Are we really free?

[Homini Lupus]

Does our mind work in a deterministic way? Is there any space for freedom? If freedom of chice exists, how does it work?

Just tought somebody would like to share their ideas about freedom, so I'm open to any discourse based on any theory.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Does our mind work in a deterministic way? Is there any space for freedom? If freedom of chice exists, how does it work?

Just tought somebody would like to share their ideas about freedom, so I'm open to any discourse based on any theory.
Lovely. Freedom to choose is a basis of christianity. It's something many people value above all other things. However, just how much choice is there really? If we keep engaging in the same types of behaviors over and over again and if many of these behaviors are not helpful to us, then how much choice are we really exercising?

[vkut79]

Freedom is a purely subjective concept. In the public, scientific arena, where only objective observations are counted, and not subjective ones, then it does appear that freedom does not exist. But when you leave that arena and reflect on your own personal, subjective experience, then you observe that freedom does exist for you. Its important to realize that not all of our experience of life can be studied objectively by a collection of observers - some of it is only available subjectively to individuals.

[Rick]

Interesting discussion.

Freedom should be "outside any box", correct? At least the formulation of ideas outside the box.

How deterministic are we, really. I'm being sarcastic to an extent. Despite our determination to think for ourselves, how much of our focus is on preconceived ideas?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

And how able are we to break away from our preconcieved ideas and bilology?

[Zilal]

I think we're free to the extent that we're conscious. Of what emotions and motivations we're having and such. Insofar as we can stop reacting and consciously respond instead, that is freedom.

Hehe, I used the word "insofar."

[blueback]

I think we're free because we are aware of ourselves. A think that is not self-aware can't perceive any feedback about its own thought processes. We can, so we can alter our own minds. It's hard, and takes a lot of focus, but we can change the way we think. Since thought is the root of action, we are free if we can choose our own thoughts.

[eMachine]

I think we're free because we are aware of ourselves. A think that is not self-aware can't perceive any feedback about its own thought processes. We can, so we can alter our own minds. It's hard, and takes a lot of focus, but we can change the way we think. Since thought is the root of action, we are free if we can choose our own thoughts.

I agree. We are conscious of ourselves, so we can control our thoughts and therefore our actions. It does take being logical and rational, and the exercise of our willpower, but to believe that we can't make choices to change considering our past experiences and instincts/impulses, in my opinion, is limiting our potential to evolve and progress as individuals.

[thod]

2Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

3What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

8All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

[stasis]

I don't know why our will having a physical catalyst would necessitate it not being free. It is almost as if freedom of thought (and therefore decision, thus action) is being defined by some as a separation from what exists. But understanding how a thing arises should not negate that it has arisen. Or, in other words, that a thing has a cause does not in and of itself establish that the thing is precluded from possessing the properties that it possesses.

The definition of 'free will' that requires it be 'a thing which exists in a vacuum apart from the causality of physical reality' is, I would argue, a definition that literally defines free will out of existence. That would be a meaningless concept in the first place. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Homini Lupus]

I'm glad some different approaches to the problem have arisen so I think it's time to show my cards.

I think conceive freedom in two ways: how I figured out it is and how I figured out it should be tought.

I think the mind in a deterministic way; tought may come from your past experience (wich includes "present" since the brain works on things happened a glimpse of time before) and what you are. These two things are determined by anterior choices and their consequences. But when you make your first choice it is based on two factors you didn't choose. And so subsequent choices are based on choices you didn't really choose.

It's a bit hard to write about that since our mind is not made to work on itself but on the outer world but I hope I was clear enough.

Thinking free will this way may otherwise lead to total fatalism an it wouldn't let to think in terms of personal responsibility. It would also equate the most corrupt individuals to the best examples of humankind. So in practical terms thinking in terms of free will is more rewarding and, as noted above by eMachine, is necessary to get into the way of self improvement.

This said every further idea is welcome.

[muguly]

Freedom is an interesting topic. First, if I can, free from what? If it is the intention to be free from world views and objectives then that is achieved when we no longer care about the opinions of others and value what makes us whole and happy above all else. If it is the freedom from mental bondage we must first take ownership over everything that has and will happen in our lives. Only when we can accept the blame can we be free from the guilt and shame and therefore move towards a more independent thought process, one free of excuses and full of possibilities. Freedom, no matter what type, always starts with the decision to be free.

[DeadSpace]

While this is about freedom, thought i'd add some things that attempt to limit it.

As with what Blueback and eMachine said. 1st step in freedom is thinking without artificial/societal restrictions. Not becoming, or choosing to limit how you think or how you modify your own internal processes. Adaptibilty is key to maintaining freedom, there is a constant bombardment on a daily basis to conform, to restructure, even to insert new values. From everywhere, ads on TV, the net, radio, co-workers, friends, family, government, and religious leaders. All wanting you to see and acquire a certain viewpoint(theirs).
Product ads are perhaps the worst, body sprays for men...these ads have completely changed many viewpoints, and brought the companies in question great profit. Another favorite tactic is 'X number of people do this' which is used to equate something as being normal, accepted, and right.
Another is mainly from religious groups and leaders, negative connotations to your lifestyle if you don't believe in 'X' you a lesser person. The nice tactic: promoting the community, friendship and acceptance you could gain by joining them. That you would be happier, more successful, a better person...etc...heh, not much difference between ad agencies and religious recruitment...
Freedom is about choices, it's also about defending your mind from the daily onslaught, not paranoia...they are really out to get you. Nothing personal in it though, just another body and mind in a sea of sheep. These come from all sides, subtle and gross in their attempts. Rejection out of hand? no, but weighed carefully. Examined thoroughly. In my own life i have strong convictions...but they are not ironclad, they can and do get brought up for review. Modifiers added, case by case choices, not a sweeping 'one rule fits all'.
Once you start restricting how you think, rejecting concepts that you don't agree with, without examining them thoroughly for belief reasons. Believing that you have all the answers, if you lose the ability to question anything and everything including yourself. You are no longer free.

[Colette]

Does our mind work in a deterministic way? Is there any space for freedom? If freedom of chice exists, how does it work?

Just tought somebody would like to share their ideas about freedom, so I'm open to any discourse based on any theory.

It's usually events (i.e. the universe) that is argued to work in a deterministic way.

Assuming then that you're referring to mental freedom, the extent to which free will ( a function of the neo-cortex) is considered to operate, is a moot point amongst neuroscientists and philosophers. Instinct functions of the 'old brain', action dictated by memory and societal/social programming, the effect of emotion on reason, and so on, are all areas in which the 'jury is still out' as to whether it is possible to operate with genuine choice, and the extent to which that is possible. For that reason I wouldn't venture a firm opinion, for myself.

[gogurtdynasty]

we're little batteries i don't know how free that is

[muguly]

If you believe in a higher power and destiny, then do we really have free will?

[Homini Lupus]

The idea of destiny tends to negate that of freedom. In a destiny point of view you don't have free will or it's useless. The idea of higher power by itself doesn't interfere with free will, as long as the higher power doesn't override it.

[Poliorcetes]

What is freedom? The libertarian incompatibilists call it 'the power to do otherwise'. To the compatibilists, however, you are free so long as you do things because you want to do them. And then we have the compatibilist 'rational optimizer' idea that a free choice is the choice of that which is rationally preferable.

