product of historical events . . . all the way back to the beginning.

[IanRaugh]

I think that is a desparate attempt trying to marry Determinism and Morality. U said "Determinism doesn't mean you have to let things happen..." and try to make the individual "responsible", but if whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter? The existance of one's "ABILITY" TO CHOOSE is a metaphysical given and the only variable for the existance of RIGHT and WRONG.

No, an "ability" is something you "can" do, and what you can do is not necessarily identical to what you "will" do. In fact, abilities have no necessary connection with reality whatsoever, and is thus not, a metaphysical given. For it to be a metaphysical given it must be a necessary principle of "reality", not our "predictions" of reality, for that is the role of epistemology, not metaphysics. Reality is by its very nature mysterious. Determinism revolves around merely what does, will, and has happened, it is a necessary principle of reality, but it says nothing about what "can" happen or "might" have happened, those are not principles of reality, they are principles of our speculation of reality, and they are thus not metaphysical terms they are epistemological terms. Just because a coin "might" land on tails doesn't mean it "will", and just because it landed on heads rather than tails doesn't mean it landed on heads for no reason, there was a reason it landed on heads and not tails, we just don't know what it is. The fact that we don't know something, doesn't mean it isn't real. It is important to separate epistemology from metaphysics on this issue.

As for ethics, abilities are not the only variable for the existence of right and wrong. If I "can" do something but didn't, then why should I be held responsibile for a crime that I did not commit? Reality also, is a factor. To be held accountable you must not only have an ability, but exercise it also. The fact that it was never going to happen differently is completely irrelevant, because that doesn't change the fact that it happened, and is thus a problem that needs dealing with.

"If whether u have to let things happen or not is already determined how does it matter?" - I think you mean "why" does it matter. The answer to this I would have thought was obvious, it matters because it HAPPENED. Why does it matter to us that we cure ANY illness? Why does it matter that we lock up those with contagious diseases? Its not the person's "fault" they have the disease but what would happen if we didn't lock them up as a result? When it comes to treating illnesses, your hardly concerned with the trivial matter of whether or not they "might" have not got the illness, its irrevelant, they have got it now and you can't change that. Fretting over whether or not things "could" have turned out differently is a complete waste of time! Deal with the probem in the here and now!

I am claiming the ability of a Human Being to choose b/n different possiblities of action is a naturally existing fact. "A man can choose" is a similar claim with "Gravity pulls". They are both Metaphysically given.

Why is ethics works for human beings and not for animals? Nobody ethically evaluate the action of an animal and pronounces as right or wrong because an animal DONOT have the ability to (at least consciouslly )choose its actions from range of possible actions. The fact that man could have acted diferently is the only thing what makes him responsible for his actions. If he doesn't have choice or control over his actions how can he be different from other animals(in the realm of ethics)?

Maybe determinism is naturally existing, as well (and the umbrella under which we all live). In other words, maybe it's a natural consequence of individual choices. I think the previous example of the human committing suicide by throwing himself off the ridge (say 3000 years ago) . . . and the ramifications of his behavior on future generations is a good example. His life-ending choice not only terminated his own existence (free will/personal responsibility) but also that of his (once-potential) offspring, which, in turn, has an affect not only on the immediate family tree but also associated genelogies (determinism). Ultimately, we are a product of historical events . . . all the way back to the beginning.

My thoughts exactly. Determinism (as I understand it) does not mean we have no choice, but rather that our choices are the inevitable products of that which came before. Mechanistic and behavioural determinism at work, just look at the concepts of nature and nurture in psychology.

[finchfeeder]

Maybe determinism is naturally existing, as well (and the umbrella under which we all live). In other words, maybe it's a natural consequence of individual choices. I think the previous example of the human committing suicide by throwing himself off the ridge (say 3000 years ago) . . . and the ramifications of his behavior on future generations is a good example. His life-ending choice not only terminated his own existence (free will/personal responsibility) but also that of his (once-potential) offspring, which, in turn, has an affect not only on the immediate family tree but also associated genelogies (determinism). Ultimately, we are a product of historical events . . . all the way back to the beginning.

My thoughts exactly. Determinism (as I understand it) does not mean we have no choice, but rather that our choices are the inevitable products of that which came before. Mechanistic and behavioural determinism at work, just look at the concepts of nature and nurture in psychology.

