Interesting article on free will vs. determinism...

Kelric · Post by **Kelric** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:05 am

milo wrote:
Kelric wrote:
<entire thread>
My brain hurts.
Not possible. There are no pain receptors in brain tissue.

No free will and now no brain pain?! Oh, the humanity! When will it all end?!

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:39 am

This definition of free will is pretty silly.

Them's fighting words...

Would you say that you might mean this:

Free will requires that there is a non-physical cause that is determining your action.

No.

My contention is that regardless of whether the cause is physical or non-physical, your response is caused. If it's caused, it's predictable and thus cannot be an expression of free will. It's an example of the mechanical response of a system to a set of inputs. The complexity of the system is irrelevant.

For you to be able to express TRUE free will (and not the illusory free will that I'm talking about), you would need to be able to form a response that was in contradiction to ALL of the causes that would have dictated some other response.

TMH would have to not bitch-slap Smoove_B for some UNCAUSED reason, because if he did it for some collection of CAUSED reasons (even complex ones), then I'm right.

He's just a complex machine.

Because the first thing, an "uncaused" agent, would simply mean random, no?

In a way, yes. But Free Will adherents would have to postulate and uncaused rational free agent. At least to get around my contention that caused responses are predicatible mechanical responses of a complex system. (edit: of course, most of them do, inventing the notion of a 'soul'.)

I disagree however, that free will requires an non-physical agent. I think it merely requires a certain level of complexity.

That's silly.

I'm willing to maintain that it's more than the sum of it's parts until someone can prove me otherwise.

Cuz it feels that way. And I'm stubborn.

That's cool. I'll just have to toss you in the intellectual hopper of people that believe odd things without any justifcation for such a belief, nor any evidence at all that their belief is reality. Even in the face of limited evidence to the contrary.

I think the problem is that humans have built up such an arrogant opinion of ourselves, that we recoil in horror that we are animals or just moving sacks of chemicals. We don't want to believe, so we don't.

But perhaps that arrogance hides the truth from us?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:02 am

Free will requires that there is a non-physical cause that is determining your action.

Close. As a proponent of free will, we would believe that there are up to three possibilities. 1) Everything is part of an ongoing causal chain 2) There are multiple first causes that are not random 3) There are random first causes. Randomness is not necessary for or exclusive from free will.

That's cool. I'll just have to toss you in the intellectual hopper of people that believe odd things without any justifcation for such a belief, nor any evidence at all that their belief is reality. Even in the face of limited evidence to the contrary.

I think if you were pressed in your beliefs long enough that you'd find that everyone, including you, fits into this hopper. Everyone has faith. It is just a question of your faith in what. For instance, if we had several hours to sit and talk about determinism in all of it's nicely fitting into science splendor and had you examine why the sack of chemicals called RM9 makes an effort to do much of anything in a universe without meaning then I think you would find yourself with some odd beliefs as well. That or you would make a sociopath look like a model citizen.

Edit:

I almost forget... The spirtualcenteric conceit that humans hold really is part of who we are. It's part of what it means to think. It's part of what really does seperate us from the rest of the animals.

Man, I wish I could sit down and give the board a lot of time in one chunk. This is the sort of mental masturbation that can begin a converation at noon and then make you kick yourself to go to bed as the sun is coming up.

Philosophy is the disease for which it ought to be the cure.
-Ludwig Wittegenstien

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:11 am

If it's caused, it's predictable and thus cannot be an expression of free will.

But, as I see it, and I think you agree, Rm9, that definition of free will is untenable. It's non-sensical.

I'm not sure when I became a "compatibilist." I used to rail against them. Oh well.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:53 am

But, as I see it, and I think you agree, Rm9, that definition of free will is untenable. It's non-sensical.

Not non-sensical. Simply irrational. Life, now that's non-nonsensical, or at the very least mindblowing.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:25 pm

LordMortis wrote:That or you would make a sociopath look like a model citizen.

That's where I would put my money.

LordMortis wrote:The spirtualcenteric conceit that humans hold really is part of who we are. It's part of what it means to think. It's part of what really does seperate us from the rest of the animals.

But we have no way of establishing whether or not we are alone in that endeavor, nor of knowing that such an endeavor is anything beyond what really complex sacks of chemicals do.

But I don't think you are talking about the same thing I'm talking about. You are talking about the notion where our arrogance tells us that we are animals++. I am talking about the notion that where our arrogance denies that we are mammals.

I used to think that the latter was a ridiculous fringe belief. Now I'm not so sure that it's fringe (it is still ridiculous of course

).

Maybe I'm just not all that impressed with human accomplishment, and that prevents me from staring at it in wonder, disbelieving that it could be the work of chemical blobs with opposable thumbs.

LordMortis wrote:Man, I wish I could sit down and give the board a lot of time in one chunk. This is the sort of mental masturbation that can begin a converation at noon and then make you kick yourself to go to bed as the sun is coming up.

And that's what would have happened if you had met me last week, instead of my Trent Steel alter-ego.

Bob wrote:But, as I see it, and I think you agree, Rm9, that definition of free will is untenable. It's non-sensical.