Problem with the libertarian view is that "if it is a matter of pure chance that a man should act in one way rather than another, he may be free but he can hardly be responsible" (Ayer, Philosophical Essays)

Hmmm...

[vaguely dissatisfied]

What is freedom? The libertarian incompatibilists call it 'the power to do otherwise'. To the compatibilists, however, you are free so long as you do things because you want to do them. And then we have the compatibilist 'rational optimizer' idea that a free choice is the choice of that which is rationally preferable.

Problem with the libertarian view is that "if it is a matter of pure chance that a man should act in one way rather than another, he may be free but he can hardly be responsible" (Ayer, Philosophical Essays)

Hmmm...
Even if it isn't pure chance, but say biology............is she any more responsible?

[Homini Lupus]

If responsibility is a tool of the societies to punish acts that would undermine the society itself you would be responsible, since society would not care about why you act in a certain way; if responsibility is something more abstract, I guess responsibility may only exist if free will does. Otherwise you would be responsible for something you cannot change.

[Jgib5328]

I don't think we are truly free. We are free in the sense that we can choose how to think or feel about something, but we are imprisoned by society. Our obligations burden us and take away our freedom. IE, I couldn't ready my book today or watch TV, because I had the obligation of working on my school work. I have the freedom to choose how I feel about it, I choose to be slightly bothered, but I really have no choice in the matter. I could've chosen to not do my work, but realistically if I chose not to do work, then I wouldn't be able to survive, because I'd fail out of college, and be forced to work a menial job. At that menial job, I'd still have obligations to do work and have responsibility, so again I wouldn't be free. If I chose not to work then I really wouldn't survive. So we aren't free due to all of our obligations in life, which burden us. If we were truly free, then we wouldn't have any obligations and could do what ever we wanted to, but the truth of the matter is that we can't. We aren't free, we are all caged in by society and life.

[elfece]

If you believe in a higher power and destiny, then do we really have free will?

Well, usually religions need free will, otherwise God has to be the root of all evil, we must be free, at least free enough to take responsability on everything that goes wrong:idea:

And also reward and punishment would make no sense, it would be immensely cruel if a God who directed us didn't stopped us from getting away of his/her/nevermind holy doctrine... We would burn forever in Hell for something that isn't even our fault!

[futureperfect5]

I am ... free that is.
To make my own choices
To create my own disasters
To account for my thoughts and actions.

Yep, I am the one that does it and I am the one accountable.
So, ... free

[Friend]

This is just a thought on the subject- not a conclusion:

It may be that the only acid-test for freedom is a retrospective realisation that a subject's action was ultimately correct. If it was correct, then the subject lives in a pure or true freedom actuated/illuminated by the correct choice; if the action was incorrect, then assumedly, the subject both made a choice from limited and incorrect information or capability (a form of bondage) and currently lives in bondage to the consequences of the incorrect action. This also assumes that the subject given correct information and complete competence to fulfill the correct action, would choose to do so.

I am also torn about how my personality, having limitation, could even afford me freedom. In a sense, it seems that freedom may just be a glimpse of a type of reality just outside our grasp rather than a realistic goal or state of being- a sort of tap into another 'world' of sorts, a window into truth or something along the same lines.

Interesting topic.

[notoppings]

If you believe in a higher power and destiny, then do we really have free will?

George Carlin made a nice analogy on free will. Imagine yourself inside a glass bottle everything inside this bottle is subject to your will you can control it you can change it, now throw that bottle in a river thats reality you can't effect anything outside your bottle you just go where the river flows.

[thod]

Free will is the idea of considering a set of variables and choosing a set of actions to achieve a desired position in a future time frame.

Suppose the world was deterministic and you had a super computer that could calculate that to determine the future with 100% accuracy. You could say to the computer "later I will ask you, will I be standing on my head at midnight". You then resolve to do the exact opposite undermining the computer. This presents the computer with a problem. It must consider both future cases where it says "yes" and the case it says "no". To do this the computer must model itself. The simplest model of the computer is the computer itself. If it were to model itself it would have no capacity to answer the question. Thus the computer cannot answer the question because it cannot model itself.

[Homini Lupus]

A similar computer would get overflow problems since it would have to infinitely calculate the reactions to his actions; also to have a computer able to calculate every smallest variable you would probably have to duplicate reality itself. Like making a map as big as the country you're representing.

Yes, I too find the "fate" idea you exemplified absurd but this doesn't negate determinism, it simply makes future unknowledgeable.

[muguly]

George Carlin made a nice analogy on free will. Imagine yourself inside a glass bottle everything inside this bottle is subject to your will you can control it you can change it, now throw that bottle in a river thats reality you can't effect anything outside your bottle you just go where the river flows.

That's the best explaination I have ever read. :idea:

[blueback]

It depends on how far outside your reality you get in your definition.

If you go all the way out and encompass God (who is theoretically not encompassable) then you don't have free will. The universe only exists because God created & maintains it, he knows everything that will ever happen in the universe, and he can choose to create you or not. As soon as he creates you all you get to do is act out the script he foresaw ahead of time, thus no free will.

If you only encompass the universe (God is outside the universe) then you do have free will. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy and no one can control your thoughts. That means you can do whatever you want as long as you accept the consequences.

If you have a universe without God then it's the same as God being outside the universe, so you have free will.

[nocturne]

Does our mind work in a deterministic way?Maybe.

Is there any space for freedom?Yes.

If freedom of choice exists, how does it work?Biologically or Politically?

[acyckowski]

If you go all the way out and encompass God (who is theoretically not encompassable) then you don't have free will. The universe only exists because God created & maintains it, he knows everything that will ever happen in the universe, and he can choose to create you or not. As soon as he creates you all you get to do is act out the script he foresaw ahead of time, thus no free will.


That sounds rational, but it's wrong. Knowledge of a future event does not imply causation of the event. I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I do not cause the rotation of the earth. I know that if I give my four-year-old chocolate ice cream, she will get some on her dress, but I do not cause her to spill it. She freely chooses to eat the ice cream with her usual reckless abandon, I choose not to interfere. Similarly, God knows what we will do, but he does not allow Himself to interfere. Why? I don't know, but here we are floating down the river.

[thod]

but he does not allow Himself to interfere.

Foreknowledge doesn't present a problem if he never interacts. For all intents and purposes he may as well not exist. The theists argue that he does interact, the odd burning bush aside, he guides their actions interfering with their free will.

[acyckowski]

Foreknowledge doesn't present a problem if he never interacts. For all intents and purposes he may as well not exist. The theists argue that he does interact, the odd burning bush aside, he guides their actions interfering with their free will.

That assumes that guidance and interference are the same thing. Possible, but if so I think the difference in degree is significant enough to treat them separately. I tell my daughter to slow down eating the ice cream so she doesn't make a mess, it doesn't mean she's going to do it. Withdrawing the cone after each bite, though, would be interference.

[blueback]

Knowledge of a future event does not imply causation of the event. .

No, for YOU it doesn't. God is the one responsible for causation, so if he KNOWS something is "going" to happen then it is going to happen only because he wants/expects it to. Did you not notice the dividing line where God was outside the boundary of the univers but we were inside it?

[thod]

I need a model update.

