Maybe they're not mutually exclusive. In the end the atoms have to follow the laws of physics - the very same matter that makes up our consciousness and dna are applicable to those rules too. On the micro, every day scale it definitely feels like free will exists. I don't believe a baby tragically shot to death or born with genetic deficiencies was always meant to happen. Though I bet to a more intelligent species than us, or heck the human scientists gathering large historic data - the behavior and fate of humans on this planet and empires/nations is predictable to a large extent.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Free Will vs Determinism: Where do you stand?
- Thread starter Two Words
- Start date
- Status
boiled goose
good with gravy
Determinism in this context is different from fate.
Meant to happen is different from explainable by natural laws.
Meant to happen implies some form of goal or intent.
I still remember a funny thing one of my philosophy professors said about this debate. He, more or less, said:
I haven't studied enough on the debate to feel I could confidently answer either way. I also don't think we have enough knowledge to even adequately debate it, let alone settle it
I haven't studied enough on the debate to feel I could confidently answer either way. I also don't think we have enough knowledge to even adequately debate it, let alone settle it
Isn't this how nature happens? Of itself, without any principle of an outsider?
Why are humans still caught in concepts that infer an outsider principle? Be it of a creator or their own creation.
Aaronology
Member
I once asked my friend to demonstrate to me in the very next moment a display of free will and he "randomly" knocked over a glass, and then glanced at me victoriously. "Nothing made me do that!", he said. And then I asked him if he would have knocked over that glass right then and right there if, prior to that, I had not asked him to show me free will. He didn't have an answer to that. Likewise, "I used my free will to decide to talk in this thread, tho!" ignores that your ability to post in this thread was directly determined by there having been a thread to reply to in the first place.
The standard definition of "free will" is somewhere along the lines of: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. I am not sure how any one could legitimately argue such a thing exists. Humans don't even have the "will" to determine the most important aspects of their lives such as when they are born, who they are born to, where they are born and so on. Every action we have ever made and ever will make is just another chain in a cascading series of events that lead back to the moment we entered the world.
The standard definition of "free will" is somewhere along the lines of: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. I am not sure how any one could legitimately argue such a thing exists. Humans don't even have the "will" to determine the most important aspects of their lives such as when they are born, who they are born to, where they are born and so on. Every action we have ever made and ever will make is just another chain in a cascading series of events that lead back to the moment we entered the world.
We alienate ourselves from the world. Our ways of dealing with the duality of life and death, removes us from the fact that we are just as much a natural part of the earth as apples are to an apple tree. We fail to see that we are of the earth, and that we are nature. Free will seems a feeble concept that doesn't really work out when one sees past that false dichotomy of man and nature. I love the feeling of coming out of this world, and not having been placed into it. I see myself much as a tree that has leafs, and though the leaves fall predictably, does not mean the tree is slaved by the seasons. It is as much free will, to me, by the tree, that it is for me to write this post. Most on the other camp might argue that it's absurd to say a tree has free will, but I think we would agree that the concept of "willing" is probably what's absurd. Just see the quote below. It is essentially the theist/atheist problem, where being an a-theist means you "don't believe in God, thus believe that when you die, there's NOTHING". Not having a free mind is kind of awesome. It means I'm part of everything. And I can still be pretty damn spontaneous.
Your last sentence seems to contradict the rest of your paragraph. How do you reconcile supernatural afterlife concepts with being natural, of this world, like apples from an apple tree?
Your reading comprehension is pretty low. I'm sorry but you are not nearly half as smart as you think you are.
I would usually stop debating here. But you said something that spurred my curiosity. Why did you make the assumption about my wanting to be special here?
I do think the brain as a mechanism is different from a rock. But I don't think this is the kind of special you are talking about.
Oh, no, it's merely a comment on the anxiety people who move away from the idea of the Judeo-Christian god feel, when they believe in NOT God, and the fear of the nothingness inherent to dying. It is just a parallel to the way you argue we're "monkey's in shoes" because of no free will. We have this idea that all matter is stupid, but that we're intelligent despite that, as opposed to the "we are of the earth"-idea I put forth, where it is much more natural to say that all matter is smart, and that's why we are, too. It is that idea that matter is just this dumb thing that doesn't do anything by itself that creates the difficulty in this discussion.
