Philosophy corner IV: Determinism and Free Will

[mynameisuntz]

Determinism, free will, or something in between?

Inspired by:

Don't you believe in hard determinism? How do you reconcile treating people poorly solely because they disagree with you (which is not a conscious decision)?

The determinism question is a good one, and one I'd love to discuss at length, but I don't think this is the forum for such a discussion.

Waiting for Ian before offering my input. Let's try to keep it civil though, folks.

[LegosInMyEgos]

Here u go *******

Hard determinism is necessary if you want to entertain empirical scientific advancement. To argue against hard determinism is essentially to argue against the validity of the scientific method.

The only way in which hard determinism could be "wrong" is if somehow the universe isn't subject to a strict cause and a effect relationship, or if current/past/future events are interdependent of each other and there is some kind of dual causality that is way above my ability to comprehend.

Long story short, if you deny hard determinism, you pretty much deny that our universe functions in a cause and effect manner. Quantum relatively DOES NOT account for any sort of "free will" and its thrown out in a self contradictory manner.

1. If its random, its again NOT free, its random.

2. If something causes the apparently random nature of atomic particles, then its just that, something CAUSED it.

[mynameisuntz]

Hard determinism is necessary if you want to entertain empirical scientific advancement.

Elaborate more on that? I'm afraid I'm not following your justification of that statement :|

[LegosInMyEgos]

Elaborate more on that? I'm afraid I'm not following your justification of that statement :|

The whole basis of the scientific method is that you can observe phenomenon and then when you have enough data you can state with reasonable certainty that something causes something else.

If Free Will exists, this Cause and Effect relationship does not exist in its pure form, and therefore the scientific method is invalid.

[mynameisuntz]

The whole basis of the scientific method is that you can observe phenomenon and then when you have enough data you can state with reasonable certainty that something causes something else.

If Free Will exists, this Cause and Effect relationship does not exist in its pure form, and therefore the scientific method is invalid.

Is it possible that this cause/effect relationship does not capture the human mind? Or is it an all-or-nothing type of deal?

Also: does this argue for hard determinism? Or does it strictly deny free will? Because these are two separate concepts.

[LegosInMyEgos]

Is it possible that this cause/effect relationship does not capture the human mind? Or is it an all-or-nothing type of deal?

Also: does this argue for hard determinism? Or does it strictly deny free will? Because these are two separate concepts.

Of course its "possible", but then the scientific method is invalid, because it can't be used to explain the human mind, and if it cant be used to explain the human mind, then it can't be used to explain anything, because the medium through which the scientific method operates IS THE HUMAN MIND.

It argues that either hard determinism is correct, or its a waste of time to try and learn anything at all.

[43Steelers]

mynameisuntz, do you have any books recommendation on this particular subject?
I've been reading quite a bit on derterminism, more specifically Sam Harris' & Michael S Gazzaniga's work. Also, I'm planning to read Elbow Room eventually to learn about different point of view on free will....

[mynameisuntz]

Of course its "possible", but then the scientific method is invalid, because it can't be used to explain the human mind, and if it cant be used to explain the human mind, then it can't be used to explain anything, because the medium through which the scientific method operates IS THE HUMAN MIND.

It argues that either hard determinism is correct, or its a waste of time to try and learn anything at all.

I'm not following why each premise follows the last in your description.

Just because hard determinism doesn't explain the human mind and how it works doesn't mean it could not be applied to other concepts, and just because the human mind is where our formation of facts occurs doesn't mean it must follow the same rules in what it is interpreting/perceiving.

mynameisuntz, do you have any books recommendation on this particular subject?
I've been reading quite a bit on derterminism, more specifically Sam Harris' & Michael S Gazzaniga's work. Also, I'm planning to read Elbow Room eventually to learn about different point of view on free will....

Honestly I have not read a single book dedicated to this topic, which is why I was eager to make this thread because I am very much in the learning stages. I've only ever looked up pdfs and "reviews" published by philosophers on my university's database, along with seeing some articles posted online by people like Harris.

[LegosInMyEgos]

I'm not following why each premise follows the last in your description.

