Destiny and Free will

Myriad said:
The problem with defining free will is the more clear the definition is, the less useful it is.

Here's mine: free will is the proposition that one could have decided or acted differently than one actually did decide or act, even under identical circumstances.

See what I mean about usefulness? Good luck testing that!
Click to expand...
That's actually pretty tight. But, yes, not so useful.

And even if it could be tested, then proven, somehow, to exist, Free Will . . .now that we know it's real, how does that, in any way, inform our decisions going forward? Not seeing it.
 
When I say I'm the will, that's different from the urge, just in case I was unclear. The urge is an influence. I am what decides whether to act on it. I've got all this noise surrounding me, but I can shut it off with a little concentration. I can clear my own mind. None of that constant noise controls me. It merely informs me. On the contrary, I control it. Ever meditated? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Ever imagined yourself in the far corner of the room instead of in your own body? I can do that at will. It's not magic. It's just dissociation.

But being able to do these things is what makes me free. I am -very clearly- not controlled by my mere data. I can toss that away in an instant when it doesn't serve me. It's evident. It's obvious.

And nothing changes when I regret the decisions I have made. I still made those decisions, even if I'm ashamed of them. It's just that my present state may not reflect what I was before. But that's more about emotions than decisions. That's the narrative. Yes, I do create it and color it, but that's not me, either. It's just something I do to organize things. It's not me as an experience, and I know it. You seem to be confusing that with me. I'm separate from that. It's just something I do, not the me, itself. It's social. It's about how I'd like the world to perceive me. My own judgments are a way to test it for quality assurance.
 
Last edited:
Okay, one more loose idea, here, and it's a doosie.

We know a bit about how human memory functions. It's more reconstruction than it is retrieved data. And science doesn't actually function all that differently when determining the past. Sure, there's current data to consult, but it's ultimately also a reconstruction.

Therefore, the lens through which we see the past is not 1:1.

So why do we assume that the past is a 1:1 causal relationship? We can use no lens other than the one we have. What if the past branches much like we perceive the future as having branches? Sure, we've got the present to consult, but that doesn't collapse into one possible past. It only collapses whatever we were testing the present for.

Our tools don't suggest that we can prove a perfect 1:1 causal reality. The lens won't allow it.

So... now I'm criticizing your idea rather than showing my own, if that helps.

Call it "the quantum" if you want, but that's just another one of those tools we use, not the reality itself. So I'm saying the present might be connected to many possible pasts, not a single one. That defies your direct causality model well enough. And it fits better with what our brains are actually doing when remembering. It's more like we choose the past rather than discovering it.
 
Last edited:
porch said:
That's actually pretty tight. But, yes, not so useful.

And even if it could be tested, then proven, somehow, to exist, Free Will . . .now that we know it's real, how does that, in any way, inform our decisions going forward? Not seeing it.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You are 'not seeing' why we would want an accurate working model of reality?

That's a serious question, btw.

eta: to answer your question (not that I'm expecting the reciprocal consideration any longer), it wouldn't change anything in our routine behavior. That's because no matter where you fall on this spectrum, you behave and conduct yourself 100% as if you have free will. You have said so yourself.

If you were to find out determinism was the One True Driver, what would you do differently? Nothing, of course. You couldn't, definitionally.

So what does your question mean? Nothing. It's playing with a paradox, which is entertaining in its way, sure. But it is certainly not the stumper it gets thrown up as.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Logic demands that you can identify a process before opining on its mechanism.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't when the alternative is completely impossible.

And while it doesn't matter, we can already identify many parts of the process. What you're asking is equivalent to dissecting every part of the universe to prove that there is no God.
Thermal said:
We observe it universally. Barring evidence that 'it's all an illuuuuuusion, maaaaaan', we take the observation at its face value. No idea how it works mechanically, but no one else has one either for competing theories.

Your claim is a profound understanding of existence, for which you provide squat as evidence beyond a vague handwave towards billiard balls. So you need to demonstrate, logically, the choice process using the mighty billiard ball theory. Explain how a neuron reacts during the choice process, and its inevitability. The physical workings for this supposed inevitability should be quite enlightening.
Click to expand...
I don't think this really answers my question. My dilemma is this: if everyone inevitably turns into whatever genes and circumstances determine for them, do the "choices" we make still count as free will? You don't have to agree with this premise, but I'm interested in an explanation that goes beyond the internal perception of having a choice.
 
Last edited:
The "choice" is perhaps that space where we use probabilities instead of certainty. That's the difference between cause and influence. That covers quite a lot of science and literally rationalism in its entirety.

Sorry for withholding that part of my view (this post and the last) for so long. It was still developing. Google "3d time" if you want details on one of the real-time, state-of-the-art influences. I don't know the math. It's in pop-science currently, though, and I'm not just parroting.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
The "choice" is perhaps that space where we use probabilities instead of certainty. That's the difference between cause and influence.
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter. If two people with exactly the same genes in exactly the same circumstances can turn out differently, that just points to some sort of inherent randomness in the background. And random isn't "free", it just means that people are governed by random rather than deterministic forces.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
That doesn't matter. If two people with exactly the same genes in exactly the same circumstances can turn out differently, that just points to some sort of inherent randomness in the background. And random isn't "free", it just means that people are governed by random rather than deterministic forces.
Click to expand...
First create actual randomness before asserting that it even exists? We can't do that. But we make choices every freaking moment of every freaking day. Some of those choices include what to even study and how to go about doing it. That's something we know how to do.