I am sympathetic to compatibilism, although I recognize that it probably merely solves a semantic issue. Namely, how we can keep concepts like responsibility and guilt if we reject metaphysical-libertarian free will. Apart from that, I am convinced that metaphysical-libertarian free will not only does not exist, as for instance neurological evidence demonstrates, and not only does not even make sense subjectively, as introspective techniques can show you, it is also makes no sense as a concept.
Furthermore, the question of free will is independent of the question of determinism vs. indeterminism. In fact, you would rather need determinism for any metaphysical free will to make sense. The concept that actions are the result of a will is inherently a deterministic one: the same will will cause the same actions based on what is willed. What would it mean to claim otherwise? Indeterminism would imply that certain actions are—at least in parts—not caused by anything and thus not determined. And that would include that they are not caused by a will, which contradicts everything metaphysical free will is about.
This is just one of the reasons why metaphysical free will just makes no sense.
Furthermore, the question of free will is independent of the question of determinism vs. indeterminism. In fact, you would rather need determinism for any metaphysical free will to make sense. The concept that actions are the result of a will is inherently a deterministic one: the same will will cause the same actions based on what is willed. What would it mean to claim otherwise? Indeterminism would imply that certain actions are—at least in parts—not caused by anything and thus not determined. And that would include that they are not caused by a will, which contradicts everything metaphysical free will is about.
This is just one of the reasons why metaphysical free will just makes no sense.
You and I have spoken before, so perhaps you're just preaching to a choir on getting this. Many people are still caught in that experience of being a skin encapsulated ego, which has long been demonstrated to be an illusion. It's more of seeing the world in a lens of self and other as the problem, instead of self with other, which is what the universe really is. This with that. Waves in an ocean but never cut off from it on any real level.
Very few people unfortunately realize that sense of being one with everything, which itself would produce some funny feelings and thoughts to many, but that's probably a result of defining oneself as an ego in and of the mind, to infer the extreme facets of dualism as reality, not merely and only as a method of description. None of this takes into account the interconnected and interdependent nature of all things, and how everything is merely change with no standalone isolates to be found. Quite a cognitive error, collectively.
Your 'random letters' example shows you don't really understand determinism.
When you create a string of random letters you're subconsciously thinking about what letter comes next to make it truly jibberish. Don't make it look too much like qwertyuiop! aaasoijfj, ah shit that starts with three A's, they can see where I started typing, etc.
Even if you were to spasm your hand, you quickly sent a signal to your hand to jerk one way and then another, and while you didn't think about the random characters, they happened as a result of the a chain of choices you made.
Everything you do follows some other external stimuli, there's no action that is ever 100% spontaneous.
Karsticles
Member
I consider myself a Fatalist, which is distinct from Determinism.
Actually, I have a question. Doesn't determinism infer that someone is being moved by being determined? How does this work when what one usually defines oneself to be a fictional self? Could that be why people are so spooked by it? By assuming they are being driven by external forces because they've failed to get the inner understanding correct?
Dem words, son.
Dem words, son.
I'm fairly certain this makes no sense.
And why not? One clearly has free will if there's nothing that prevents one from having picked different regarding a previous choice.
Doctor Doom
Banned
Both superdeterminism as well as nonlocality allow for determinism to exist underneath the quantum.
Besides what mechanism do you propose is generating true randomness? Magic?
You assume the present exists, but there Are those who say relativity says absolute simultaneity does not exist, aka the present does not exist. So past present future might be no different in kind. You re as free to do otherwise today as you are to change what you did yesterday.
Without the specialness of the present you have no special moment for your choices
Pray tell if neither determinism, randomness, nor any combination of the two allow for truly free will what posit you allows it? The brain is not indivisible it is made of components when these compete a small edge might be all it takes for some of these components to win and cause an action. True freedom requires an indivisible actor separate from reality, which is incoherent some kind of square circle.