So we have God standing outside time. He is a painter standing in front of his easel. The painting has the big bang on the left and the end of time on the right. He can look at the picture and see the whole of eternity. By looking closer he can see every detail. A human life is but a small line of the painting going from left to right. His own interactions he marks in red.

But the painting in finished if he makes a red mark at some point in the past then all points to the right will alter too, maybe destroying the aesthetics of the picture. So the universe and time are a settled picture. God cannot interact with it once it is complete other than the known red marks.

What of the humans with their free will? God can see them from start to end. He cannot erase one or alter one without altering the picture. Since their lines are fixed we have no free will to him, only an illusion to ourselves.

[blueback]

Yeah, that works. Because God sees our "script" before he creates us it is his act of creating us to act out that script which means we have no free will. We don't know that, but he does.

The bottom line is that if we have free will then we can suprise God, if we can't suprise God then we don't have free will.

[suzyk]

Basically, all of us are owned by the government, whether we like it or not. Freedom exists, but freedom has a price. It's almost oxymoronic, but didn't people give up their lives for freedom of though, speech and people? Yes. So in the end, we should all be grateful that we have freedom right now.

[raconteur213]

Basically, all of us are owned by the government, whether we like it or not. Freedom exists, but freedom has a price. It's almost oxymoronic, but didn't people give up their lives for freedom of though, speech and people? Yes. So in the end, we should all be grateful that we have freedom right now.

I knew you were a fucking optimist at heart...

[suzyk]

I'm just saying we should respect the people who fought for freedom. Everyone else in the world is a lazy bitch.

[cal]

Does our mind work in a deterministic way? Is there any space for freedom? If freedom of chice exists, how does it work?

Just tought somebody would like to share their ideas about freedom, so I'm open to any discourse based on any theory.

Over the last while, I've been gathering up quotes regarding concepts, from what I've been reading by recognized leaders in their fields. A few of those quotes that seem relevant here:

"Concepts are not ideas. They are the 'genes' of ideas."


If one accepts this, then:

- "Language is an encyclopedia of ignorance. Words and concepts become established at a period of relative ignorance - which each period must be, compared to the subsequent period. Once the perceptions and concepts are frozen into the permanence of language, they control and limit our thinking on any subject because we are forced to use those concepts."
- "We are always using concepts. When we think we are not, it just means that we are carrying on with the old and traditional concepts - often without being aware of their nature."
"If the operating concept remains hidden you remain dominated by it."


A few problems associated with concept changing/concept creating:

- "It is not enough just to hope that 'somehow' better concepts will emerge."
- "New concepts will not come from the analysis of data because the mind can only see what it is prepared to see. There has to be the ability to create new concepts."
- "Concepts are extremely important, but very difficult to create. In hindsight, of course, almost all successful concepts seem easy and obvious."
- It is often assumed that it does not matter where you start in considering a problem because if your second-stage (idea-stage) processing techniques are correct, you will eventually reach the right answer. This just isn't so. If you start off with certain concepts (for example, that absenteeism is an industrial crime and bad for production), then you many never reach the right answer."
- "On the whole, we are rather poor at changing our concepts. And yet concept changes are more likely to lead to radically new ideas than is a re-sorting of existing concepts. It is difficult to change concepts by direct challenge and examination because when we look at a concept we see it imbedded in the solid structure of it implications and consequences. Anything we try and put in its place must fill the gap caused by removing the original concept - and since it must fill the gap it cannot be significantly different. That is why concept changes tend to be oblique, and to occur when the surroundings are changed first. Or we must have the courage to think through a concept change that at first must seem inferior to what it replaces."
- "Both marketing and technical R&D, or specific new product development groups, do come up with concepts from time to time, but the focus and expertise of such groups is not directly on concepts as such."

[blueback]

"If the operating concept remains hidden you remain dominated by it."


I like that one. It sums up all the other ones.

[cal]

I like that one. It sums up all the other ones.

Pretty much. The next problem then seems to become that even if you do know the operating concept, what can you effectively do about it, during those times when it would be good to really free oneself from them.

[acyckowski]

Interesting, but I'm not buying the premise. Concepts and ideas are similar, but neither is wholly dependent on the other. Concept implies abstraction, idea implies practical application. One does not need abstraction for an original practical application, nor does one need to visualize a practical application to posit an abstraction. Ideas can flow from concept, but don't have to.

For the dissertation on language to be true, then we would notice that the meaning of words do not change over time, as they would be "stuck on stupid," as it were. Instead, connotations and even denotations change over time.

I do, however, buy your problem summary. I would add that from a business perspective, people who are more concrete in outlook tend to be highly efficient in matters that require practical action without real insight (paperwork comes to mind) yet are incapable of the conceptualization necessary to manage change (or projects) involving uncertainty and vision. In this sense, "ideas" about how to organize the office party are easily processed and implemented, but "concepts" such as transitioning to Lean Manufacturing processes encounter fierce and stubborn resistance.

[cal]

Interesting, but I'm not buying the premise. Concepts and ideas are similar, but neither is wholly dependent on the other. Concept implies abstraction, idea implies practical application. One does not need abstraction for an original practical application, nor does one need to visualize a practical application to posit an abstraction. Ideas can flow from concept, but don't have to.

Thanks for the feedback. You seem knowledgeable in this area. Does it come mainly from academic studies? Other sources? Both? Maybe some of the differences you have with what I quoted comes from this?

Understanding the application potential (vs. descriptive only potential) of concepts has become something of special interest in the last while. The people I'm quoting are considered by many to be leaders in their fields, based on how well what they say seems to work. A clear separation between how one defines concepts and ideas would seem to allow for one to apply concepts more effectively in given areas (vs. explaining concepts as being eg. 'abstract ideas'.)

I don't want to highjack this thread discussing concepts, and might start a new thread on it at some point. But I found your comments "One does not need abstraction for an original practical application", and "Ideas can flow from concept, but don't have to", to be especially interesting. Coming up with ways of short circuiting a process is always appealing. Would you have an example or two of the kinds of original practical ideas you're thinking of that didn't need abstraction, didn't need to flow from concepts.

[acyckowski]

Thanks. I confess to ignorance, however. Any knowledge I seem to have comes from practical application of Mechanical Engineering to direct leadership in a combat environment.

In other words, I've been something of an idea-whore. I've been exposed to all kinds of crap, from technical subjects to classic liberal arts to applied business/military leadership. I kind of just do the NT synthesis-thing.





acyckowski added to this post, 2 minutes and 33 seconds later...

That, plus the nuns beat us relentlessly on shades of distinction within words...is "friendly" used as an adjective or adverb? How do you know? Yikes.

[cal]

Thanks. I confess to ignorance, however. Any knowledge I seem to have comes from practical application of Mechanical Engineering to direct leadership in a combat environment.

In other words, I've been something of an idea-whore. I've been exposed to all kinds of crap, from technical subjects to classic liberal arts to applied business/military leadership. I kind of just do the NT synthesis-thing.





acyckowski added to this post, 2 minutes and 33 seconds later...

That, plus the nuns beat us relentlessly on shades of distinction within words...is "friendly" used as an adjective or adverb? How do you know? Yikes.


Yes, but the beatings were for your own good. It was what I was told when they yelled at me.:)

On your willingness to say "I confess to ignorance", I respect that, a lot.

I myself won't rule out what you said about new ideas not necessarily having to come from concepts. If an anomaly could be found, it might open up a whole new significant approach.

The closest thing that maybe comes to mind right now might be dreams, like Kekule's tail chasing snakes and benzene ring discovery dream. But some question it's truthfulness:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1


However, even if the dream was true, it might be said that the concepts leading to the image were 'imbedded' in the dream.

Now off to work in my horseless carriage.

[Jakalwarrior]

What is will? my will is something provided by my genes, experiences, and every variable pushing me towards making a certain descision (yes I am a determinist :D ).

Is my Will free?
Its isn't free from the laws of phsyics or the limitations of the matter it has control over
It isn't free from determinism (if you believe that exists)
It isn't free from consequences imposed by the society I am a part of

If you work from the assumption that my will is just ultimately a product of determinism and restrained by the physical world, then yes it is free. Its all a matter of perspective. Is a ball I roll down a hill free? well it is allowed to follow its natural path guided by the surface, gravity, and any force I exerted when pushing it, etc... If it was rolling down the hill on rails I "might" say its no longer free. Unless im comparing it to a ball rolling down the rails tethered to a cord. All a matter of perspective.
Is my will totally free from influence? I dont think anyone except the most hardcore devout theist would say that. The real issue is how much influence and that just boils down to whether or not you are a determinist, theist, parallel universe believer, etc... That places you on a scale from
"We are flesh computers <----------- we are influenced----------> We have origional thoughts that exist outside the influence of the natural world and completely control our destiny

Sry for typos or lack of flow, trying to write in little bursts between tasks at work.

[thod]

How does what you refer to as a 'determinist' differ from what is commonly called 'fatalist'?

[acyckowski]

No, for YOU it doesn't. God is the one responsible for causation, so if he KNOWS something is "going" to happen then it is going to happen only because he wants/expects it to. Did you not notice the dividing line where God was outside the boundary of the univers but we were inside it?

Okay, since that's the way you want to play.....

Who says that God has to be defined by perfect knowledge of everything that will happen? That is the non-sequitur with free will, is it not? Could we not say that God's omniscience is limited to that which has already happened and what is happening now?

What if we define perfect knowledge in the terms of uncertainty (risk) analysis? In this case, "perfect knowledge" from an expert denotes 100% fidelity of the probabilities that something will happen in the future. It does not imply the accurate prediction of any particular outcome, only the odds that it will. It's what meterorologists do all the time, and I'm sure you've seen how mixed the results are.

If we use that definition of perfect knowledge of future events, it allows Him to peer inside our thoughts, assess the odds that we will choose any of an array of decisions, but He does not make the decision for us. This would be consistent with Free Will, and would not negate the possibility of Divine influence and intervention.





acyckowski added to this post, 1 minutes and 15 seconds later...

How does what you refer to as a 'determinist' differ from what is commonly called 'fatalist'?

It sounds more scientific.

[Jakalwarrior]

That does require random possibilties to exist though. Otherwise god with his infinite intelligence would have been able to calculate all of time the instant he set anything in to motion. We've already established in my other thread though that you believe in random. I cant argue that with you since science isn't sure on that one either. A lot of the quantum guys are leaning that way now.

[acyckowski]

You're right, my argument does presuppose randomness, and I do personally believe that randomness exists.

In the other thread I qualified that belief. I think I said something along the lines that although "random" is often misused to describe "unknown," our knowledge will increase until we either reach absolute knowledge of all things, or are constrained by true randomness. We won't really know if true randomness exists unless or until we are able to prove it does not.

For the sake of this argument, I haven't made any assumptions about God's nature until that last block, though. I think it's a little shady to disprove a postulate by defining it in such a way that its logical outcome is contradictory. So, if we strip from God the assumption that he can predict the outcome of random events, thus making said events deterministic, I think that opens the original question back up to reasonable discussion.

[Beery Swine]

In a word, no. I mean I don't even have the freedom to choose to like cauliflower. My brain was prewired from birth to have an extreme distaste for that slop. I have the freedom to eat cauliflower, but not to enjoy it. I also don't have the freedom to dislike sex and naked women and furry porn. I could choose to not engage in sex and never look at porn again, but its all but impossible to not think of those things, and in the end that's all it takes to lead straight to the others. Not that I'd choose to like or dislike any of these things given the choice, although it would be nice if I could choose to like exercising. If I did, I'd probably be much healthier.

[Ool]

Whether we’re free depends on how I define “we.” After all, even if this body is only a puppet and something else is pulling the strings, it is that something that’s making the decisions. So whatever that something is, it is my true self.

When I refer to myself I always refer to something that was free enough to refer to itself.

’Nuff said…





Ool added to this post, 18 minutes and 20 seconds later...

Does our mind work in a deterministic way? Is there any space for freedom? If freedom of chice exists, how does it work?

Look, the question is, does the whole Universe work in a deterministic way? If phenomena can occur for no reason then it doesn’t. If phenomena cannot occur for no reason then that means there is an infinity of reasons, meaning the Universe is infinite, with an infinity of possibilities how a given situation might continue. Since you have no way of telling where you are exactly in that infinite phase space it is also impossible to determine exactly how things will continue.

Either way there is no determinism and lots of freedom…

Oh, and immortality, since the parts of the Universe in which you die you never get to see…

[Monte314]

No, we are not free.

[Marcus]

Freedom is a purely subjective concept. In the public, scientific arena, where only objective observations are counted, and not subjective ones, then it does appear that freedom does not exist.
It depends how do you define freedom. Quantum mechanics is non-deterministic. We might experience non-determinism as freedom.

[jlines]

k, so this is something i've mulled over for a while

in terms of physics everything is the result of something else. Nothing is spontaneous.

So the fact that i made this post, and ultimatly changed the bits on some hard drive some where is the result of some hyper-complicated chemical reaction inside my brain.

so was this post preordained by some chemical reaction that took place before i was born?

Or did i actually create a new physical event in the universe by deciding to post this? you decide. or at least give me some info to help me understand.

First accurate answer gets a nobel prize!

[zibber]

Preordained is a somewhat misleading term. I am inclined to say that anything we do is an emergent property of particles interacting, probably (mostly?) causally, but this notion has little bearing on what's called free will, in practice. At first glance it seems more useful to ponder the restrictions of our human frame on "free will", but this turns out to be a bit absurd, as humans are human. To will stuff, you have to have something to base your wishes on. What could a completely unrestricted being have to will?

[Monte314]

Good points by zibber.

I think quantum uncertainty might enter into this discussion at some point.

It would probably be difficult to argue that physical processes at quantum levels are deterministic in the sense that would be required for your specific actions to be pre-determined in the way you describe.

Leibniz believed that everything that happened in the physical world was the result of interactions among things he called "monads"; this seems similar to Democritus ideas about "atoms" bumping against each other to produce the phenomenah we observe... and it seems similar to what your question suggests! These ideas just keep comin' around.

[Apathy]

I never got the quantum uncertainty argument. So we humans can not predict, only guess chances, what reaction will follow the action at the quantum level. This doesn't mean that it happens at random right? Just that our measurements or logic could be flawed at some point, which limits our understanding.

And what if, for the sake of argument, it was completely unpredictable, free of the laws of causality. It is not under humankinds control. It is then, per definition, uncontrollable. Why does this undermine the possible complete deterministic nature of the consecutive choices every human being will make?

I have thought of this 'proof' against free will:

1. The past is unchangeable
2. The near future is the past of the further future.

1+2 = The near future is unchangeable, as is all of the future then ofcourse.

Can anyone disprove this for me?

[Monte314]

I never got the quantum uncertainty argument. So we humans can not predict, only guess chances, what reaction will follow the action at the quantum level. This doesn't mean that it happens at random right? Just that our measurements or logic could be flawed at some point, which limits our understanding.

And what if, for the sake of argument, it was completely unpredictable, free of the laws of causality. It is not under humankinds control. It is then, per definition, uncontrollable. Why does this undermine the possible complete deterministic nature of the consecutive choices every human being will make?

I have thought of this 'proof' against free will:

1. The past is unchangeable
2. The near future is the past of the further future.

1+2 = The near future is unchangeable, as is all of the future then ofcourse.

Can anyone disprove this for me?

Interesting view. You are assuming that world lines are either:

1.) continuous

or

2.) short-term stationary

I don't think either assumption can be supported. There seem to be chaotic systems in the world, which implies that no matter how short the look-ahead time for a prediction, the next state cannot be known with certainty.

But I like the cut of your giblets.

[Apathy]

Why does unpredictability mean that the outcome is not set in stone? To me, unpredictability means a lack of data/calculation power. For example: the chance on throwing a 6 with a dice is 1/6. Why is it 1/6? Because there are too many unknown and uncontrollable variables to the dice thrower. Such as: Exact speed and direction of every air molecule ( and their quantum states ) , exact speed and direction of the dice as it leaves the hand of the dice thrower, if something/someone is going to get in the way of the dice, the exact x,y,z coordinates of the dice and its surrounding, etc. etc. If I throw the dice and I know all the variables the moment I throw it and have enough calculation power, I (assume) I could predict which number it will give. But ofcourse normal people can't that's why it depends on chance. But for the universe, the chance that I will throw X is 1.

Anyway, I think a lack of data, with some data that may never be measureable, and a lack of calculation power, some of which needed is so great it may never be achieved, is the cause of unpredictability. But why does unpredictability mean that humans are in control of their own destiny? To me, it just means that we can never predict our destiny, not that our destiny isn't already decided.

And what if two previously identical, 'good' people in parallel universes encounter a different outcome of a chaotic system. Which causes one of them to lose their house and turn evil, while the other one gets to keep his house and stay good. How is this their fault/choice?

[Hagbard]

I read an article some time ago. about an experiment in which the test persons had their brains stimulated by electric impulses, forcing movement of their arm.
But they all remembered moving that arm voluntarily. So free will might be an illusion.
It had something to do with the brains perception of "present time" which has a latency of about 2 seconds.

[jlines]

I think i agree with Monte in that quantum mechanics may play a role in making free will possible. The fact that quantum states can't be measured entirely is not necessarily due to a lack of measuring ability. My understanding is that quantum states can only be defined as a probability wave, and to narrow the probability to a single value for one property, renders all the other properties to be removed. ie, quantum particles are everywhere and nowhere untill you look at one.

As far as brain functions, I read about a study a few weeks ago where subjects were attatched to a cat scan of some kind, then asked simple questions. The researchers were able to predict what the subject had chosen a full 8 seconds before the subject knew their descision.

I think there is free will, but it is more a function of the subconscious.

[jlines]

I was thinking about this more the other day and had an interesting idea. One of the theories physicists have used to explain the relative weakness of the gravitational force is that the force is spread out over numerous dimensions, and perhaps even parallel universes.

It reminded me of an article called the holographic universe that theorizes that our reality is a byproduct of a more basic plane of existence. This theory may help to explain why sub-atomic particles can interact in ways that seem to defy the speed of light.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (good read)


Now if some of these ideas are true it would not be so strange to think that the human spirit (if you believe in that sort of thing) exists in a higher plane of reality than our bodies, and that free will is dictated by a force that exists in a higher dimension of reality.


also this seemed relevent
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[PHS Philip]

You've already looked at some of the studies showing that the conscious mind doesn't make decisions, so I'll go straight to the quantum fallacies and polydimensional fallacies.

"Can't be measured" does not mean random. The impossibility of measuring every aspect of a subatomoic particle simultaneously is unrelated to whether the universe is deterministic or not. The particles have all the properties at once, after all. The problem is measuring them, not whether the properties are present.

Next, extra dimensions: more dimensions has no bearing on free will. All they would mean is that particles can move on 4 axes rather than 3. There's no reason to suppose that that would confer some mechanism for the particles making choices.

Finally, the "spirit." That's a subject that has been intentionally made untestable, because the spirit is supposed to somehow influence the world without ever leaving the mark of its presences. I won't derail this thread on that topic, because other threads have dealt with it.

[Fredi]

I have have tried to have discussions about this, but no one seems to share my perspective, and it usually ends with that the others just say "no" but never has any valid arguments against..

Anyways, I am of a more deterministic view. For me this is the only theory that makes logical sence. From the time a human can make its first choice in life, lets say he can choose A or B. Then he determines the choice he wants to do and then do it.

But the things that determines A or B is the humans genetic composition and life experience so far. So if he chooses A as the best choice it looks something like, genetics+experience=A (simplified).

And with that exact g+e it can only equal A, there can be no other outcome unless the g+e are different. After each choice experience changes, and so life progresses like a endless chain of choices until you die.

So what we call free-will is something that is already "pre-determined" at any given point in time by our genetics and previous experiences up til that point in time. Free will is just an illusion.

Furthermore, I think everything in the Universe works like, from the beginning (big bang if it is true) everything is one big chain reaction.

I hope I managed to make some sence typing it out=)

Comments?

[moon]

1. Genetics: suppose that everyone have similar chains of genes and same natural instict about "early life decisions". So, we are starting from same point.That part of your theory could pass.
2. Experience: as a life goes, we are experiencing different lifestyles. Culture, habits, religion and other factors affect everyone of us in a different way, so there is various of formed personlities by individual.

Free will is an illusion? You want to say that we don't have free will, yet are our decisions mechanically made without our sense?
Maybe it could be said on that way, but i like more this theory:
Our decisions and free will are formed due to events we experienced. Events (in past, in present and in future) can't be controlled, so our free will is unpredictable and random. That means we have free will which is acquired.

Example:
If i was bitten by dog in a childhood i would dislike and be afraid of dogs.
That would be huge mental trauma for kid and will be projected of any free will decision about dogs, and very likely i would choose B option: Dogs are dangerous, he only want to bite me, i am scared.
Instead, dog didn't beat me as i was child, so normally my outcome will be A option: Dogs are naturally good and i like to play with them. Don't have anything agains dogs.

Sorry if i didn't precisely understood what you wanted to say, but i think this is the story about?

[PHS Philip]

1. Genetics: suppose that everyone have similar chains of genes and same natural instict about "early life decisions". So, we are starting from same point.That part of your theory could pass.
2. Experience: as a life goes, we are experiencing different lifestyles. Culture, habits, religion and other factors affect everyone of us in a different way, so there is various of formed personlities by individual.

