Thread: Free will and determinism

Seriously, you are just ignoring everyone's points. Yea sure, post the definition of free will again, then this time actually read your own definition. Better yet, I will do it for you, and I will also quote the response I already made, showing how it proves free will by definition is deterministic.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

free will

–noun

1.free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.

2.Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+will

Originally Posted by Alric

free and independent choice
If you are making your own choices you have free will, if your choices are decided by your brain then your actions were determined by you having a brain, thus both exist at once.

voluntary decision
If you decide to do something voluntary you can, you have free will. If you were born however, your birth influenced your life, so determinism exist at the same time.

the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces

When they say this they are not referring to the human itself. The human can make personal choices, without being determined by outside physical and divine forces.

There we go, once again I have shown where using your own definition of free will, free will and determinism can exist at the same time. The entire bases of your argument is that there is always a cause. However you have been ignoring me the entire time when I have repeated over and over, that YOU ARE THE CAUSE! I havn't heard a single argument, about why the brain can not cause an action. You seem to think everything in the world can cause an action except for a persons own brain. Hello, your brain is an object! It exists in reality. Why the hell can the brain not cause you to do something? Same goes for your ego or consciousness.

You simply make the claim that a persons consciousness is incapable of causing an event on its own. However you have no proof or even an argument to back up this claim. You simply claim that it needs a cause. However it does have cause. The cause being you were born with a complex brain that can control behavior. So why do you keep ignoring this fact?

Stop hiding and answer the damn question. Why does the series of causes that makes up a persons body, suddenly end when consciousness is created? It doesn't, you admit to it. So if it doesn't end, then anything the consciousness decides to do, was proceeded by other causes. Determinism still applies. Thus determinism and free will can exist at the same time.

Now that we have shown how determinism and free will can exist at the same time, we can move on to the next part.

Your brain is a complex organism, which is capable of making choices own its own. This is free will. Explain to me, why such a thing can not exist? Your claim is that complex organisms can't make choices own their own, because they lack causality. However that isn't true. The fact that they were born and envolved with complex brains, capable of deep thought, is in itself a cause. So why is it impossible for a complex entity to make choices on its own? There is no logical, or determistic reason, that a complex entity could not make choices internally based soley on its own thoughts.

Originally Posted by Xei

Meta-physcs, from the Greek 'metá'; beyond physics.

Uh, that's right. The metaphysical is beyond physics, at a more fundamental level of existence.

Originally Posted by Xei

Anyway, you didn't provide the logical deduction I asked for. How do random effects lead to macroscopic 'chaos' (precisely what chaos is supposed to mean I'm not sure but I'll roll with it)? Just give a counterexample or general principle which explains how this happens, and why the rapid dilution Alric talked about does not occur.

You are really missing the boat. What you are not getting is that I don't think random events exist even at the micro level. Read my posts before you respond to them. I gave you illustrations of chaos. Land of Dairy Queen, etc. Pay attention.

Originally Posted by Alric

Seriously, you are just ignoring everyone's points. Yea sure, post the definition of free will again, then this time actually read your own definition. Better yet, I will do it for you, and I will also quote the response I already made, showing how it proves free will by definition is deterministic.

You still don't get it. Your response was that the definition of free will is "not referring to the human itself". WTF?????? What the Hell else would it refer to? Rocks and trees?

A person makes a decision AS A RESULT OF more than brain activity in a vacuum. The constant influx of external stimuli plays a big role. So does the history of external stimuli. The person's decision is therefore NOT INDEPENDENT. Got it? I don't want to explain that again.

You are really missing the boat. What you are not getting is that I don't think random events exist even at the micro level. Read my posts before you respond to them. I gave you illustrations of chaos. Land of Dairy Queen, etc. Pay attention.

You're starting to irritate me now because you can't seriously think you are arguing in a logical manner.

For the benefit of the doubt, you have stated the following argument:

1. Assume the universe is random on the atomic level.
2. This implies the universe would be chaotic on the macroscopic level.
3. We observe that the universe would not be chaotic on the macroscopic level.
4. Hence the universe is not random on the atomic level (reductio ad absurdum).