Even if it were the result of ínternal factors it is still not his doing.
Btw,
An interesting point is that without free will the abrahamic faiths become even more ridiculous and nonsensical.
Also what does the lack of truly free will, truly free choices tell us about consent?
Chainsawkitten
Member
How would something prevent you from picking differently, in your view?
Orbis Tabula
Member
Huh. Didn't know there was a name for this. I mean, in retrospect, obviously there would be, I just didn't know what it would be. It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. I guess I've got some reading to do.
ThusZarathustra
Member
This is the right answer of course, but it frames things in such a way as to deflate discussion a bit. It says very little about us as people. It's perfectly descriptive but is so far zoomed out as to more or less say "It's turtles all the way down, kids." Which, yeah, it is, but that says nothing particularly interesting once you kinda get the joke.
Free will and determinism on a human scale, now there's the rub. How much are we responsible for our own behavior? What is self-awareness and mindfulness? How much can we truly overcome our imprinting and programming and as we become more aware of these answers how will social expectations and such change as a result?
Personally, I think human beings are pretty heavily moldable and self-modifiable, with the right resources and support, and that a continuous upward arc (in the long view, there are always small ups and downs) of self-awareness of one's own behavior and its effects is just kind of one of the basic responsibilities of being human.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Instead of insulting me and then leaving you should address my points.
The main one being: there is no evidence that suggests that there is some unknown aspect of consciousness or free will that we haven't discovered.
If anything, research suggests that the opposite is true. Our brains make decisions before we become aware of them. The decisions we make are directly linked to the physical structure of our brain.
Additionally, I'm not the one claiming to be smart. I'm the one going along with expert consensus while you are the one playing armchair intellectual thinking you know better than actual researchers studying this because you have a gut feeling.
im not undermining the decision computing power of our brains, im just saying we dont choose the thoughts that arise in our brains. the thoughts are determined.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Please elaborate. What do you mean line up perfectly?
All things obey natural laws and exist in one reality so that makes sense..
The creation of Earth could be an example. Out of all the planets that could've formed and housed life, this was the one that did all of that. Right position from the sun, right chemical composition, that's way too perfect to be mere coincidence.
boiled goose
good with gravy
This is a bit off topic but you have it backwards. Life formed here and adapted to those conditions because those conditions were present..
Scientists don't see it as a coincidence...
Simply natural forces at work.
I Also dont really get your point. What's so special about this planet? If we had evolved in another planet then that planet would seem special.
Abstruse Moose
Member
It's determinism. Unless you think your brain has some magic property outside of the natural world. Free will is a very convincing illusion, but ultimately, everything is cause and effect.
I think I worded it wrong, I meant Earth just even having all those conditions feels like.......not exactly fate, but like this wasn't mere randomness or probability.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
...except what you just said lol that's pretty cut and dry. So how can anything be shades of grey if it takes a certainty to say anything about those shades of grey.
enjoy the loop
If the universe is infinite, it's a mathematical certainty it would have happened at some point in time.
And this perfect planet has only had multiple mass extinction events and human beings that still have useless organs and tailbones, oh, and cancer. I guess whoever designed all this isn't very good at it after all.
I never said it was intelligent design behind Earth's creation. But you are right that humanity and the Earth itself still has some kinks to work out. Hopefully they can patch some of that in time for the next expansion pack.
Determinism is the case, and it isn't to be confused with Fatalism either.
Fatalism implies there is some unseen guiding hand behind cause and effect instead of chaos.
That said I choose to live day to day life as if total free will is a thing because the alternative is to go crazy.
Fatalism implies there is some unseen guiding hand behind cause and effect instead of chaos.
That said I choose to live day to day life as if total free will is a thing because the alternative is to go crazy.
TimeEffect
Member
None of the free will arguments have felt convincing to me when I studied free will vs. determinism.
If you are to think of a duplicate universe that starts the same as ours, what reason would there be to think that any difference would occur? What reason is there to assume that we will make different choices?
I can't think of one.