Yes. Well-said. Over the decades, the nature-nurture debate within psychology has (mostly) concluded that both exist and interact with each other to various degrees to produce one's personality. There's a theory within psychology that's called Developmental Contextualism that basically proports the concept that our personality retains its plasticity throughout our entire lifespan due to our interactions with environment (nurture), yet, those interactions are strongly influenced by our genetic predisposition (nature).

[melkam]

Maybe determinism is naturally existing, as well (and the umbrella under which we all live). In other words, maybe it's a natural consequence of individual choices. I think the previous example of the human committing suicide by throwing himself off the ridge (say 3000 years ago) . . . and the ramifications of his behavior on future generations is a good example. His life-ending choice not only terminated his own existence (free will/personal responsibility) but also that of his (once-potential) offspring, which, in turn, has an affect not only on the immediate family tree but also associated genelogies (determinism). Ultimately, we are a product of historical events . . . all the way back to the beginning.

My thoughts exactly. Determinism (as I understand it) does not mean we have no choice, but rather that our choices are the inevitable products of that which came before. Mechanistic and behavioural determinism at work, just look at the concepts of nature and nurture in psychology.

Yes. Well-said. Over the decades, the nature-nurture debate within psychology has (mostly) concluded that both exist and interact with each other to various degrees to produce one's personality. There's a theory within psychology that's called Developmental Contextualism that basically proports the concept that our personality retains its plasticity throughout our entire lifespan due to our interactions with environment (nurture), yet, those interactions are strongly influenced by our genetic predisposition (nature).

As a proponent of Free Will, I never claimed Man has Unlimited choice in every situation. Ofcourse his choices are limited by Circumstances, Natutral laws, Historical events, Nature and Nurture as u have argued. But the question is do these all factors have determined his choices completly? the answer is NO! No, because that is not I am actually witnessing in my daily life. No, because that is the only essence that makes him a Human Being. I agree with the defination of a man as "THINKING ANIMAL". But what is the purpose of his thinking if he doesn't have to make the real choices as a result of his thinking.... or the choices are already chosen for him? (The very word CHOICE looses its meaning if there is no individual to choose "freely". The act of choosing would be superficial in the determinists point of view, as the actual choice is made by the existing "causes" rather than the individual.)

[melkam]

"Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will." Nehru. I just read this quote of Nehru which said it well for me. The Cards I got include all the circumistances which I don't have in control(including Nature and Nurture which could shape my personal behaviour) but I still got the free will to play the cards.

[chrisw]

"Life is like a game of cards. The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will." Nehru. I just read this quote of Nehru which said it well for me. The Cards I got include all the circumistances which I don't have in control(including Nature and Nurture which could shape my personal behaviour) but I still got the free will to play the cards.

If determinism is true then this is just wrong.

In a deterministic universe every physical event is determined. This includes your every movement, word and gesture and every electrical impulse in your brain. The physical world would be a closed system, all physical events having physical causes and wth no room for any other sort of cause. Determinism means that physical events are completely determined by physical causes. For any kind of absolute free will of the kind you envisage you need some kind of indeterminacy.

[melkam]

Any argument in favour of hard determinism is SELF CONTRADICTORY as it takes the arguer to expect his opponent to use his "free will" and judge the argument reasonablly and accept his view. Anybody who argues and expects to convince others in favour of determinism refutes his own argument by the act of trying to convince others( as being convinced after hearing a reasonable argument takes a free will). An otherwise Determinist should keep quiet as things are casually determined and his arguer's don't have the free will to decide reasonably.

[IanRaugh]

Any argument in favour of hard determinism is SELF CONTRADICTORY as it takes the proponent to expect his opponent to use his "free will" and judge the argument reasonablly and accept his view. Anybody who argues and expects to convince others in favour of determinism refutes his own argument by the act of trying to convince others, as being convinced after hearing a reasonable argument takes a free will. An otherwise Determinist should keep quiet as things are casually determined and his arguer's don't have the free will to decide reasonably.

One of us seems to harbour a great misunderstanding of determinism, and if it is me then we need a new term.