Free will is an illusion? You want to say that we don't have free will, yet are our decisions mechanically made without our sense?
Maybe it could be said on that way, but i like more this theory:
Our decisions and free will are formed due to events we experienced. Events (in past, in present and in future) can't be controlled, so our free will is unpredictable and random. That means we have free will which is acquired.

Well, I think you're missing the point. Sure, the generation of actions by the brain is so complex that it's unpredictable, but that doesn't make it free will. Free will requires that you be able to actually choose, so it's irrelevant if we can't control events. Just because we don't know exactly what g and e are doesn't mean that a choice is made.

[Fredi]

Well, I think you're missing the point. Sure, the generation of actions by the brain is so complex that it's unpredictable, but that doesn't make it free will. Free will requires that you be able to actually choose, so it's irrelevant if we can't control events. Just because we don't know exactly what g and e are doesn't mean that a choice is made.

Exactly, the illusion of free will stems from the fact that we do not have all the information to compute the outcome.

We are all in this way "trapped" in our past experiences and well everything that til that point in time makes you, you.

I approach dog+dog bites me+I am afriad of dogs=next time i avoid dog (A)

But the thing is none of this events are random or free will. The individual you were before approaching the dog is simular calculation that made you approach it in the first place.

The dogs bite was not random it did so because of his own previous calculation. Adding the bite to you individual calculation made you afraid of dogs in general (not everyone would respond alike).

Which in this example leads to A: avoid the next dog you meet.

Everybody starts their own chain once they recieve their conciousness and our "collisions" with each other impacts one anothers calculations.

[moon]

I think i just have paraphased Fredi's post.
Main idea from that: Decisions emanates from the free will.
Free will requires that you be able to actually choose, so it's irrelevant if we can't control events.
If past events projects and reacts to our decisions and free will, it can't be irrelevant.
Just because we don't know exactly what g and e are doesn't mean that a choice is made.
This part i didn't understood:confused:


"philosophers have debated this question for over two millenia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it." - applies about free will

[blueback]

So, are you looking for a way to make a choice completely uninfluenced by external or internal factors? It sounds like you're trying to define free will out of existence rather than actually prove something about it.

I would say that our mind is what allows us to have free will. Animals are inductive thinkers, which is what you mean when you say "deterministic." Humans, with minds, are deductive thinkers. Once a piece of information goes into our mind there is no requirement that we do anything in particular aobut it, or even that we value it in a particular way.

Besides, I don't think you've fully integrated chaos and uncertainty into your theory.

[Jakalwarrior]

As a fellow determinist I feel your pain. People are just plain stuck on free will! I guess because if you are christian the only other choice is calvanism lol.
With modern science though you have to consider that there may very well be randomness in the universe (Stinkin quantum physicists are proposing it! grrr). If that is the case then there can never be perfect determinism BUT that still doesnt open the door to free will, it just adds some chaos to the mix.

I absolutely believe that free will is an illusion though. The complexity of our thought processes and the number of variables make it seems as though our thoughts and actions poofed out of thin air but there are always variables that dictate the path. I usually provide people with the argument of:
If an exact copy of our entire universe were made at this very moment, wouldnt everything that happened over there happen the same here? what about if you stalled or sped up time in one of the universes? wouldnt things still happen the same? Therefore the starting point perfectly predicts the future actions right?

Then people throw a wrench into it with "the leading quantum physics theory predicts that there may be randomness at the quantum level so maybe it wouldn't happen the same!". Then you just have to remind them that an invisible dice roll doesn't exactly equate to free will any more than determinism does (then if you are feeling energetic you can push things by going in to string theory to challenge wave theory)...

[PHS Philip]

projects and reacts to our decisions and free will, it can't be irrelevant.

If past events determine what we do, that is not free will. It doesn't matter if we controlled the past events or not, they determined the decision that would be made.

This part i didn't understood:confused:

I was using the OP's "genetics" and "experience" variables. Even if we don't know exactly what they are, and even if we didn't control them, they still determine what we will do.

[Fredi]

Hehe yea do like to point out that randomness kills free-will too=)

But when I read about quantum physics something struck me, that it did not seem to be an objective randomness, only a subjective one.

If the problem is that scientists can not at point in time determine both the current position and the direction it is travelling at the same time. Only the exact position or the direction the particle has, it is not random at all, it is only random in our perception because we are not able to determine its behavior because we lack information.

Therefore, the objective fact that the particle is going somewhere specific, because of a cause would imply that determinism is possible. (or atleast my deterministic theory, I have got comments that my is not the same as determinism?)

[QUOTE=Besides, I don't think you've fully integrated chaos and uncertainty into your theory.

I do not now much about it actually, I better read up on it, please enlighten me=)

[0330]

[...] Free will is just an illusion. [...] Comments?

Does it really matter whether free will is an illusion or not? I'm just asking out of curiosity; sorry if I sound hostile.

[PHS Philip]

Does it really matter whether free will is an illusion or not? I'm just asking out of curiosity; sorry if I sound hostile.

I also agree with you. I think free will is an illusion, but it's an illusion so elaborate as to effectively equal free will. It's impossible to effectively predict an individual's choices, so they can be treated as true choices even if they aren't.

[Fredi]

Well, yes to me it does.

(i) I seek truth and find it important.

(ii) I do not think it really matters in the way I act in my life, saying life would be pointless without free-will is like saying the glass is half empty, I see it as half full. That is that I have a "destiny" to achieve great things. Which is more motivating=)

(iii) And I seem to strive to undersand the world, how everything connects to become one huge system which I need to navigate and improve upon correctly. And taking out one peace of the puzzle replacing it with a totally different one will leave the whole puzzle incomplete.

[Jakalwarrior]

From Wiki:

Is the measurement process random or deterministic?
Main article: Hidden variable theory

As described above, there is universal agreement that quantum mechanics appears random, in the sense that all experimental results yet uncovered can be predicted and understood in the framework of quantum mechanics measurements being fundamentally random. Nevertheless, it is not settled[1] whether this is true, fundamental randomness, or merely "emergent" randomness resulting from underlying hidden variables which deterministically cause measurement results to happen a certain way each time. This continues to be an area of active research.[2] --- To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I like that idea best. Randomness just doesnt make sense does it? though I guess if it is somehow proven I will have to accept it.

[Fredi]

I agree (obviously), if we look around us, nothing seem the least random. To think that everything is completely random, but still manages to always stay in its place doesnt really make sense...

The nature is too complex and needs too much precision for it to work to be random.

[Ijz]

Free will is an illusion

Oh I agree completely. From a purely logical perspective we humans are just making the best choices available to us. We are completely dependent on our genetic preferences, iq/eq, acquired experiences, etc...

Unfortunately most people don't think in a purely logical and analytical fashion about these concepts. I think that within society the term "Free will" is more often used to describe a conscious state.

Imagine the following scenario. You and your friend are walking down the street and you encounter an illusionist. This man offers to give you 20 euros if you correctly guess in which hand he is holding the red marble (in the other hand he is holding a blue marble). He now noticeably holds his left arm higher and the other lower and closer to his body. You, alerted by this difference, won't be fooled and pick his left hand. Obviously he was anticipating this and had placed the red marble in his right hand. Apparently most (but not all) people will pick the left hand in this scenario. The illusionist is aware of this and has created a whole act based on this principle. He has many more tricks up his sleave to influence the participants.

Of course in this scenario, many participants will become weary when the tricks are repeated several times, but this is only because it is so obvious that they are being fooled. The fact is that we are being subjected to all kinds of subliminal messages on a daily basis and we have no clue about it. These affect us whether we like it or not. Only those that see the true nature of such things can consciously act against it. The key here is to be aware and this requires knowledge. And this is what I think is coined by the term "Free Will', and yes, for most it is an illusion.

[wotrabbit]

I don't know about illusion, but I think the concept of free will is an invention, the way Truth is an invention of Western philosophy, according to Foucault. It (the concept of free will) has a genealogy and can be traced back, uncovered, the circumstances of its arisal can be pinpointed.

[Fredi]

I don't know about illusion, but I think the concept of free will is an invention, the way Truth is an invention of Western philosophy, according to Foucault. It (the concept of free will) has a genealogy and can be traced back, uncovered, the circumstances of its arisal can be pinpointed.

In what way do you think that Truth is a invention?

Do you not believe in a objective truth?

[umop_3pisdn]

Hmm, I've been a believer of determinism since around age sixteen, or so. I didn't really have much substantiating 'knowledge' at that time, it just seemed to intuitively make sense. The universe is so big, and we're so small, and as far as we can tell there is something along the lines of persistent order. The Universe essentially follows it's own rules. As humans, we're kind of just a sub-system designed to interact with/within some niches (Earth) of that larger environment (Cosmos). The span of the Universe is obviously quite vast (from very small to very large) and we occupy a very subjective/individual point as terrestrial life forms or whatever.

For some reason, I also think it's possible there's some sort of objective order or 'truth' that can be found within the Cosmos. Perhaps something deterministic that orders and determines how all of reality manifests itself. Essentially, perhaps something called 'natural law', that is actually written in impossible to find 'writing' into all things and how they happen. Though naturally, we'd never see it, due to our limited senses/technology and span of consciousness. So I don't mean to say it really matters to us in particular, but I think there is some sort of pattern. Maybe it's fractals, I don't know.

Our consciousness must be some emergent quality of this natural order that already exists. We're also attuned to deal with sensory impressions of their environment. Many of us create little microcosms for the world in our minds, to explain how it should be interacted with, etc. We're responding to everything. Our sense of identity itself hinges on having an external reality to compare/contrast ourselves against. Nowhere in there does there seem a whole lot of room for 'free will', more so just reacting to circumstances and constant change.

As others have said, though, I don't feel it makes a whole lot of difference. There's no need trying to strain my mind to reach some giant Cosmic understanding I'll never be able to grasp. I do have a limited human consciousness, and the illusion of free will is essentially as good as the real thing.

[AresX9]

In what way do you think that Truth is a invention?

Do you not believe in a objective truth?

Historical quote and also featured in Assassin's Creed:

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted."

Truth is a subjective term, just like everything else.

[umop_3pisdn]

Historical quote and also featured in Assassin's Creed:

"Nothing is true and everything is permitted."

Truth is a subjective term, just like everything else.

I agree. However, I think there might be some form of 'objective truth' in how the Universe works. If you understood it perfectly you could claim to have objective truth. Naturally, though, that's something Godlike, and beyond our reach.

[AresX9]

I agree. However, I think there might be some form of 'objective truth' in how the Universe works. If you understood it perfectly you could claim to have objective truth. Naturally, though, that's something Godlike, and beyond our reach.

Your "objective truth" is essentially an equation, which is formed through the observation of the universe. Therefore, that means that this equation comes from experimental data, which, according to the physicists that design this equation, will perceive it to be and market it as "the ultimate theory of everything."

If humans continue at their current rate of being primitive beings, then yes, we won't reach that stage. But, we can.

[umop_3pisdn]

Your "objective truth" is essentially an equation, which is formed through the observation of the universe. Therefore, that means that this equation comes from experimental data, which, according to the physicists that design this equation, will perceive it to be and market it as "the ultimate theory of everything."

If humans continue at their current rate of being primitive beings, then yes, we won't reach that stage. But, we can.

Yeah, more or less. But if it has enough span that it can explain nearly anything with an acceptable/near-perfect degree of success, then I find it hard to just consider it just an equation reached by experimental data.

Besides, actually reaching that point in our metaphysical understanding might end up blurring the line between science and 'mysticism', somewhat.

[ScottH]

I disagree. While we hope to "discover" basic, beautiful laws that will explain everything, I think the hope is a part of our reductionism.

I don't see any reason why the feat of understanding "everything" might only be possible by using "everything" to do so. I.e., the act of understanding is the act of being that which is understood.

To put it another way, it could be that it is impossible to place a model of the universe inside anything smaller than the universe itself, and particularly in something as small as our minds.

Towards the topic of free will, I believe it exists, insofar as I know I can contemplate alternatives and make a selection. It's been suggested that such a selection isn't at all free will, but only the consequence of the initial conditions.

That's true, but how could it be otherwise? To presume some force outside the universe--that we could proceed with impetus gathered from someplace else--is to presume a God.

Nonetheless, I say that the forces governing our "will" are [presently] so utterly beyond us that to assert them as "directed" isn't likely to be disproved any time soon. :-)

[umop_3pisdn]

I disagree. While we hope to "discover" basic, beautiful laws that will explain everything, I think the hope is a part of our reductionism.

I don't see any reason why the feat of understanding "everything" might only be possible by using "everything" to do so. I.e., the act of understanding is the act of being that which is understood.

To put it another way, it could be that it is impossible to place a model of the universe inside anything smaller than the universe itself, and particularly in something as small as our minds.


Yeah, I don't think we can personally understand it. I didn't even mean to say we could find it. And I'm not sure reductionism is the right term. Information and the expressed form of that information are somewhat different. A fractal has infinite definition, and is created by repeating a single formula over and over. There you create something very complex from something that begins as quite simple (a simple forumla iterated many times) and expands into being something quite large

If you've ever heard of morphic fields, I believe something along those lines. I think there's a layer of 'programming' that determines how things happen, and takes into account all the variables. Matter and everything is just energy. Admittedly I don't claim to know much about the natural sciences, but something determines the order that energy/matter takes. To me it makes sense that some kind of 'deterministic programming' is telling things how to organize themselves and act, etc. I'm not saying it's something that can be found, unless you're anything other than "God" or something. But I think there is a 'perfect answer', we just can't find it.

So yeah, we're not likely to ever find it. Let alone understand it with our brains... I wasn't really saying that. I was more thinking like informational models being run in super-powerful quantum computers billions of times more intelligent than us, or something.


Towards the topic of free will, I believe it exists, insofar as I know I can contemplate alternatives and make a selection. It's been suggested that such a selection isn't at all free will, but only the consequence of the initial conditions.

That's true, but how could it be otherwise? To presume some force outside the universe--that we could proceed with impetus gathered from someplace else--is to presume a God.

Nonetheless, I say that the forces governing our "will" are [presently] so utterly beyond us that to assert them as "directed" isn't likely to be disproved any time soon. :-)

Yeah, that's the other take. Agreed it won't be proved any time soon, if ever. And agreed we can make choices, but whether those choices stem from ourselves, or some external or circumstantial source. I think it's likely our environment and how we respond to it influences our behavior to the point that... while we can shape our lives quite well with our own intentions, I'm not convinced those intentions arise from my own free will.