I've also recently been wondering about how this ties into the debate on consciousness. Are these two beliefs consistent? I assume free will defenders see consciousness as something more than just the firing of neurons in the brain. I also assume free will defenders are more religious. Are there any defenders of determinism who are religious?
If you are to think of a duplicate universe that starts the same as ours, what reason would there be to think that any difference would occur? What reason is there to assume that we will make different choices?
I can't think of one.
I've also recently been wondering about how this ties into the debate on consciousness. Are these two beliefs consistent? I assume free will defenders see consciousness as something more than just the firing of neurons in the brain. I also assume free will defenders are more religious. Are there any defenders of determinism who are religious?
Magic Pancake
Member
A comic which mostly jives with my opinion.
Also, I think people in this thread are far to quick to doubt their own experience of life. When I decide what to have for lunch, even if it was determined from the big bang it certainly feels like I'm deciding between a burger or chicken. What should that be called other than free will?
Also, I think people in this thread are far to quick to doubt their own experience of life. When I decide what to have for lunch, even if it was determined from the big bang it certainly feels like I'm deciding between a burger or chicken. What should that be called other than free will?
Astral Dog
Member
People DO have a limited capacity at making decisions or choices, so they are not enterily tied. But even then this can vary by each person, for they all have different experiences or circunstances that "define" them...
But no, i dont think true Free Will exist at all.
But no, i dont think true Free Will exist at all.
Chezzymann
Member
I think its determinism, but that doesn't mean you're a puppet to fate or something. It just means that previous events (where you were born, how you were raised, the way your brain is wired, hormones, etc.) impact your decisions and shape who you are.
I think the concept of free will is silly, everything has a cause and effect and it doesn't make sense to think human choices dont either. But the people who believe in free will seem to think determinism is fatalism, or that there's conclusions already set in stone and some invisible hand guiding all our actions. That's not how it works at all. You can still make choices, but those choices aren't ever random.
I think the concept of free will is silly, everything has a cause and effect and it doesn't make sense to think human choices dont either. But the people who believe in free will seem to think determinism is fatalism, or that there's conclusions already set in stone and some invisible hand guiding all our actions. That's not how it works at all. You can still make choices, but those choices aren't ever random.
TimeEffect
Member
What do you mean? I think his point still stands, since you seem to be making an argument about design and patterns in the universe, while he seems to be arguing against a bit of gambler's fallacy.
But you just admitted that it was a deterministic outcome. How can you call it free will, at least in the context of these two terms being opposite? Is it fair to say that you admit free will is an illusion? Why not call it what it is-- a determined effect? What does this have to do with doubting experience?
Good Job Bob
Member
I don't think we can imagine what true free will would even be like.
Magic Pancake
Member
What am I doing other than choosing? Why does determinism belie that?
Ultimately I think (like David Hume and other compatibilists) that this argument is basically an argument about the meaning of words. If you define 'free will' as the ability to act without being determined by any causes, then obviously it is incompatible with determinism. However, if you define 'free will' as doing what you want to do, then obviously there is no conflict with determinism.
The problem is that free will (and freedom in general, even in political contexts) is an incredibly loose term and thinkers throughout the ages thought of it in incredibly different ways. If I hold a gun to your head and demand that you give me or wallet, do you act of free will? Technically, you could refuse and die, so there isn't 100% compulsion here; you end up acting according to your best judgment, which itself is influenced by the situation you find yourself in.
When there is widespread disagreement or ambiguity on the meaning of words, arguments can continue on and on in a circle without making much progress, and I believe that the debate on free will is a prime example of that.
The problem is that free will (and freedom in general, even in political contexts) is an incredibly loose term and thinkers throughout the ages thought of it in incredibly different ways. If I hold a gun to your head and demand that you give me or wallet, do you act of free will? Technically, you could refuse and die, so there isn't 100% compulsion here; you end up acting according to your best judgment, which itself is influenced by the situation you find yourself in.
When there is widespread disagreement or ambiguity on the meaning of words, arguments can continue on and on in a circle without making much progress, and I believe that the debate on free will is a prime example of that.
I have seen representation on both sides.
Good points.
Edit: actually I think you're spot on.
- Status