Determinism does not prevent one from changing one's mind as a result of a persuasive argument. Rather, changing one's mind is an example of determinism in action. All the events of your past, including the discussion which persuaded you to change, mixed with your biology lead inexorably to you changing your mind. It is not that you have no choice, but rather that the term 'choice' has no meaning in a deterministic system. Determinism is about results, what actions have what causes, not what the options for actions are. If this argument is such that, when coupled with your biology and past experience, it would persuade you, then it will, without fail. You have no choice in the matter, the only option is to be persuaded by the argument.

As a proponent of Free Will, I never claimed Man has Unlimited choice in every situation. Ofcourse his choices are limited by Circumstances, Natutral laws, Historical events, Nature and Nurture as u have argued. But the question is do these all factors have determined his choices completly? the answer is NO! No, because that is not I am actually witnessing in my daily life. No, because that is the only essence that makes him a Human Being. I agree with the defination of a man as "THINKING ANIMAL". But what is the purpose of his thinking if he doesn't have to make the real choices as a result of his thinking.... or the choices are already chosen for him? (The very word CHOICE looses its meaning if there is no individual to choose "freely". The act of choosing would be superficial in the determinists point of view, as the actual choice is made by the existing "causes" rather than the individual.)

Not to sound rude, but anecdotal accounts of what you are "actually witnessing" in your "daily life" are hardly appropriate or relevant to a rigorous discussion. If I were to say I actually witness determinism in my daily life I would not add anything useful to the discussion. I would not be bringing forward any evidence or any necessary component, I would be spouting irrelevancies. You don't see the speed of light or nuclear fission in your daily life, now do you?

Let me perhaps toss you a bone (which chrisw came close to mentioning outright) which would persuade, at least me, that determinism was not true. It would require the brain (or the mind, let's be fair) to do something which was completely independent of prior events. If the chain of physical causation was broken, if a single brain state or mental action was independent of those which came before it, determinism would be shown false. The problem comes from demonstrating such.

Any other thoughts on what would demonstrate free will to exist or show that determinism is false?

[chrisw]

Any argument in favour of hard determinism is SELF CONTRADICTORY as it takes the arguer to expect his opponent to use his "free will" and judge the argument reasonablly and accept his view. Anybody who argues and expects to convince others in favour of determinism refutes his own argument by the act of trying to convince others( as being convinced after hearing a reasonable argument takes a free will). An otherwise Determinist should keep quiet as things are casually determined and his arguer's don't have the free will to decide reasonably.

Firstly, I'm glad to see you have now accepted the standard definition of determinism. Disbelieving in determinism is one thing, redefining it into something more congenial to your viewpoint is something else and only causes confusion.

But your self-refutation agument doesn't work. Of course a believer in determinism doesn't expect the person he is arguing with to use his (non-existent) libertarian free will in responding. He expects him to respond as he must respond and he knows that his own response will be what it must be. But none of us can know in advance what these responses are (that would cause paradoxes of self reference, for one thing) so none of our actions have the feeling of being determined. An omniscient observer, of course, would see everything proceeding exactly the way he expected it to. But we don't have this omniscient perspective.

Also there is no obvious connection between free will and rationality. In fact it is more accurate to say we are "compelled" to accept rational arguments when we recognise them. And of course an apropriately programmed computer could participate in an argument (though writing such a program is curently beyond our abilities and may always be there seems to be no reason to think that programs that simulate such behaviour would be a logical impossibility). There would be nothing paradoxical or ridiculous about having a philosophical debate with an intelligent computer. But computers are paradigm examples of deterministic machines.

Hard determnists accept that we have the feeling of freely choosing many of our actions (it is open to debate whether the computer in the above example would have these or indeed any feelings). But they think that this feeling is an illusion and that our actions are really just as determined as the actions of a computer would be.

[finchfeeder]

Maybe determinism is naturally existing, as well (and the umbrella under which we all live). In other words, maybe it's a natural consequence of individual choices. I think the previous example of the human committing suicide by throwing himself off the ridge (say 3000 years ago) . . . and the ramifications of his behavior on future generations is a good example. His life-ending choice not only terminated his own existence (free will/personal responsibility) but also that of his (once-potential) offspring, which, in turn, has an affect not only on the immediate family tree but also associated genelogies (determinism). Ultimately, we are a product of historical events . . . all the way back to the beginning.

My thoughts exactly. Determinism (as I understand it) does not mean we have no choice, but rather that our choices are the inevitable products of that which came before. Mechanistic and behavioural determinism at work, just look at the concepts of nature and nurture in psychology.