[Mozzes]

I'm not sure I buy into the idea of a physical determinism. If at some point we developed a sufficiently robust theory of everything with powerful enough equations to predict the behavior of a system would we be able to intervene and change the outcome?

[wotrabbit]

In what way do you think that Truth is a invention?

Do you not believe in a objective truth?

Well, I don't know about me personally, but Nietzsche has a lot of interesting things to say about truth. He criticizes the concept of "truth" as it has been handed down to us from philosophy, empiricism, and finally science. It's not necessarily a criticism of those things (philosphy and science) but the way in which the idea of truth happened to be formed and borne out of those fields. For Nietzsche, there are truths and there are "truths". Truth is something that is subjective, multi-faceted, instinctive, adaptive. If something becomes "truth" , it becomes a force of its own, a holy authoritative thing which allows for only one interpretation. So, for example, truth allows for flexible ways of thinking and knowing. The world is complex, and it acknowledges that we can't grasp at it all at one time, so it acknowledges that complexity by allowing us to be flexible in our thinking and understanding. This kind of truth is not really dependent on logic, science, data, etc...because Nietzsche thinks that our instincts and emotions are more accurate than our rationality because they are biologically more raw, more foundational, compared to the much younger, newer faculty of ration. Truths change as our understanding on things change , so in this way, truth is life-giving, creative, allows for us to be good inquirers, allows us to accept oppositional understandings simultaneously. In comparison, Nietzsche says that "truth" is "inertia" because stiffens and impedes dynamic thinking and knowing, suppresses the ways we know and understand through instinct, kills our ability to understand dynamically.

In his own words: "The view that truth is found and that error and ignorance are at an end is one of the most potent seductions there is. Supposing it is believed, then the will to examination, investigation, caution, experiment is paralyzed..."Truth" is therefore more fateful than error and ignorance, because it cuts off the forces that work toward enlightenment and knowledge." (The Will to Power)

I suppose you could say that truth is a way of knowing through instinct and emotion and "truth" is a way of knowing through the faculty of reason, and that the latter, as an idea, has come to dominate because of logic and science and has devalued the former, but it's not that simple.

Foucault takes Nietzsche a step further and calls truth an error: "Truth is undoubtedly the sort of error that cannot be refuted because it was hardened into an unalterable form in the long baking process of history. Moreover, the very question of truth, the right it appropriates to refute error and oppose itself to appearance, the manner in which it developed...--does this not form a history, the history of an error we call truth?"

For Foucault, Truth is a hidden power, a force. Foucault examines various events in history that power manifests itself in society. If you have not read it, I highly recommend Madness and Civilization, Discipline and Punish, and The History of Sexuality. Also, Nietzche...Twilight of the Idols, Birth of Tragedy, The Will to Power, Beyond Good & Evil. Very interesting, challenging and rewarding reads. Challenging not because the text is difficult but because the way they talk about things is different from the way we're used to thinking about them...By no means am I an expert on these authors or their ideas so take my interpretations with a grain of salt. I'm constantly continuing to read their works and trying to figure out what they're saying because I don't understand lots of it. Sorry for all the redundancy and rambling.

Do I believe in an objective truth? I don't know... I believe in the idea of objective truth, but I don't think this idea of objective truth is objective truth ! If that makes sense...

[echoi]

The illusion is all I need.

[Fredi]

I'm not sure I buy into the idea of a physical determinism. If at some point we developed a sufficiently robust theory of everything with powerful enough equations to predict the behavior of a system would we be able to intervene and change the outcome?

Theoretically, if it existed a powerful enough computer that takes all variables in existence into consideration, it could calculate them to predict future events. But it would be impossible to change any outcome since any attempt would be a part of the deterministic reality as everything else we do.


Truth, I strongly believe in an absolut objective truth, it is independent and exists wether observed or not. It is what the nature of "everything" is built upon. However, I also believe our senses makes us blind to the objective truth, leaving us in a veil of our own subjective truths, within which we interact and live our lives. If im not totally off now I think Aristotle was on to a similar theory.

I cannot say that I am sure that we ever will be able to find the objective truth, but I would like to think so. Especially if we evolve. But is not pure math an objective truth, a axiom like: There can be a straight line between two points. To me this seem objective, can not see how anyone could ever get to a different conclusion. And pure math does not require our senses, theoretically it could all be done in our minds alone. This gives me hope that we could one day find the objective truth.

[trousers]

I got 2 points about the two sub conversations going on here:

First I don't believe in free will but I remember reading something once that might help you, it was something like: 'Because we will never be able to prove whether free will exists absolutely, our free will is the choice whether to believe free will exists or not in the first place' or something like that, I think someones already mentioned it though.

And about absolute truth, if you want to boil the universe down to mathematics, I saw on a documentary once how it's been mathematically (ie absolute) proven that 1. There are some mathematical problems which are impossible to solve and 2. That it is impossible to devise a method to detect which of these problems are solvable or which are not. So it seems like humans will never tap into a 'universal truth'.

[bricklayer]

Well, do you as an individual feel free? Surely a man under oppression would sense it. I know I have never once thought to myself, "Hmmm, you know... having the liberty of making my own decisions makes me feel so restrained."

[PHS Philip]

Oops, I just realized I tried to argue stuff in this thread from another thread. That's why I sounded crazy earlier :embarassed:

[Well Then]

This has probably already been brought up, but:

Isn't this a bit of a non-question?

If things are deterministic, everyone is destined to do whatever they are destined to do, even if that is believe in free will. You are destined to make whatever choices you make, and people are destined to react in whatever way they will react to those choices.

If there is free will, it's not set in stone.

Either way, you will only experience one set of possibilities. What does free will even mean in this context?

I don't think the concept of freedom from coercion or "outside" restriction can really be applied to the universe. On that level you're dealing with a system that we are all a part of - there is no external force to be free from or a slave to. You're not in combat with the universe or the "laws" that "govern" it; you are a product of those laws. The question of free will generally boils down to how a person feels about their individual freedoms and their outlook on life, wrapped in the guise of musings about the nature of reality.

It's kinda like the question Christopher Hitchens brought up in a debate with Shmuley Boteach. Someone had asked him at an earlier talk if he'd said that our galaxy was going to colide with Andromeda in "five million or five billion years." Hitchens explained to him that it was "five billion" years and the man breathed a sigh of relief, as if the answer to that question could be in any way relevant to anything he even remotely cared about.

In the same vein, if the universe is deterministic and there is somehow another alternative that would be more "free," we're probably never going to know and it's definitely not going to matter. Determinism at best means you're destined to act how you're going to act, and that can't be a moral mandate in any way. Without choice no action can be immoral, and that includes putting people in jail for doing illegal things or judging people for being immoral. It kinda factors itself out of the discussion by almost saying in it's own definition: "this has nothing to do with morality or anything relevant to your interests."

Belief in determinism seems to empower some people to act in ways that they normally wouldn't. This is more a symptom of having a weak set of beliefs or a set of beliefs you don't really like, value, or agree with than the reality of whether or not people have "choice."

I personally think this discussion ends in Camelot, and it is a silly place. :cheesy: