Variation on Determination vs Free Will

[Iacchus]

From this thread

A note on the word "random". I spent a great deal of time in graduate school struggling with courses that involved "random variables" and "random processes". Those classes were really hard, but by any definition I used in any of my classes, evolution is a random process. Why the knee jerk reaction against the word "random"?

Well, look at it this way, if things change, the rules have to already be set in place that allow them to do so. And what else could that possibly mean, except that the rules have always been set in place? Which is to say, everything was scripted beforehand and, that nothing occurs by chance (or random). While I think the problem here, is that people tend to confuse the complexity of the issue with the overall picture.

So you are a determinist Iacchus?

In terms of all that is natural, yes.

So what isn't natural?

Let me put it this way, I believe that free will is the cause, of which deteminism is the effect. In fact, I believe that free will is the origin of everything. However, the only way free will can operate and thus be maintained, is by means of determinism. Or else what is there? Without determinism, there would be no way to define free will. There would be no expression of it. So in effect, everything must have a deterministic "ending."

So basically, we've just defined two dualistic elements, in which there must be two separate "realities" (realms) to accomodate it. The one reality where free will reigns, what we would otherwise deem spiritual, and the other reality where determinism reigns, what we would otherwise deem natural. So, currently we live in the natural world, and are governed by determinism. Yet when we die, and pass on into the spiritual world, we become spirits, and are ruled by free will.

I know it's a bit oversimplified, but it should give you the general idea.

Why do you not apply your determinist logic to your spiritual realm? I am not implying that it should have the same physical laws as your natural realm but don't you agree that its logic should still be consistent?

Oh I'm saying determinism does apply, except somewhat in reverse. While here, in the natural world, where determinism becomes consolidated via matter, which appears to be static, with no apparent change (except over time), in the spiritual world, everything becomes consolidated via energy, in the way we think and feel, essentially, and is in a constate of flux. Hence the apparent "flip-flop" between determination and free will. This is also why I say that when we go to sleep and begin to dream (albeit it really begins with our thoughts and feelings), that this is the beginning of this.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Since you have yet to prove that there is a spiritual world, this entire thread is a moot point.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But what the heck, define free will while you're here.

~~ Paul

 

[Beady]

But what the heck, define free will while you're here.

I've come to the conclusion that any thread loses all of its usefulness at the precise moment that people start discussing definitions.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I've come to the conclusion that any thread loses all of its usefulness at the precise moment that people start discussing definitions.

I don't think this thread ever had usefulness...

Sincerely
Tobias

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So Beady is suggesting a Definitional Shark Jumping Hypothesis. Let's test this in future threads, shall we?

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

Beady, defining things is crucial to understanding. I think the big problem is asking Iacchus, in particular, to define things. His use of any given word is likely to be unlike any other human's use of that word, but when asked to define it he will not be tied to any definition.

 

[Roboramma]

Actually I see it as the mention of free will that took this thread to the point of uselessness.

Discussing an idea that doesn't seem to mean anything at all. Free will. Might as well say that determinism is caused by taco stands.

 

[Iacchus]

Empirical Evidence vs Reason

Since you have yet to prove that there is a spiritual world, this entire thread is a moot point.

If it's provable to me, then perhaps it's a matter of reasoning it out amongst yourselves?

By the way, what's with all the spam and derailing tactics here? I'm not referring to you in particular Tobias ... Is this typical of most of the threads on this forum or, is it a primary focus on those who tend to maintain alternative views? If you would like to discuss the difference between empirical evidence and our ability to reason, perhaps we can do so on another thread?

In fact I may as well make the split right here ...

 

[Tricky]

But what the heck, define free will while you're here.

~~ Paul

(waving hand frantically in his best imitation of Hermione Granger.)
"Pick me! Pick me".


Ahem. Free will is the ability to choose between available, perceived alternatives.

Now of course, the operative word here is "choose", and the no-free-willers will argue that there is no such thing as choice. It is true that choices can be influenced by many things, even things beyond our awareness, but unless we wish to remove the highly useful word "choice" from the lexicon, then we must let it remain in my definition.

A couple of points on two of the adjectives:

Available -- The alternative must be available. The fact that you cannot "choose" to become instantly invisible does not invalidate free will. That choice is simply not available.

Percieved -- This is a very important word because it not only expands or limits the alternatives, it gives a measure of the amount of free will a creature has. For example an animal may see only two ways to confront an enemy; run or fight. There may be numerous ways, including decieve, negotiate, intimidate et. al. But if that particular animal is unaware of those alternatives, then its free will is limited.

In humans, the ability to percieve alternatives is the main characteristic of intelligence. Thus, the more intelligent a person, the more free will they have because the more alternatives they have. It is true that many of those alternatives are immediately ruled out because of their quality, but at least they were perceived.

Some will argue that my definition of free will is really only the definition of the illusion of free will. Well, I actually agree, but like the word "choice", we must at some point agree that when the illusion of free will (or choice) is indistinguishable from the "real" free will, then the distinction is moot.

Finally, free will is not a "thing". It is a useful concept that describes a set of conditions, much like "love" or "consciousness". It is not a physical (or magical) part of you that controls your actions.

Two points for Gryffindor.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

If it's provable to me, then perhaps it's a matter of reasoning it out amongst yourselves?

As far as i can see, you just have a fealing, or a belief.
A proof doesn't work if you can only proof you are the only one who will acknowledge it as such.

Get your proof peer reviewed and published in Nature, then it is a proof.

Of course i don't require you to do either of those things. But for this discussion to be worth anything, you have to atleast convince me, even if it isn't a scientific proof as such.

 

[Iacchus]

Force-Fed Knowledge?

From this thread

If it's not against any copyrights, maybe we can start each posting a paragraph at a time (with proper attributions).

Actually, I don't think I had much of a problem eating my spinach when I was a kid. I really didn't care much for beets though. Regardless, I think I would find it difficult if somebody were trying to force feed me. And, while some of us may attribute this to willful ignorance -- indeed -- this is what free will is all about ... not being forced to do anything you don't understand.

Perhaps this is why some of you have such a hard time reconciling yourselves to it?

 

[Tricky]

As far as i can see, you just have a feeling, or a belief.
A proof doesn't work if you can only proof you are the only one who will acknowledge it as such.

Get your proof peer reviewed and published in Nature, then it is a proof.

Of course i don't require you to do either of those things. But for this discussion to be worth anything, you have to at least convince me, even if it isn't a scientific proof as such.

[nitpick]Don't confuse "proof" and "evidence". Outside of math, there is very little that can be proved or disproved. There is simply good evidence and poor or absent evidence. Being published in Nature might be considered pretty good evidence, but I'm fairly sure they've published some incorrect things before.[/nitpick]

(mutter mutter, "but what do you expect from a commie bastige"...)

 

[TobiasTheViking]

[nitpick]Don't confuse "proof" and "evidence". Outside of math, there is very little that can be proved or disproved. There is simply good evidence and poor or absent evidence. Being published in Nature might be considered pretty good evidence, but I'm fairly sure they've published some incorrect things before.[/nitpick]

(mutter mutter, "but what do you expect from a commie bastige"...)

granted and agreed. I could have used a better word. But i believe my opinion still came through.

 

[Iacchus]

But what the heck, define free will while you're here.

~~ Paul

Well certainly free will and what you understand must go hand in hand, otherwise you have neither.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ahem. Free will is the ability to choose between available, perceived alternatives.

Now of course, the operative word here is "choose", and the no-free-willers will argue that there is no such thing as choice. It is true that choices can be influenced by many things, even things beyond our awareness, but unless we wish to remove the highly useful word "choice" from the lexicon, then we must let it remain in my definition.

Not so fast! There is certainly such a thing as choice, but the question is, what is "free choice"? What is free will free from?

I presume we are talking about libertarian free will here, not compatibilist free will.

Finally, free will is not a "thing". It is a useful concept that describes a set of conditions, much like "love" or "consciousness". It is not a physical (or magical) part of you that controls your actions.

I suggest that it is an utterly useless concept.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

Not so fast! There is certainly such a thing as choice, but the question is, what is "free choice"? What is free will free from?

From the other side of our "quantum fluctuations" perhaps?

 

[Iacchus]

Hey, anybody ever quite figure out what the title of this thread is about? Hint hint ...

 

[Tricky]

Not so fast! There is certainly such a thing as choice, but the question is, what is "free choice"? What is free will free from?

Free from discernable coercement. While it is true that science will continue to push back the barriers to what is discernable, I find it highly unlikely that it will ever be able to uncover pure determinism. So as long as you cannot show that a choice was coerced or pre-determined, then "free will" remains a useful concept.

I presume we are talking about libertarian free will here, not compatibilist free will.

Um... I was talking about Trickyian free will. This is my definition. It is mine. I wrote it. This is what it is, this definition of mine. I reserve all rights. Perhaps you want to hear my new theory of the brontosaurus?

I suggest that it is an utterly useless concept.

It is true that it is not a great deal more useful than the word "choice", other than that it specifies what things can be chosen.

Do you think "choice" is a useless concept too?

 

[Mercutio]

Free from discernable coercement. While it is true that science will continue to push back the barriers to what is discernable, I find it highly unlikely that it will ever be able to uncover pure determinism. So as long as you cannot show that a choice was coerced or pre-determined, then "free will" remains a useful concept.

ah, a god-of-the-gaps free will...you forgot to say that we disagree about free will, you and I, because you are wrong about it.

Um... I was talking about Trickyian free will. This is my definition. It is mine. I wrote it. This is what it is, this definition of mine. I reserve all rights. Perhaps you want to hear my new theory of the brontasaurus?

Hey, at least you have the courage to present a definition and stand or fall by it. Mostly fall...

It is true that it is not a great deal more useful than the word "choice", other than that it specifies what things can be chosen.

Do you think "choice" is a useless concept too?

"Choice" is a very useful word, when properly defined. The behaviorist literature contains quite a bit of research on choice. But choice is often used colloquially as an explanatory fiction--why did you do that? Because I chose to. Ick. In such a case, yes, it is a useless concept too.