Yes. Well-said. Over the decades, the nature-nurture debate within psychology has (mostly) concluded that both exist and interact with each other to various degrees to produce one's personality. There's a theory within psychology that's called Developmental Contextualism that basically proports the concept that our personality retains its plasticity throughout our entire lifespan due to our interactions with environment (nurture), yet, those interactions are strongly influenced by our genetic predisposition (nature).

As a proponent of Free Will, I never claimed Man has Unlimited choice in every situation. Ofcourse his choices are limited by Circumstances, Natutral laws, Historical events, Nature and Nurture as u have argued.

We agree: Various factors limit human choice.

But the question is do these all factors have determined his choices completly? the answer is NO! No, because that is not I am actually witnessing in my daily life. No, because that is the only essence that makes him a Human Being.

We don't agree: For example, a woman commits suicide by tossing herself in front of a commuter train. On one hand, you could say that she exercised choice. On the other, by using your list of "limitations," you could consider this hypothetical scenerio: Husband left her for another woman (circumstances); gravity negated her second thoughts as her feet left the the train platform (natural laws); commuter traffic disallowed her enough time to evaluate her decision (historical events); and parental modelling promoted negativity and suicidality (nature-nurture).

I agree with the defination of a man as "THINKING ANIMAL". But what is the purpose of his thinking if he doesn't have to make the real choices as a result of his thinking.... or the choices are already chosen for him? (The very word CHOICE looses its meaning if there is no individual to choose "freely". The act of choosing would be superficial in the determinists point of view, as the actual choice is made by the existing "causes" rather than the individual.)

Not really: Bottom line involves community well-being.

[Thommo]

I took a prolonged break from this thread due to being stuck in a pointless off topic exchange that was going nowhere, seems I have missed some interesting contributions, including a discussion of the logically impossible and thus disprovable “Laplace’s demon”.

We don't agree: For example, a woman commits suicide by tossing herself in front of a commuter train. On one hand, you could say that she exercised choice. On the other, by using your list of "limitations," you could consider this hypothetical scenerio: Husband left her for another woman (circumstances); gravity negated her second thoughts as her feet left the the train platform (natural laws); commuter traffic disallowed her enough time to evaluate her decision (historical events); and parental modelling promoted negativity and suicidality (nature-nurture).

Up to the point of the decision these factors do not determine whether the woman decides to kill herself or not. If determinism is true then the list of determining factors can be drawn up for all human decisions, and hence for this one. However, we both know that human knowledge is not currently sufficient (and possibly never will be) to draw up such a list, meaning this argument supports neither determinist viewpoints or free will ones.

Let me perhaps toss you a bone (which chrisw came close to mentioning outright) which would persuade, at least me, that determinism was not true. It would require the brain (or the mind, let's be fair) to do something which was completely independent of prior events. If the chain of physical causation was broken, if a single brain state or mental action was independent of those which came before it, determinism would be shown false. The problem comes from demonstrating such.

Whilst this would demonstrate that determinism is false, it is actually overkill. Since determinism is the view that everything is determined by prior events it is sufficient to show a single event which cannot be entirely determined by prior events - this stronger condition of an event which is completely independent of prior events is overkill (and as it happens, impossible for a human due to the causality chain involved in ones existence in the first place, as I alluded to pages back with the concept of someone choosing to kill themself as recently as perhaps just 5,000 years ago).

[IanRaugh]

Thommo just brought up an interesting point I want to highlight.

Even if determinism is true (although I think it is, that is not the point of this post), we may not be able to identify every cause of a given event. We are not omnipotent, there is always the possibility of some knowledge evading us. As this is the case, there is always going to be an explanatory gap in which free will could exist. If free will of the gaps is a policy which should be followed is a different matter entirely.

I would say that we can apply determinism to predict events, even ones such as human behaviour, but there still exists enough room that free will is not impossible.

[Thommo]

I would say that we can apply determinism to predict events, even ones such as human behaviour, but there still exists enough room that free will is not impossible.

I agree, clearly some behaviours can be determined (like people falling after they step off cliffs, or much less obvious things like people's inability to choose a random number between 1 and 10). The question is how far does this extend? Is it theoretically possible to predict ALL human decision making, up to an arbitrary degree of precision? I suspect the answer is no, based on current scientific knowledge - but this neither refutes nor affirms determinism.

Some interesting challenges were made to free will back on page 2 by Frohicky and Brianman - even if determinism is not true, can we really call the alternative free will? Certainly if such a thing as a "free decision" or "free will" exist according to this mechanism it is clear that it cannot be unique to humans - the religious notion that man is a special creature by virtue of his free will is obviously bogus and humano-centric.

[Mr.Samsa]

I would say that we can apply determinism to predict events, even ones such as human behaviour, but there still exists enough room that free will is not impossible.

I agree, clearly some behaviours can be determined (like people falling after they step off cliffs, or much less obvious things like people's inability to choose a random number between 1 and 10). The question is how far does this extend? Is it theoretically possible to predict ALL human decision making, up to an arbitrary degree of precision? I suspect the answer is no, based on current scientific knowledge - but this neither refutes nor affirms determinism.

The science of human decision making is actually pretty advanced, and in controlled lab settings we can predict human choice between 96-100% of the time. Even in non-controlled settings such as conversation at a dinner table, or the behavior of athletes, we understand their behavior well enough to be able to make predictions and control their behavior using pretty simple equations.

[Thommo]

The science of human decision making is actually pretty advanced, and in controlled lab settings we can predict human choice between 96-100% of the time. Even in non-controlled settings such as conversation at a dinner table, or the behavior of athletes, we understand their behavior well enough to be able to make predictions and control their behavior using pretty simple equations.

That's a pretty broad claim. For determinism to be true you would have to be able to forecast ALL human behaviours, not a limited set in very controlled circumstances.

99% wouldn't cut it. Not even 99% accuracy in ALL circumstances. I know beyond reasonable doubt that I can think of a number and write it on a piece of paper that you will not guess even given 100,000 attempts.

If you have links to the sort of circumstances and predictions that can be made to the degree of accuracy you are claiming I would love to see them, the topic is fascinating in it's own right.

[Mr.Samsa]

The science of human decision making is actually pretty advanced, and in controlled lab settings we can predict human choice between 96-100% of the time. Even in non-controlled settings such as conversation at a dinner table, or the behavior of athletes, we understand their behavior well enough to be able to make predictions and control their behavior using pretty simple equations.

That's a pretty broad claim. For determinism to be true you would have to be able to forecast ALL human behaviours, not a limited set in very controlled circumstances.

99% wouldn't cut it. Not even 99% accuracy in ALL circumstances. I know beyond reasonable doubt that I can think of a number and write it on a piece of paper that you will not guess even given 100,000 attempts.

If you have links to the sort of circumstances and predictions that can be made to the degree of accuracy you are claiming I would love to see them, the topic is fascinating in it's own right.

Yeah I meant to add that I agree with the last point of your post earlier, that this would still not prove that determinism was true. I just thought you might be interested in the current state of choice research.

This paper compares the two major theories of choice behavior - the generalised matching law and the contingency discriminability model. The paper is specifically set up to try to distinguish the two, but the choices were predicted between 93-100%.

You'll probably note that this experiment was done with pigeons, and most of them are but this is because no consistent differences have been found between human and non-human choice. Most experiments are also set up in very simple designs - usually choosing between a left button and a right button. It has been successfully applied to uncontrolled settings though. If you wanted specific information on these same results in humans then I can try to find it for you, but I won't be able to until tomorrow afternoon..

[Thommo]

No need to go to any trouble! I'll read over what you've given here. Thanks for the link, looks interesting.

[Mr.Samsa]

No need to go to any trouble! I'll read over what you've given here. Thanks for the link, looks interesting.

No problem. I really need to make a template or something, instead of searching and linking for each paper every time someone talks about choice research..

The Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, and Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are both freely available online so you should have a browse through whenever you can. The wikipedia page on the matching law isn't too bad either, except the last paragraph is full of factual errors based on a poorly performed literature review from the early 1990s (where it states the matching law has not been successfully applied to humans).

[Thommo]

Thanks again, that should be enough information to go on to find what you're talking about without you wasting time doing the looking up for me!

[Mr.Samsa]

Thanks again, that should be enough information to go on to find what you're talking about without you wasting time doing the looking up for me!

I hope you enjoy it

Feel free to ask questions about it, or PM me if it's offtopic. It's a particular obsession of mine, so I don't mind...