Are free will and determinism compatible?

[andyandy]

For the purposes of the poll;

Compatibilist = one who believes free will and determinism are compatible

Incompatibilist = one who believes that free will and determinism are not compatible

Libertarian incompatibilist = one who believes that at least some persons have free will and that, therefore, determinism is false

Hard determinist = one who believes thatdeterminism is true and that no persons has free will.

agnostic incompatibilist, one who remain agnostic as to whether people have free will

hard incompatibilist = one who belives that there is no free will regardless of determinism's truth or falsity

and it's necessary to have a stab at defining free will and determinism while we're at it.....

1.1 Free Will
What is needed, then, as a starting point, is a gentle, malleable notion that focuses upon special features of persons as agents. Hence, as a theory-neutral point of departure, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in a manner necessary for moral responsibility.[2] Clearly, this definition is too lean when taken as an endpoint; the hard philosophical work is about how best to develop this special kind of control. But however this notion of control is developed, its uniqueness consists, at least in part, in being possessed only by persons.

1.3 Determinism
A standard characterization of determinism states that every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events.[4] Within this essay, we shall define determinism as the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time. Notice that an implication of determinism as it applies to a person's conduct is that, if determinism is true, there are (causal) conditions for that person's actions located in the remote past, prior to her birth, that are sufficient for each of her actions.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/ has a comprehensive essay on the subject which is well worth reading.....)

So, what do you think? Are you a compatibilist or an incompatibilist?

 

[sphenisc]

I don't follow your definitions of 'Compatibilist' and 'Libertarian Compatibilist'.
It seems that a 'Libertarian Compatibilist' is an Incompatibilist, is that correct?

ETA: I've read the poll now - did you mean 'Libertarian Incompatibilist'?

 

[AtaraX]

I'm with Dan Dennett on this one. Read Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves. To boil it down. The universe is deterministic and there is obviously something we are refering too when we talk about free will. So free will exists in our determinist universe. Dennett argues that the idea of inderministic universe is inconsistent and it becomes even more so if you try to graft the idea of free will on top of it.
I wrote an essay on my blog about this issue last year:
http://xspecs.blogspot.com/2005/10/free-will.html
I hadn't discovered forums or blogs at that point and living in a foreign country it was the first chance I had to express my philosophical side in awhile. So please excuse the excessively flowery language.

 

[andyandy]

I've voted compatibilist to get the poll running - though I'm certainly open to persuasion....

My general thinking about this is that at any given moment at which i carry out an action, that action is a consequence of my brain's interpretation of data.
This action will be wholly a result of internal processes- chemical/genetic/"knowledge"/memory....etc.) - any external stimuli/limiting factors will be incorporated within this internal process.

Therefore if I was able to fully clone my brain (andyandy's brain in a vat)
which received all the same information to draw upon as my brain, then the action it decided upon would be the same.

Therefore, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time.....

nevertheless, free will still exists - it is merely incorporated within the internal processess for the brain in a vat whilst it decides upon an action....that is to say free will is compatible with determinism.

hmmm...
a bit of a weak tie up there.....it's a toughie to argue

 

[andyandy]

I don't follow your definitions of 'Compatibilist' and 'Libertarian Compatibilist'.
It seems that a 'Libertarian Compatibilist' is an Incompatibilist, is that correct?

ETA: I've read the poll now - did you mean 'Libertarian Incompatibilist'?

edited to change

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Therefore, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time.....


...snip...

But if there is some "true" randomness in those "fixed laws of nature" you mention then can't you say that the reality is both 100% deterministic yet unpredictable i.e. you can't predict the future (or for that matter reconstruct the past)?

 

[andyandy]

But if there is some "true" randomness in those "fixed laws of nature" you mention then can't you say that the reality is both 100% deterministic yet unpredictable i.e. you can't predict the future (or for that matter reconstruct the past)?

hmmm....but you could argue that free will does exist, but it's just one of the variables that need to be taken into account when making a deterministic prediction for the future....

My brain in a vat1 and my brain in a vat2 both have a spectrum of actions which they can chose - nevertheless they will both chose the same one.....

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hence, as a theory-neutral point of departure, free will can be defined as the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in a manner necessary for moral responsibility.

This sounds like a fuzzy compatibilist definition of free will, not an incompatibilist/ libertarian definition. It comes down to what "exercise control over their conduct" actually means.

Things might be clearer if someone would define libertarian free will. I dare ya.

~~ Paul

 

[Almo]

1.3 Determinism
A standard characterization of determinism states that every event is causally necessitated by antecedent events.[4] Within this essay, we shall define determinism as the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future. According to this characterization, if determinism is true, then, given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any moment in time. Notice that an implication of determinism as it applies to a person's conduct is that, if determinism is true, there are (causal) conditions for that person's actions located in the remote past, prior to her birth, that are sufficient for each of her actions.

Well, Quantum Mechanics invalidates this definition of determinism.

define determinism as the metaphysical thesis that the facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future.

Under Quantum Mechanics, this can be true. However, the truth about the future is probabalistic, so

given the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible

QM invalidates this hypothesis. Nice try though, and I see what you are getting at.

I would say that Free Will doesn't exist as we think of it. Our responses are results of what goes on in our brains at a physical level, but since QM may be involved, that does not necessitate that our actions are predictable in the Classical Mechanics Determinism sense (which is the type of determinism you've outlined above).

As such, I can't really select one of your poll options.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't see my option up there either, as defined. As pointed out above, I know determinism is false, but I am undecided on the quesiton of free will.


eta: Oh, wait. there is a planet X option. that'll do.

 

[andyandy]

I don't see my option up there either, as defined. As pointed out above, I know determinism is false, but I am undecided on the quesiton of free will.


eta: Oh, wait. there is a planet X option. that'll do.

If both free will and determinism are false then what is left?


<derail>
with regards to QM, as has been discussed before, philosophy does seem rather rooted in the classical - perhaps because philosophy relies on metaphor and on the microscopic level these metaphors are inadequate to truly describe that which occurs....
</derail>

perhaps one could regard the definition of determinism as for that of the macroscopic.....

or take the definition of determinism as

The facts of the past, in conjunction with the laws of nature, entail every truth about the future.....

 

[Upchurch]

If both free will and determinism are false then what is left?

A structured but chaotic system

 

[Overman]

Philosophy like this is muddled soup crap to me.

I am Matt Radowski.

 

[Mercutio]

From Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary

DECIDE, v.i. To succumb to the preponderance of one set of influences over another set.

A leaf was riven from a tree,
"I mean to fall to earth," said he.

The west wind, rising, made him veer.
"Eastward," said he, "I now shall steer."

The east wind rose with greater force.
Said he: "'Twere wise to change my course."

With equal power they contend.
He said: "My judgment I suspend."

Down died the winds; the leaf, elate,
Cried: "I've decided to fall straight."

"First thoughts are best?" That's not the moral;
Just choose your own and we'll not quarrel.

Howe'er your choice may chance to fall,
You'll have no hand in it at all.
—G. J.

Hard determinist here. Yes, there is a thing we speak of as free will. There is also a thing we speak of as a sunrise, but the sun does not rise, the earth turns. We may speak of the illusion of a thing as if it were the thing itself...that does not make it the thing itself.

eta your definition of determinism is not the one most determinists would choose. Do not confuse determinism with predestination.

 

[gentlehorse]

Incompatibilist = one who believes that free will and determinism are not compatible

I voted "No. I am an Incompatibilist," in that I don't see free will existing in a deterministic universe.

The universe, however, is observably not deterministic...

 

[chriswl]

Hard determinist here. Yes, there is a thing we speak of as free will. There is also a thing we speak of as a sunrise, but the sun does not rise, the earth turns. We may speak of the illusion of a thing as if it were the thing itself...that does not make it the thing itself.

But surely when we talk about free will we mean the freedom to act (or to attempt to act, we are talking about freedom of will not necessarily of action) in accordance with our "dispositions" as Hume put it. To choose something not in accordance with our "dispositions" is not the kind of thing we want the freedom to do - it wouldn't really count as freedom. In fact it couldn't be a choice at all. Our dispositions are, by definition, those things that we would choose so, tautologically, all our choices are in accordance with our dispositions.

I make exactly the choices I am disposed to make - that's free will. I can make only the choices I am disposed to make - that's determinism. These statements are compatible - that's compatibilism.

 

[I less than three logic]

Incompatibilist = one who believes that free will and determinism are not compatible

I voted "No. I am an Incompatibilist," in that I don't see free will existing in a deterministic universe.

The universe, however, is observably not deterministic...

Not deterministic, or not predictable? I’d concede that the universe is observably not predictable, but that by no means implies that it is observably not deterministic.

 

[Dave1001]

I'm shocked that I'm the only person so far who voted agnostic incompatibilist on a forum of skeptics.

ETA: I missed the undecided option. I should've voted for that, since although I don't see how non-illusory free will would be compatible with a completely deterministic universe, that doesn't preclude it from being the case.

 

[sphenisc]

I'm shocked that I'm the only person so far who voted agnostic incompatibilist on a forum of skeptics.

Your obviously insufficently sceptical of other people's claims to be sceptics. Not that it's your fault - I blame the distribution of quanta at Big Bang...




And GET BACK TO WORK!

 

[Dave1001]

I'm with Dan Dennett on this one. Read Elbow Room and Freedom Evolves. To boil it down. The universe is deterministic and there is obviously something we are refering too when we talk about free will. So free will exists in our determinist universe. Dennett argues that the idea of inderministic universe is inconsistent and it becomes even more so if you try to graft the idea of free will on top of it.
I wrote an essay on my blog about this issue last year:
http://xspecs.blogspot.com/2005/10/free-will.html
I hadn't discovered forums or blogs at that point and living in a foreign country it was the first chance I had to express my philosophical side in awhile. So please excuse the excessively flowery language.

What about the distinction between apparent free will and actual free will? I think few would argue that apparent free will exists in our possibly deterministic universe. That doesn't mean that it actually is free will, it could be illusory.