Just because hard determinism doesn't explain the human mind and how it works doesn't mean it could not be applied to other concepts, and just because the human mind is where our formation of facts occurs doesn't mean it must follow the same rules in what it is interpreting/perceiving.

If the manner in which be perceive things is not subject to cause and effect, then the information we receive is not valid to explain phenomenon subject to these laws, even if the universe outside the "minds eye" is subject to these laws.

[LegosInMyEgos]

I honestly don't see the appeal of reading a book on the matter, what am I getting out if it?

Would much rather read a short passage about your point of view to see if it makes me challenge my own.

[imccarthy]

If the manner in which be perceive things is not subject to cause and effect, then the information we receive is not valid to explain phenomenon subject to these laws, even if the universe outside the "minds eye" is subject to these laws.

Those that subscribe to views of metaphysical libertarianism or compatibilism don't deny that our sensory perception is dependent on the 'external' world.

Admittedly I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

[mynameisuntz]

If the manner in which be perceive things is not subject to cause and effect, then the information we receive is not valid to explain phenomenon subject to these laws, even if the universe outside the "minds eye" is subject to these laws.

I guess I just can't grasp why that must be the case. Just because the working of the mind is not subject to cause/effect doesn't mean we cannot perceive information that is based on cause/effect circumstance. I don't follow the line of thought here. Trying to understand, but I don't see it.

I honestly don't see the appeal of reading a book on the matter, what am I getting out if it?

Would much rather read a short passage about your point of view to see if it makes me challenge my own.

I can agree with that. I think discussing these topics with people similarly interested in the topic is a great route to go, but most people in the world probably don't know that an argument regarding free will and determinism exists, so...can be tough to find those like-minded individuals.

Anyways, I feel like I fall somewhere between the spectrum. Not purely deterministic, and certainly not purely free will. Somewhere in between, sometimes noted as "conditional will."

[LegosInMyEgos]

Those that subscribe to views of metaphysical libertarianism or compatibilism don't deny that our sensory perception is dependent on the 'external' world.

Admittedly I really don't understand what you're trying to say.

If the human mind exists outside of "cause and effect" then the stimuli that we observe in the universe don't have to "cause" us to conclude certain characteristics about their nature.

On the simplest level, I am saying that since concluding something about the nature of universe is an action which utilizes this "free will" (you're "concluding" which is a free decision) then it can't be ENTIRELY dependent upon what you observe, because then it wouldn't be free.

[sawoobley]

Not philosophy brah but I will try.

The whole basis of the scientific method is that you can observe phenomenon and then when you have enough data you can state with reasonable certainty that something causes something else.

If Free Will exists, this Cause and Effect relationship does not exist in its pure form, and therefore the scientific method is invalid.

Those cause and effect relationships still hold unless some human interferes with it.

Of course its "possible", but then the scientific method is invalid, because it can't be used to explain the human mind, and if it cant be used to explain the human mind, then it can't be used to explain anything, because the medium through which the scientific method operates IS THE HUMAN MIND.

It argues that either hard determinism is correct, or its a waste of time to try and learn anything at all.

It may not be able to explain the human mind because we don't have enough information to do so. Just because we can't explain it doesn't mean we cannot use it to come to consistent conclusions using the scientific method.

If the manner in which be perceive things is not subject to cause and effect, then the information we receive is not valid to explain phenomenon subject to these laws, even if the universe outside the "minds eye" is subject to these laws.

Our minds are subject to cause and effect but the effect doesn't determine how we respond to that effect. Even if we were able to alter the effect we could still use our mind and reason to account for this change and adapt our thinking to account for this.

[imccarthy]

Anyways, I feel like I fall somewhere between the spectrum. Not purely deterministic, and certainly not purely free will. Somewhere in between, sometimes noted as "conditional will."

Isn't "conditional will" a legal term? Within philosophy I've always known the term to be "compatibilism".

[LegosInMyEgos]

I guess I just can't grasp why that must be the case. Just because the working of the mind is not subject to cause/effect doesn't mean we cannot perceive information that is based on cause/effect circumstance. I don't follow the line of thought here. Trying to understand, but I don't see it.



I can agree with that. I think discussing these topics with people similarly interested in the topic is a great route to go, but most people in the world probably don't know that an argument regarding free will and determinism exists, so...can be tough to find those like-minded individuals.

Anyways, I feel like I fall somewhere between the spectrum. Not purely deterministic, and certainly not purely free will. Somewhere in between, sometimes noted as "conditional will."

Think of your mind as a machine which turns sensory data into a perspective of the universe.

If the information you put into this machine determines the perspective of the universe 100%, then the mind is not free. Its 100% subject to the information you give it. On the other hand, its not 100% subject to the information you give it, then it concludes its perspective of the universe somewhat independent of the universe, and therefore the perspective of the universe is not valid.

[mynameisuntz]

Isn't "conditional will" a legal term? Within philosophy I've always known the term to be "compatibilism".

Not sure about the former, actually. Is that where it spawned? But I have heard it used as compatabilism as well. I guess I should adjust my terminology, eh?

Though from the way conditional will has been described to me (in a more Buddhist approach), it is different from what "traditional" compatabilism is. Again, all of this based on how it has been described to me. Could very well be wrong on how I interpret these concepts, but it's all I have to go off of for the time being.

Taking off for a few hours, folks. Will respond in a bit! Excited to see responses.

[LegosInMyEgos]

Our minds are subject to cause and effect but the effect doesn't determine how we respond to that effect. Even if we were able to alter the effect we could still use our mind and reason to account for this change and adapt our thinking to account for this.

Thats a contradictory statement and cannot be valid as written.

[LegosInMyEgos]

Not sure about the former, actually. Is that where it spawned? But I have heard it used as compatabilism as well. I guess I should adjust my terminology, eh?

Though from the way conditional will has been described to me (in a more Buddhist approach), it is different from what "traditional" compatabilism is. Again, all of this based on how it has been described to me. Could very well be wrong on how I interpret these concepts, but it's all I have to go off of for the time being.

Taking off for a few hours, folks. Will respond in a bit! Excited to see responses.

brb, dragging me into a debate and then leaving.

[sawoobley]

On the simplest level, I am saying that since concluding something about the nature of universe is an action which utilizes this "free will" (you're "concluding" which is a free decision) then it can't be ENTIRELY dependent upon what you observe, because then it wouldn't be free.

Our free will allows us choose how we act and respond to things. However, we are not free to make up stuff about the nature of the universe based on what we observe and still come to a knowledge of the truth. Our conclusions are limited based on the framework we use to make these decisions.

[imccarthy]

Thats a contradictory statement and cannot be valid as written.

Perhaps. A compatibilist would argue that standard cause and effect relationships dictate our motives, but NOT our actions, as actions are the result of free will acting upon said determined motives.

[LegosInMyEgos]

Our free will allows us choose how we act and respond to things. However, we are not free to make up stuff about the nature of the universe based on what we observe and still come to a knowledge of the truth. Our conclusions are limited based on the framework we use to make these decisions.

If we aren't able to draw our own conclusions about the universe then our decisions are not free, they are dictated by the universe.

Perhaps. A compatibilist would argue that standard cause and effect relationships dictate our motives, but NOT our actions, as actions are the result of free will acting upon said determined motives.

They can argue whatever they want, it sounds like a logical contradiction and scape goat to allow themselves to believe in accountability.

[Lvisaa2]

mynameisuntz, do you have any books recommendation on this particular subject?
I've been reading quite a bit on derterminism, more specifically Sam Harris' & Michael S Gazzaniga's work. Also, I'm planning to read Elbow Room eventually to learn about different point of view on free will....

Actually wrote a paper on an excerpt from Elbow Room earlier this year. I enjoy Dennett's practicality, but I found his actual theory to be lacking substance.

Will possibly respond if I get home at a decent hour tonight

[sawoobley]

Thats a contradictory statement and cannot be valid as written.

They are two different statements. The second statement was to say that even if we were to change the effect that certain information has on us through a change in culture or maturity we can still adapt to these changes and communicate with other humans who have not yet changed as we have. Our minds are constantly changing, growing and maturing so the cause and effect relationship might not always be the same throughout our lives but there is always a cause and effect relationship. The conclusions we make are limited to the framework we place on it and the laws of nature as we understand them. Once we come to a conclusion we can test it and our assumptions to see if they hold true. If they do not hold true then we must reject them to be consistent.

If we aren't able to draw our own conclusions about the universe then our decisions are not free, they are dictated by the universe.

We are able to draw our own conclusions which is why people come to different conclusions about the universe. If we were not free we would all come to the same conclusion. Our conclusions are somewhat limited by the universe because the universe follows a set of laws. Our conclusions must fit within those laws to make any sense at all or we must conclude there are laws of the universe we do not yet understand.

[imccarthy]

We are able to draw our own conclusions which is why people come to different conclusions about the universe. If we were not free we would all come to the same conclusion. Our conclusions are somewhat limited by the universe because the universe follows a set of laws. Our conclusions must fit within those laws to make any sense at all or we must conclude there are laws of the universe we do not yet understand.

People have different genetic makeups, are born into different cultures, have different life experiences, etc. THAT accounts for differences in conclusions. Free will is totally unnecessary.

[alan aragon]

LOUD NOISES!!! GRAPEFRUITS!!!

Oh snap, wrong thread.

In all seriousness, it's good to see you guys finally have a civil discussion on philosophy. Please everyone do your best to not bait or let this degenerate into a flame fest. Thanks

[43Steelers]

I have not read a single book dedicated to this topic, which is why I was eager to make this thread because I am very much in the learning stages. I've only ever looked up pdfs and "reviews" published by philosophers on my university's database, along with seeing some articles posted online by people like Harris.

Oh, alright. Nonetheless, thank you for your reply.

I honestly don't see the appeal of reading a book on the matter, what am I getting out if it?

Would much rather read a short passage about your point of view to see if it makes me challenge my own.

I see. The thing is I'm not really educated on that matter in the first place. I've seen/read arguments as well as scientific data in favor of determinism, however that's pretty much the only point of view that I'm aware of.

All I can say is, I'm tempted by derterminism so far, but I cannot say that I'm convinced either. In other words, I don't have a point of view on Free Will yet.

Actually wrote a paper on an excerpt from Elbow Room earlier this year. I enjoy Dennett's practicality, but I found his actual theory to be lacking substance.

Will possibly respond if I get home at a decent hour tonight

Thank you for your input sir. I've read Breaking The Spell, but other than that I'm not really familliar with his work. I'd really appreciate it if you could respond to my former question.

[sawoobley]

People have different genetic makeups, are born into different cultures, have different life experiences, etc. THAT accounts for differences in conclusions. Free will is totally unnecessary.

Those are good points and do account for most of differences. If your assertions are correct then we are like extremely complex computers that spit out responses based or our genetic programming and the input we receive. I'd say there is a little more to it than that. While there are a lot of similarities between people I don't think all human behavior and thoughts can be explained by the things you listed above. Then again there is no way to prove it one way or another and we'd be going down the path to the 86 page thread.

[illiniStrive]

LOUD NOISES!!! GRAPEFRUITS!!!

Oh snap, wrong thread.

In all seriousness, it's good to see you guys finally have a civil discussion on philosophy. Please everyone do your best to not bait or let this degenerate into a flame fest. Thanks

thelordistestingme.gif

Jk, I actually admire everyone (-1) for willing to discuss these things in their free time. Courses and research pretty much make me very unwilling to discuss theory outside an academic space.

Rock on, young philosophers!

[Lvisaa2]

thelordistestingme.gif

Jk, I actually admire everyone (-1) for willing to discuss these things in their free time. Courses and research pretty much make me very unwilling to discuss theory outside an academic space.

Rock on, young philosophers!

Feels. With 9 hours of philosophy and 6 of those being grad level, I don't have too much philosophy left in me outside of classes. Then looking at all I have to read and write before finals makes me shudder. Not to mention, I find this debate to have little practical relevance.