Now, for the third time: the argument is currently flawed in the inductive step. You do not explain how 1 implies 2.

This failing seems to be the source of most of your errors, such as this whole "Land of the Dairy Queen" nonsense; quantum mechanics does not predict that we would ever observe such phenomena.

Originally Posted by Xei

You're starting to irritate me now because you can't seriously think you are arguing in a logical manner.

For the benefit of the doubt, you have stated the following argument:

1. Assume the universe is random on the atomic level.
2. This implies the universe would be chaotic on the macroscopic level.
3. We observe that the universe would not be chaotic on the macroscopic level.
4. Hence the universe is not random on the atomic level (reductio ad absurdum).

Now, for the third time: the argument is currently flawed in the inductive step. You do not explain how 1 implies 2.

This failing seems to be the source of most of your errors, such as this whole "Land of the Dairy Queen" nonsense; quantum mechanics does not predict that we would ever observe such phenomena.

That is further evidence that you are not reading my posts very carefully.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What I am saying is that you are supporting the idea that lack of causation is not an illogical principle. If it is not an illogical principle, then what is stopping it from existing on a macro level? You see, I think the reason it doesn't exist on a macro level is that it is an illogical concept, period. Once you take that out of the picture, what is left? What principle makes the macro level 100% deterministic? What is behind the determinism?

In other words... The illogical nature of the principle of randomness is what stops it from existing on the macro level. It would still be illogical on a micro level because the general principle itself is illogical.

Randomness is an illogical concept. I bitch a lot about fundies who use that strawman "something from nothing" argument about atheism, but you support a something from nothing principle-- uncaused action. Something happens, and the event came from nothing. It simply happens to happen. That is absurd. The fact that physicists have not found causal differences does not prove the nonexistence of the differences, just like not finding WMD's does not disprove their nonexistence. Assuming a negative due to mere lack of a positive is not logical. the Heisenberg Principle is the result of magical thinking.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

In other words... The illogical nature of the principle of randomness is what stops it from existing on the macro level. It would still be illogical on a micro level because the general principle itself is illogical.

Seriously? This has been answered many times.

What is stopping it from existing on the macro level is the minuscule probabilities of it ever occurring on the macro level.

It is not it's "illogical nature" or any other illogical, unscientific, metaphysical garbage.

At any rate, as Xei and I have both claimed, the onus is on you to show an implication which you cannot do.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Seriously? This has been answered many times.

What is stopping it from existing on the macro level is the minuscule probabilities of it ever occurring on the macro level.

It is not it's "illogical nature" or any other illogical, unscientific, metaphysical garbage.

At any rate, as Xei and I have both claimed, the onus is on you to show an implication which you cannot do.

The illogical nature of a conceptual principle damn well does prevent it from being real, and the magic of uncaused events you believe in is illogical. Things cannot come from absolutely nothing. And unlike athiests being talked to by fundies about the origin of the universe, you three really are arguing the coming about of something from nothing.

An analogy: An object cannot be moving while it is resting. You can argue about it from a physics standpoint and say that whatever force caused it to moved obeyed the laws of physics and caused it not to rest. Then again, you can argue it in terms of logic. It is a contradiction for an object to move while resting. Similarly, there is both a physical and a logical explanation for why random macro level events cannot happen. The same logic applies to the micro level.

Thanks a lot for avoiding all the points in my post once again, and replying with a pointless statement which really has no meaning. Obviously the definition means outside physical forces. And not internal physical forces, since by definition a person is still physical. Which was my point. Though I won't repeat the rests of my points as you just keep ignoring, clearly you have no answer to them.

What I am saying is that you are supporting the idea that lack of causation is not an illogical principle. If it is not an illogical principle, then what is stopping it from existing on a macro level?

If determinism is not an illogical prinicple, what is stopping it from existing on a micro level?

The possibility of something does not make it a reality. This is so patently obvious I don't even know why you'd bother trying such an argument.

Also no one ever mentioned anything coming from nothing. If you read what people are saying, they explained everything in a perfectly logical manner, where nothing is appearing from no where, and there is no magic involved. Just because you refuse to even consider something, doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means you are not being objective.

Originally Posted by Alric

Thanks a lot for avoiding all the points in my post once again, and replying with a pointless statement which really has no meaning.

Okay, now you're really getting desperate. You might as well accuse me of stealing unicorns.

Originally Posted by Alric

Obviously the definition means outside physical forces. And not internal physical forces, since by definition a person is still physical. Which was my point.

Oh, so the person is not acting independently from himself. Now we're getting somewhere. What you are not getting is that even though the final activity happens in the brain and whatever it signals, that is dependent. Do I need to yet again give you the list of what it's dependent on? True believers in the real concept of free will think a person just decides independently so nothing causes him to, just like you think an electron just goes this way instead of that way and nothing caused it to. It's a bunch of hocus pocus.

Originally Posted by Alric

Though I won't repeat the rests of my points as you just keep ignoring, clearly you have no answer to them.

Such as? I know I didn't do a line by line of your long ass post, but I addressed the overall points. What did I supposedly leave out?

Originally Posted by Alric

Also no one ever mentioned anything coming from nothing. If you read what people are saying, they explained everything in a perfectly logical manner, where nothing is appearing from no where, and there is no magic involved. Just because you refuse to even consider something, doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means you are not being objective.

That does not qualify as a counterargument. Try again. Explain how your hocus pocus does not involve effects without causes. By "effects", I am talking about the turnout of one particle behavior as opposed to another one. You think nothing causes the difference. That is an outcome without a cause, which is something from nothing.

Originally Posted by Xei

If determinism is not an illogical prinicple, what is stopping it from existing on a micro level?

David Copperfield. Absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by Xei

The possibility of something does not make it a reality.

No shit. How does that mean the laws of logic are not universal?

Originally Posted by Xei

This is so patently obvious I don't even know why you'd bother trying such an argument.

It is so patently obvious I don't even disagree with the irrelevant point.

Most people who believe in free will, easily admit that there are other factors. You can't avoid the fact that you were born, you had parents, you lived life experiences. However the point is that you have the final say, or the majority influence over any decision. That you can decide to go with or against the flow of causes, that you are deciding. Even if things build up against you or for you, they never decide, you do.

As for what you left you. You left out two things. Why you believe consciousness can not cause an event to happen. And why causality can not create complex patterns that act on their own.

The laws of physics (I don't know what 'logic' has to do with any of this; I've already posed the question 'how is the mathematical concept of probability illogical?' and I didn't get an an answer) are universal. On tiny scales the universe is fundamentally uncertain. In the manner described pretty much fully above an increase in scale results in the universe approximating to what we refer to as 'determinism'. In a sense you could call this determinism illusory because it's really the result of many probabilistic processes.

Originally Posted by Alric

Most people who believe in free will, easily admit that there are other factors. You can't avoid the fact that you were born, you had parents, you lived life experiences. However the point is that you have the final say, or the majority influence over any decision. That you can decide to go with or against the flow of causes, that you are deciding. Even if things build up against you or for you, they never decide, you do.

The laws of physics dictate that there is only one way you can decide. You can think of the possibilities and ponder and weigh pros and cons, but what ends up happening is the only way it could have happened. People who believe in free will believe otherwise.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for what you left you. You left out two things. Why you believe consciousness can not cause an event to happen.

That is another mischaracterization of my stance. I have come across quite a few of those today. Consciousness can and does cause things to happen, but a great deal causes the consciousness to cause what it causes. People who believe in free will believe otherwise. They say stuff like "influence", but they get pissed when you say "cause".

Originally Posted by Alric

And why causality can not create complex patterns that act on their own.

Because "on their own" would involve lack of causality, which is a nonsense concept.

Originally Posted by Xei

The laws of physics (I don't know what 'logic' has to do with any of this; I've already posed the question 'how is the mathematical concept of probability illogical?' and I didn't get an an answer) are universal. On tiny scales the universe is fundamentally uncertain. In the manner described pretty much fully above an increase in scale results in the universe approximating to what we refer to as 'determinism'. In a sense you could call this determinism illusory because it's really the result of many probabilistic processes.

You posted a probability equation and didn't explain the question about it. You just asked me why it is illogical, which is odd because I don't think it is. I never said probability is illogical. It is a measure of likelihood from a perspective of human uncertainty.

The laws of logic are the laws of reality, and the entire chain of cause and effect is a system of therefores. An absence of that at any point on the chain would be a situation of hocus pocus.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Because "on their own" would involve lack of causality, which is a nonsense concept.

No it doesn't, which is my point. Why can something not be created that can decide on its own? If it came into existence because of a cause, then it is possible under determinism. The fact that it broke free, and no longer effected by new causes, does not make a difference. Even under your definition and rules, there is not a single reason why a being can not come into existence, that is free from new causes. You can always point back to the original cause that created it, but from that point on it continues on it own. You have yet to give a reason, why this is not possible.

And to your other point, no. The laws of physics say nothing of the sort. Physics doesn't deal with consciousness in living beings.

Originally Posted by Alric

No it doesn't, which is my point. Why can something not be created that can decide on its own? If it came into existence because of a cause, then it is possible under determinism. The fact that it broke free, and no longer effected by new causes, does not make a difference. Even under your definition and rules, there is not a single reason why a being can not come into existence, that is free from new causes. You can always point back to the original cause that created it, but from that point on it continues on it own. You have yet to give a reason, why this is not possible.

Do a search for "constant influx of external stimuli". And... new neurological patterns that produce new thoughts are new causes. Plus, past events and the eternal laws of physics and so forth are causes, which ALONE make the brain activity NOT INDEPENDENT. This is really getting old.

Originally Posted by Alric

And to your other point, no. The laws of physics say nothing of the sort. Physics doesn't deal with consciousness in living beings.

Neurons and the effects of their activities work under the laws of physics just like anything else.

I've had it with this. I'll give you the last word.

The universe is deterministic. You are a part of the universe. Hence, you are deterministic. Nothing is outside of causality. Free Will has been proven wrong. Move on plz :V

You are just avoiding the issue like you have been. We already said that, of course there is always new influences and stuff going on. However you are missing the entire point of free will. Which is that a person can see that new information and interrupt it in the way they feel is best, and then decide to either do something, or to not do something.

OMG THAT'S A COOL PICTURE!!!!

a

Fucking epic, UM!

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I believe in free will.

I also believe in large scale determinism. Specifically, any object for which we can consider quantum uncertainty to be negligible will behave in a deterministic manner. I believe that the brain is such a system, hence deterministic.

I do not believe that this is a contradiction.

Discuss. Specifically, what would free will actually mean? Is is possible to have free will without determinism? I don't think so.

I think you are using the incorrect words in expressing your position. You say you believe in free will, ok, but what you call 'large scale determinism' is really thymology. Thymology is the study of human behavior such as if you point a gun at another individual, you predict with near certainty that they will fear for their lives. Thymology allows for the prediction of future actions which are likely due to knowledge over human nature and commonly held objective goals such as wealth, prosperity, non-violence. Though we can do this, it doesn't then infer that we can or will be 100% in our predictions. The future is unknown. Here is some reading material on the thymological method.

The Thymological Method by Ludwig von Mises [ This is more of a technical article on the subject ]
Introduction to Murray Rothbard's History of Money by Joseph T Salerno [ This is more of a layman's article ]

No, what I mean is that any system large enough to not exhibit quantum effects will evolve in a deterministic manner.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

No, what I mean is that any system large enough to not exhibit quantum effects will evolve in a deterministic manner.

Explain what you mean by quantum effects because from my understanding quantum theory is a brand of physics which is a natural science which is generally governed by established equations. These equations would then setup an expected result and if that is true then how is that not deterministic?

Well the equations that govern the evolution of systems are deterministic just like with classical mechanics but state of the system just gives probabilities of a particular value of a measurement occurring. There are all sorts of weird interpretations. Either way, QM is not deterministic in any applicable meaningful way.