Of course. The difference is that I don't think your definition is anything close to "free will". Your definition is tenable - it's just not free will.

And let me go on record as being offended that your username is taking the name of my fake deity in vein.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:32 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:
But I don't think you are talking about the same thing I'm talking about. You are talking about the notion where our arrogance tells us that we are animals++. I am talking about the notion that where our arrogance denies that we are mammals.

I used to think that the latter was a ridiculous fringe belief. Now I'm not so sure that it's fringe (it is still ridiculous of course ).

Maybe I'm just not all that impressed with human accomplishment, and that prevents me from staring at it in wonder, disbelieving that it could be the work of chemical blobs with opposable thumbs.

Why can't we be chemical blobs with opposable thumbs, responding to basic biological needs, etc - yet still possessing a form of free will? I don't see where one precludes the other.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:41 pm

RunningMn9 wrote:But I don't think you are talking about the same thing I'm talking about. You are talking about the notion where our arrogance tells us that we are animals++. I am talking about the notion that where our arrogance denies that we are mammals.

I used to think that the latter was a ridiculous fringe belief. Now I'm not so sure that it's fringe (it is still ridiculous of course ).

Well, when the ++ gets so big that the comparison to the plebes of the animal kingdom falls flat... you get to make a new category specifically to contain our uberness, so all the lesser animals may gaze up at our glory with slack-mouthed awe. If they were even capable of experiencing "awe", that is. Likely they will continue on in their savage valueless existence non the wiser, waiting to see if we eat them or not.

It's good to be the King.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:51 pm

I am talking about the notion that where our arrogance denies that we are mammals

I don't know how many people deny that we are mammals and don't just insist we are mammals+(+?).

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:53 pm

Mr. Sparkle wrote:It's good to be the King.

Or the self-deluded jackass of the animal kingdom.

The Mad Hatter wrote:Why can't we be chemical blobs with opposable thumbs, responding to basic biological needs, etc - yet still possessing a form of free will? I don't see where one precludes the other.

We *can*. But before we commit to such a thing, it would be nice to see ANY evidence that we are more than a chemical blob. Evidence that didn't amount to "we have no fucking clue right now, so it COULD be what we secretly hope it is, 'cause that would make us the bestest animals ever".

But in the end, to possess a truly free will, to be able to act in a non-mechanical manner - we have to invent silly things to circumvent what we seem to already know (i.e. that things in our universe are caused - including our actions).

So we need rational free agents controlling the puppet strings that are capable of uncaused action within a causal universe.

I say that mockingly, but many people have proposed just such a thing to preserve their desire or belief that we are capable of exerting free will.

It *could* be true.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:54 pm

Our free will, I think, comes from our enhanced ability to overcome our instincts.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:55 pm

LordMortis wrote:I don't know how many people deny that we are mammals and don't just insist we are mammals+(+?).

I didn't think that I knew many people that denied we were mammals. I was wrong.

I know more than I am comfortable knowing. My Thanksgiving was almost ruined when my mom started talking about how evolution is "just a theory". I almost hit her in the head with a frying pan.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:04 pm

Dirt wrote:Our free will, I think, comes from our enhanced ability to overcome our instincts.

This is one of those things I wanted to talk about before. Free will has nothing to do with instincts. Free will has to do with being free to act in ANY manner at any point in time, regardless of the inputs to the system.

Beyond that - how would one know whether or not your reaction is overcoming your instincts, or simply an expression of your instincts. Even if you say "My instinct was to bitch slap Smoove_B, but I thought better of it because my Mommy taught me to not hit girls."

I'm not sure why you guys are considering everything after the "but" as "free will", rather than part of your "instincts".

Whatever it was that caused you to react however you reacted is just that. A cause. Or one of many causes that resulted in you doing what you did.

Maybe we should note that one of the more common interpretations of "free will" is that there is no external third party that is determining your actions for you, contrary to your will. In other words, Smoove_B chose to slap you because Smoove_B chose to slap you, and not because God made Smoove_B slap you.

I'm completely comfortable with that theory unless it comes with the companion theory that God is the uncaused First Cause. In which case Smoove_B's decision to slap The Mad Hatter is simply the consequence of a causal chain that goes back to the First Cause. So things get murky.

So I guess the question is this: Is a fully determined, causal universe contrary to the notion of free will if there is no external entity to the universe directing the traffic so to speak?

Or does a fully causal universe preclude free will simply because all actions are caused, and are thus subject to pre-determination with sufficient knowledge?

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:46 pm

So we need rational free agents controlling the puppet strings that are capable of uncaused action within a causal universe.

I say that mockingly, but many people have proposed just such a thing to preserve their desire or belief that we are capable of exerting free will.

Mock me all you want, but at the end of the day, you're still Smoove's bitch and aparently you don't have any choice in the matter. Only the winds will or will not let you free from living in the shadow of her existence.

Free will has to do with being free to act in ANY manner at any point in time, regardless of the inputs to the system.

Not true by necessity. All free will requires is the capacity to be a first cause influencing the ongoing causal chain. This first cause is even further out there than is the first cause of randomness, because free will is pretty much defined by it's not being randomness.

It's neither here nor there though, my little automaton friendlike object. Does Smoove in a dress excite your chemicals or have the evolved differently than that?

Quaro · Post by **Quaro** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:10 pm

You guys seem to be using a wacky sense of free-will that doesn't leave any room for consciousness if you have to obey the laws of physics. This ain't the 18th century, and I think everyone read Godel Escher Bach in the 70s.

There's nothing special about the present that makes it any different than the past or the future. If yesterday I decided to make eggs for breakfast, that was my choice. Nobody thinks that because I can't change what I ate yesterday that I don't have free-will. Future decisions work the same way.

Tomorrow I will decide upon something to have for breakfast. That decision isn't in flux because it's ahead of the 'now'. It's exactly like yesterday's breakfast. In the past I made decisions of my own will, in the future I will have the same choice and make decisions of my own will. The future doesn't play by different rules. The future doesn't have to be some kind of variable mess like the logic in a Back to the Future movie in order for people to have free will. The future is 'fixed' because it is the future -- it is what happened. If you define free will as not being beholden to time itself or something then of course you will find you never have free will, but it's a ridiculous and illogical way of defining it.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:11 pm

Mock me all you want

I wasn't mocking you. I was mocking the invocation of a "soul" to get around this problem.

Not true by necessity. All free will requires is the capacity to be a first cause influencing the ongoing causal chain.

You are describing rational uncaused causes. That's what I'm talking about. If the universe is such that a seemingly infinite number of rational uncaused causes can take place - well, we have a lot more to talk about than free will.

It's neither here nor there though, my little automaton friendlike object. Does Smoove in a dress excite your chemicals or have the evolved differently than that?

Smoove_B does *not* excite my chemicals, in a dress or otherwise.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:17 pm

Quaro wrote:If yesterday I decided to make eggs for breakfast, that was my choice. Nobody thinks that because I can't change what I ate yesterday that I don't have free-will. Future decisions work the same way.

Tomorrow I will decide upon something to have for breakfast. That decision isn't in flux because it's ahead of the 'now'. It's exactly like yesterday's breakfast. In the past I made decisions of my own will, in the future I will have the same choice and make decisions of my own will.

That presumes the definition that free will is simply that you aren't controlled by another entity.

I'm fine with that so long as there is no assumption of another entity holding responsibility for the First Cause.

But on the same token, in the past, present and future, you are simply making choices which are the culmination of causes and variables which can be predicted in advance with sufficient knowledge.

If that is still "free will" to you because you are using the "no control by external entity" definition, fine.

But I've found that most people refuse to believe that they're actions are simply the expression of the processing ability of a mobile sack of chemicals.

When I asked earlier if "free will" could exist in fully causal universe as long as there was no external agent directing traffic, you could have just said "Yes".

If that's free will to you, then you're correct.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:26 pm

Quaro, You've lost me. But don't feel bad. I'm dense.

I wasn't mocking you. I was mocking the invocation of a "soul" to get around this problem.

Tell me about why HG is a good thing again.

You are describing rational uncaused causes. That's what I'm talking about. If the universe is such that a seemingly infinite number of rational uncaused causes can take place - well, we have a lot more to talk about than free will.

Close, but if the uncaused causes were by necessity rational, they would not by uncuased causes. They would be interesting Bs in an ABC string of events.

Yes, yes we have alot more to talk about than free will. Free will is a looking glass at Metaphysics, Ontology, Cosmogony, Ethics, Aesthetics, Eptistimology, etc...

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:05 pm

Free will has to do with being free to act in ANY manner at any point in time, regardless of the inputs to the system.

See.. this is where I think it gets more complicated, because one of the inputs to the system is an output from the system. Over and over, until you come to a decision. I know, I know. A purely mechanical system is a purely mechanical system no matter who many times it recurses; but we don't KNOW that. Maybe it's magic.

And let me go on record as being offended that your username is taking the name of my fake deity in vain.

That's my real name. And may I take this moment to remind you that you haven't been fake praying to me much lately. I am Offended. Get on that or no more slack for you.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:09 pm

That's my real name. And may I take this moment to remind you that you haven't been fake praying to me much lately. I am Offended. Get on that or no more slack for you.

And now I will be afraid to go to sleep for fear of having images of RM9 on his knees before Bob(M) "fake praying."

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:33 pm

Are we going to start talking about infinity now?

What caused the First Cause?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:43 am

Mr. Sparkle wrote:Are we going to start talking about infinity now?

What caused the First Cause?

Nothing caused the first cause. If it was caused, it wouldn't be the First Cause. Duh.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:57 am

Nothing is a fascinating concept in itself. Perhaps it is just as likely to exist as God and/or Free Will and has many of the same implications and causes many of the same fears and comforts.

Mr. Sparkle · Post by **Mr. Sparkle** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:58 am

RunningMn9 wrote:
Mr. Sparkle wrote:Are we going to start talking about infinity now?

What caused the First Cause?
Nothing caused the first cause. If it was caused, it wouldn't be the First Cause. Duh.

So what happens to determinism then? We have a non-causal event that leads to a chain of purely causal happenings... does that work?

And shouldn't we call it "probabalism" anyway?