It's just the same data, different mindset, really. You could also frame the absence of randomness to support your side of the argument. But I think everybody agrees that acting as if you have a choice is the best policy. The only question is whether that's an illusion or not. Sorry, but not knowing doesn't equate to illusionary.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
First create actual randomness before asserting that it even exists? We can't do that. But we make choices every freaking moment of every freaking day. Some of those choices include what to even freaking study.
Click to expand...
If it doesn't exist, how could two identical people in identical circumstances turn out differently?

The same baby splits into two identical universes, one ends up becoming a sober doctor, the other a homeless drunk. If it isn't randomness, what caused the difference? Did one baby just magically choose to exercise greater will than the other? How can a person choose to choose something?

It's either random, or there's no way for the two babies to turn out differently.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
If it doesn't exist, how could two identical people in identical circumstances turn out differently?

The same baby splits into two identical universes, one ends up becoming a sober doctor, the other a homeless drunk. If it isn't randomness, what caused the difference? Did one baby just magically choose to exercise greater will than the other? How can a person choose to choose something?

It's either random, or there's no way for the two babies to turn out differently.
Click to expand...
Again. Textbook argument from ignorance. "There's no way" is code for "I don't know of a way, and therefore it must be this other thing which I haven't proven exists."


We know choices happen, though. We know influence happens. Cause? It's a bit shaky, depending on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Again. Textbook argument from ignorance. "There's no way" is code for "I don't know of a way, and therefore it must be this other thing which I haven't proven exists, either."
Click to expand...
It's not an argument from ignorance when all alternatives are obviously impossible. You just say it's an argument from ignorance because you can't think of an alternative that works, and you can't think of one because there isn't one.
 
Olmstead said:
It's not an argument from ignorance when all alternatives are obviously impossible. You just say it's an argument from ignorance because you can't think of an alternative that works, and you can't think of one because there isn't one.
Click to expand...
Nope. I'm just pointing out that your model doesn't fit my experience. Pretending that equates to an illusion is not warranted. It's not even remotely justified. It's sort of like pointing out how retrograde doesn't fit the geocentric model. Pure causation does not fit my internal (and even external) experience. It's the same thing.

You're asking me to find the cause, and that's basically an invitation to circular reasoning. If there's a cause, then your model fits, and I've proved your model, not mine.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Nope. I'm just pointing out that your model doesn't fit my experience. Pretending that equates to an illusion is not warranted.
Click to expand...
What experience? I'm not even talking about internal perceptions here. I'm saying that two identical babies in two identical universes will either turn out the same, or they will turn out differently due to some sort of randomness.

In either case they can perceive themselves as making the choices that lead them down their path, but the thing that causes them to diverge could only be random, because there is no other way for such a divergence to occur. You can't even imagine another way, that's how impossible it is.
 
Olmstead said:
What experience? I'm not even talking about internal perceptions here. I'm saying that two identical babies in two identical universes will either turn out the same, or they will turn out differently due to some sort of randomness.

In either case they can perceive themselves as making the choices that lead them down their path, but the thing that causes them to diverge could only be random, because there is no other way for such a divergence to occur. You can't even imagine another way, that's how impossible it is.
Click to expand...
Considering how I've never been an identical twin in two different universes, how do you expect me to answer that? Or at least, I've never perceived that to be true. I don't know what that's like or how it functions. But I'm the only one who can compare it with my personal experience.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
It really doesn't when the alternative is completely impossible.
Click to expand...
You can't declare it impossible if you have no clue of its basic processes, or even nature. Human consciousness is unique. We don't find self aware shopping carts, as far as we know. Get a grip on what self awareness actually *is* before declaring whether it is or is not possible.
Olmstead said:
And while it doesn't matter, we can already identify many parts of the process. What you're asking is equivalent to dissecting every part of the universe to prove that there is no God.
Click to expand...
No, I'm pointing out that we have not the most remote idea what prompts a choice, or if it is inevitable. Literally, none. We don't even have a working theory on what would make someone choose, beyond the likelihood that most people won't choose to blow their dicks off with a shotgun during their lunch break. We can see liklihoods, but literally no clue what is involved in the thinking process, or whether any option is inevitable. What research there is indicates that inevitability is a long shot, because strong correlations approach zero.
Olmstead said:
I don't think this really answers my question. My dilemma is this: if everyone inevitably turns into whatever genes and circumstances determine for them, do the "choices" we make still count as free will? You don't have to agree with this premise, but I'm interested in an explanation that goes beyond the internal perception of having a choice.
Click to expand...
Ok. I'll continue to buck the trend of ignoring questions ITT and answer yours directly:

You qualify your premise with *if* choices are made inevitably, based on physical and experiential background. That's determinism. Then you ask if the resulting choice made under those parameters would be free will. Well no, of course not. You just defined it as pure determinism.

We have never seen the most feeble, floundering evidence that a choice must follow from preconditions. We have seen radically huge reams of evidence that the choices seem unrelated to preconditions (everyday experience). We have no reason to flippantly assume that these choices are predetermined. Just because you prefer that as a simple solution doesn't make it more likely, especially when you have to add on spooky effects, like creating illusions of freewill. There is literally no reason for us to have such an illusion; it would be more evolutionarily advantageous to act inevitably. Saves all that annoying thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom