Free will and determinism

**Kimoni** · 03-20-2004, 04:43 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by frankster:
[qb] Between GOd and the devil , if christian theology be true there is no free will . All is pre-ordain . [/qb]

True. Despite all our beliefs, we are all puppets, in a sadistic play. (Based on Christian theology)

**fOrTyLeGz** · 03-20-2004, 05:02 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Fledgist:

Clearly we have no or few choice when dealing with external constraints such as the law of gravity, but these are givens of nature. We *appear* to be able to make choices in areas where we are not subject to physical or biological constraints -- that is by material or physical nature. The question is: do we in fact have a real ability to choose and act on our choices, or do we merely appear to do so but in reality act in ways which are determined either externally or as a result of internal programming.

I fall into the mechanistic-determinist group, I think. I believe that everything happens exactly as it must happen, and that our choices are illusions. We can't behave truly out of character ever. Every fish in the sea, every microbe, every human being, and what is coming out of all of their mouth right NOW, is exactly as it must be.

Many events in our individual lives can seem to change us, chaotic events, or educational, or romantic, but to my way of thinking, we each go through those events the way we are prepared for them. There may have been opportunities to act differently, but on careful examination of the facts, it will always be revealed, that there was a reason why x went y instead of z.

Our human programming is complicated for us, because of the words that are swimming through our consciousness, it seems so independent and free. But, I don't really think it is. I think the story that anorexics tell themselves are all pretty much the same, for example. We can all be grouped and tagged... we are telling a story of ourselves, to ourselves. We are explaining it, or not. The tale makes sense. It is totally confusing.

So if everything is exactly as it must be, and couldn't be different than it is, can moral choices be made? The chopping off of a hand, is mentioned in an earlier post, as an example of evil. I would agree. But the people who live under those laws, and carry out those punishments, don't believe that this punishment is an evil deed! They believe the contrary. It is the words in their heads that make it good for them, and evil for us. In my world, those people are "fundamentalists". Always. They believe, fundamentalists do, that the words in their minds are perfect words, and that considering the words of people who have different words, and always, many more words, is evil. They don't want to know. If those hand-choppers KNEW MORE, maybe much more, they would act differently (in the story I tell myself). I am a situational moralist. I believe the more and varied words (and experiences of course), the better equipped you are to make choices. Choices that are not choices, I mean. So we are constantly involved in situations where others can judge us from a moral perspective and find us innocent or guilty.

So what can be good in a mechanistically determined universe? It seems to me, at my exalted age, that education of the masses is what is slowly raising we humans out of our brutal and shameful history. That and democracy. The stories that we tell ourselves have gotten more meaningful, and tender. The characters live longer peaceful lives. Their children go off to the State College. They become doctors and cheerful merchants. Have I lost you all?

Having life is THE GOOD, in my opinion. When a new life comes into the world, if the story line they get presented has an invisible being involved, who is always watching you, and who will punish you now or later, then that affects all of your choices. If this "new life" gets swept up into a story where, if you get caught stealing, then your hand gets chopped off, that will affect your "choices." And if your parents teach you to read by the time you are three, and took great care in your infant years and never challenged your ego (forgive me that word), that too will affect all of your choices. JMHO

_

**fOrTyLeGz** · 03-22-2004, 03:59 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

no replies? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

**Guest** · 03-23-2004, 03:56 AM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb
To see man from a purely physical viewpoint is to accept that we are constrained by our environment as well as our physical and genetic make up. However man is not only a bunch of genes and tissue functioning in an environment that sets limits on his freedom to make choices. He wants to make choices for himself and to determine his destiny.

{Fledgist: This assumes the consequent.}

Does not! Your model of the man is a being made up of many parts separate and independent of himself over which he has no influence, which is not true. There is a dynamic relationship between the man, and his

{Fledgist: Where do you get this from? If you're going to characterise my position, get it right. My model of the individual human (not all humans being men) is one of a being possessing an identity, the self, which is individual and unique. Nonetheless, elements both internal and external limit, constrain, and determine the range of choices that each individual can make.}

Jedi: My bad, now I got it.

environment, each is impacting on the other.
The question then becomes what choices are these and from what part of the man does he hunger to make other choices for himself as well as to determine his own destiny? [/qb]

Are those real choices or not? [/qb]

(slow down I have to think [img]/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] )
A simply law of physics states this plainly, "every action carries an equal and opposite reaction." To know if a choice is real or not the question then becomes is there a consequent to the choice that is made? IMHO the man determines his destiny (outcome) by his own choices. Moral agency is that part of the man which determines the choices he will make. [/qb]

This ducks the issue completely. How do you know that, in fact, people are making their own choices (leaving the sexist language aside)? That's the problem, you see. [/QB]

Thinking! First of all you needed to make it clear what you meant by real choices. Obviously you mean to say is the choice real in that it originated with the person making it or was it a choice preprogrammed by some other force, so that the man no matter what would have made the same choice anyway.

Here is my argument:

If a man has limitations on his being however small which he did not place there regardless of what (environmental, physical, psychological, spiritual), if a man is incapable of creating any of these himself at all, then there is another force responsible for his being.

Now let us assume that the above is true please explain the following to me as it pertains to your view of the man not having any real responsibility for his choices.

The man is given $10,000.00 to spend whichever way he likes. He can choose to pay off his debts or purchase pleasurable things. If he pays off his debts he will be debt free. On the other hand if he spends the money on his pleasures, he would have gratified himself but at the end of the day remained in debt. Now tell me how is the man not responsible for his choice should he choose to do the latter? Granted he knows that he has debts that should be payed off and they are giving him stress. He also knows that the things which give him pleasure are only temporary and soon grow old and have to be replaced again.

**Guest** · 03-23-2004, 11:45 AM

Re: Free will and determinism

determinism

• noun Philosophy the doctrine that all events and actions are determined by external forces acting on the will.

— DERIVATIVES determinist noun & adjective deterministic adjective.

--Oxford English Dictionary.

**Fledgist** · 03-24-2004, 04:33 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:

Clearly we have no or few choice when dealing with external constraints such as the law of gravity, but these are givens of nature. We *appear* to be able to make choices in areas where we are not subject to physical or biological constraints -- that is by material or physical nature. The question is: do we in fact have a real ability to choose and act on our choices, or do we merely appear to do so but in reality act in ways which are determined either externally or as a result of internal programming.

I fall into the mechanistic-determinist group, I think. I believe that everything happens exactly as it must happen, and that our choices are illusions. We can't behave truly out of character ever. Every fish in the sea, every microbe, every human being, and what is coming out of all of their mouth right NOW, is exactly as it must be.

{Fledgist: I dunno. That indicates an externally defined purpose, and I can't see that in the world.}

Many events in our individual lives can seem to change us, chaotic events, or educational, or romantic, but to my way of thinking, we each go through those events the way we are prepared for them. There may have been opportunities to act differently, but on careful examination of the facts, it will always be revealed, that there was a reason why x went y instead of z.

{Fledgist: In my line of business we call that path-dependency. I'm not sure that it's impossible to break away from an established path -- my version of determinism is weak, after all -- but it certainly is difficult.}

Our human programming is complicated for us, because of the words that are swimming through our consciousness, it seems so independent and free. But, I don't really think it is. I think the story that anorexics tell themselves are all pretty much the same, for example. We can all be grouped and tagged... we are telling a story of ourselves, to ourselves. We are explaining it, or not. The tale makes sense. It is totally confusing.

{Fledgist: Actually, that's a very good point. We do tend to have very similar stories.}

So if everything is exactly as it must be, and couldn't be different than it is, can moral choices be made? The chopping off of a hand, is mentioned in an earlier post, as an example of evil. I would agree. But the people who live under those laws, and carry out those punishments, don't believe that this punishment is an evil deed! They believe the contrary. It is the words in their heads that make it good for them, and evil for us. In my world, those people are "fundamentalists". Always. They believe, fundamentalists do, that the words in their minds are perfect words, and that considering the words of people who have different words, and always, many more words, is evil. They don't want to know. If those hand-choppers KNEW MORE, maybe much more, they would act differently (in the story I tell myself). I am a situational moralist. I believe the more and varied words (and experiences of course), the better equipped you are to make choices. Choices that are not choices, I mean. So we are constantly involved in situations where others can judge us from a moral perspective and find us innocent or guilty.

So what can be good in a mechanistically determined universe? It seems to me, at my exalted age, that education of the masses is what is slowly raising we humans out of our brutal and shameful history. That and democracy. The stories that we tell ourselves have gotten more meaningful, and tender. The characters live longer peaceful lives. Their children go off to the State College. They become doctors and cheerful merchants. Have I lost you all?

Having life is THE GOOD, in my opinion. When a new life comes into the world, if the story line they get presented has an invisible being involved, who is always watching you, and who will punish you now or later, then that affects all of your choices. If this "new life" gets swept up into a story where, if you get caught stealing, then your hand gets chopped off, that will affect your "choices." And if your parents teach you to read by the time you are three, and took great care in your infant years and never challenged your ego (forgive me that word), that too will affect all of your choices. JMHO

_ [/qb]

While I don't believe in an externally-determined purpose, I do believe that human life is a good thing, which can be made better and more valuable through the purposive actions of the living person.

**Fledgist** · 03-24-2004, 04:35 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:
[qb] no replies? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] [/qb]

Sorry, I was at a conference all day yesterday, and from Monday afternoon till this morning involved in work to prepare for it and to clear up loose ends after it.

**Fledgist** · 03-24-2004, 04:42 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb]

Originally posted by Jedi l:
[qb
To see man from a purely physical viewpoint is to accept that we are constrained by our environment as well as our physical and genetic make up. However man is not only a bunch of genes and tissue functioning in an environment that sets limits on his freedom to make choices. He wants to make choices for himself and to determine his destiny.

{Fledgist: This assumes the consequent.}

Does not! Your model of the man is a being made up of many parts separate and independent of himself over which he has no influence, which is not true. There is a dynamic relationship between the man, and his

{Fledgist: Where do you get this from? If you're going to characterise my position, get it right. My model of the individual human (not all humans being men) is one of a being possessing an identity, the self, which is individual and unique. Nonetheless, elements both internal and external limit, constrain, and determine the range of choices that each individual can make.}

Jedi: My bad, now I got it.

environment, each is impacting on the other.
The question then becomes what choices are these and from what part of the man does he hunger to make other choices for himself as well as to determine his own destiny? [/qb]

Are those real choices or not? [/qb]

(slow down I have to think [img]/forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] )
A simply law of physics states this plainly, "every action carries an equal and opposite reaction." To know if a choice is real or not the question then becomes is there a consequent to the choice that is made? IMHO the man determines his destiny (outcome) by his own choices. Moral agency is that part of the man which determines the choices he will make. [/qb]

This ducks the issue completely. How do you know that, in fact, people are making their own choices (leaving the sexist language aside)? That's the problem, you see. [/qb]

Thinking! First of all you needed to make it clear what you meant by real choices. Obviously you mean to say is the choice real in that it originated with the person making it or was it a choice preprogrammed by some other force, so that the man no matter what would have made the same choice anyway.

{Fledgist: Women don't make choices? A choice is real when the chooser is autonomous and capable of deciding among a range of options available at the time of choosing. A choice is apparent, rather, than real when the person appearing to choose can only make certain kinds of decisions and not others, and thus the decision (if it be that) is constrained.}

Here is my argument:

If a man has limitations on his being however small which he did not place there regardless of what (environmental, physical, psychological, spiritual), if a man is incapable of creating any of these himself at all, then there is another force responsible for his being.

{Fledgist: Er, this doesn't quite make sense (leaving aside the sexist language). The fact that there is, say, a limitation on my actions caused by the law of gravity does not imply a force *responsible* for my existence.}

Now let us assume that the above is true please explain the following to me as it pertains to your view of the man not having any real responsibility for his choices.

The man is given $10,000.00 to spend whichever way he likes. He can choose to pay off his debts or purchase pleasurable things. If he pays off his debts he will be debt free. On the other hand if he spends the money on his pleasures, he would have gratified himself but at the end of the day remained in debt. Now tell me how is the man not responsible for his choice should he choose to do the latter? Granted he knows that he has debts that should be payed off and they are giving him stress. He also knows that the things which give him pleasure are only temporary and soon grow old and have to be replaced again. [/QB]

You're assuming that intellectual knowledge determines choice. That may sometimes be so, but is by no means always so. A drug addict, for example, cannot exercise a true choice.

You're also assuming, a priori, that free will exists. That's assuming the consequent.

**Wahalla** · 03-24-2004, 06:22 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Personally I think it is a luxury.... Us at the shallow end of the gene pool is convinced that:

1) Free will may not exist. We are restrained by our culture. Frankly I will eat the horse worm or any damn thing that crawls walk or fart.... However it will depend on the circumstance. Does that make it free will or nessicity... (Frankly dont get stranded in the desert with me for with out hesitation I will kill you and eat your liver!!!!) Free to eat human meat then...

2) If circustance does not aford the opertunity how can you know if you have free will.. Back to the horse... A horses butt sautated in beshamel sauce may be a luxury... How do you can you know unless you had Charles Roux prepare it for you ?

3) If you by your free will impose yopur self on Shegar and eat his nuts.. Have you not taken his free will thus negating your own free will in the process ?

4) What the hell does free will matter if you dont have the luxury to afford it ?

ie all of you Yankees can protest daily to end the war in Iraq... You have the opertunity, the freedom instead you all find other less moral duties to carry out.... So much for free will.... It is a luxury you cant afford...

**Fledgist** · 03-24-2004, 08:32 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Wahalla:
[qb] Personally I think it is a luxury.... Us at the shallow end of the gene pool is convinced that:

1) Free will may not exist. We are restrained by our culture. Frankly I will eat the horse worm or any damn thing that crawls walk or fart....

{Fledgist: Strict antivegetarianism?}

However it will depend on the circumstance. Does that make it free will or nessicity... (Frankly dont get stranded in the desert with me for with out hesitation I will kill you and eat your liver!!!!) Free to eat human meat then...

{Fledgist: Someone has been reading Hobbes?}

2) If circustance does not aford the opertunity how can you know if you have free will.. Back to the horse... A horses butt sautated in beshamel sauce may be a luxury... How do you can you know unless you had Charles Roux prepare it for you ?

3) If you by your free will impose yopur self on Shegar and eat his nuts.. Have you not taken his free will thus negating your own free will in the process ?

4) What the hell does free will matter if you dont have the luxury to afford it ?

ie all of you Yankees can protest daily to end the war in Iraq... You have the opertunity, the freedom instead you all find other less moral duties to carry out.... So much for free will.... It is a luxury you cant afford... [/qb]

Hmm. That sounds as if you're arguing that freedom and free will are incompatible. Are you?

**britisha** · 03-25-2004, 01:57 AM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb] In an exchange with 'Servant' on the subject of divine omniscience and free will, it occurred to me that the issue of liberty of the will has not been properly aired. So I thought I'd start a thread on it.

Here's the issue: either we can make choices (subject to the constraints of nature) or our actions are determined by an external force
If the former case, then we are capable of making decisions for ourselves and we are said to have free will -- the ability to choose freely among available alternatives.

I have to state it in this way because we are not free to will anything, but are constrained by our physical givens (I can't choose to flap my arms and float through the air for example). The issue is important when it comes to moral, political, and other choices that matter.

Why is it important? If we have free will, then we are responsible for our choices, and must stand or fall by them. This is moral agency.

On the other hand, if our actions are determined by an external force, then we have no moral agency and are not personally responsible for our actions.

My own philosophical position is a weak determinism; I believe that we have choice but it is constrained not only by physical nature but by our environmental givens (upbringing, social and economic structure, culture) and by our genetics. For example, I cannot choose to be sexually attracted to sea slugs. There may be, for all I know, persons sexually attracted to sea slugs (though it isn't mentioned in Krafft-Ebing), but I cannot be one, not because I have not formulated the volition but because I cannot. It is not possible for me to do this because of constraints that have nothing to do with physical nature nor with mental choice. I simply cannot formulate this choice.

If someone else can formulate a sexual preference for sea slugs, is that a true volition or is it something else that is not volitional? If the latter, is that sexual preference a morally evaluable choice?

Of course, this could be said about other things. I could not bring myself to eat horse, for example, but millions of French people can. There, though, the constraint is cultural. If I choose not to eat horse, am I, in fact, exercising free will? [/qb]

LOL, I'm surprised that you choose such a simple example like eating a horse. There are ppl who ate other [dead] human beings when certain conditions presented themselves like a plane crash; in one case some of them were PPL they knew...the decision to eat them was made as a means of survival under unnatural conditions, so they made a choice based on the conditions, regardless of their cultural upbringing re cannibalism..which throws one theory out the window...and plse don't attribute this to them being delerious, the fact is however irrational it might seem, it was a choice that was made and some would argue....in the same way that criminals rationalise their deviant behaviour..in a given set of cirumstances an act that might be viewed as being obnoxious or irrational takes on a different dimension under another set of conditions.

Don't ask me if the conditions weren't there would they have done otherwise...the fact is there have to be a set circumstances when choices are made [afterall we don't exist in vacuums,] and they do not exist, and if not then the question regarding freewill based on determinism shouldn't exist either.

I personally am not in favour of the argument re determinism conjoined with that re "freewill." Separate okay, linked, a healthy scepticism and "NO". While for the sake of argument "every effect has a cause" I don't see the link; regardless of what the philosophers might say. They are postulating that the concept of "freewill" MUST be contingent on the absence of x y and z some of which you have stated above. However if one buys into this concept, then the entire human race is NOT free...how morbid and sad. Basically it is implyhing that we are all in some sort of captivity/bondage, even if it is a mental one.

Mills and Kant et al.

..but this is not the case. The human mind has capabilities waaayy beyond what psychologists, psychiatrists, and philosophers have tapped. I purport and maintain that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. WE have not yet discovered the vast capabilities not only of the human mind but of the brain itself with it's trillions of cells. Maybe someone out there is composing another indeterminist argument...or probably not, thinking it a waste of time to even bother.

So on that note, to pigeon-hole our thinking based on what philosophers of yore have expounded in their treatises and arguments is limiting our scope of thinking and going along with the programme because THEY say so...limiting our scope of thinking to say that man is not free to act [fuggedabout di irrational acts] within a given set of parameters...because such and such limits or constrains them.

Their argument centers around choice, chance and duty; and weaves morality somewhere in it, weaving in clear human impossibilities, like flyhing when it is not in the nature of man to fly... a flaw and dishonesty in their argument IMO..while I believe that freewill incoprporates only rational acts, since you mentioned sexual attraction to sea slugs, and while it is not in man's nature to mate with them...somewhere out there in the universe there might be a few, raised under similar set of circumstances who might just find this attractive, and might even pursue it just to prove an agenda re challenging the argument re physical constraints and cultural upbringing..

I again make the point of two brothers who grew up in the same home, shown the same love and affection by the same 2 parents and one made the "freewill" choice of becoming a mobster engaging in despicable crimes, while the other made the "freewill" choice of becoming a clergyman. How would the "determinists"...[hahha] reconcile this? Or are there UNKNOWN factors individually based, upredictable, unconstrained, that brought about opposite choices?

While some of these philosophers deliver some good arguments, I don't limit myself to totally accept what they purport, I don't see myself as being in mental bondage for the simple reason that I am FREE to think...

**Diplomat** · 03-25-2004, 11:13 AM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by Fledgist:

While I don't believe in an externally-determined purpose, I do believe that human life is a good thing, which can be made better and more valuable through the purposive actions of the living person.

Sorry about just getting back to this (almost end of semester and a lot of work to do) but as I understand it, purposive actions are goal-directed actions. Doesn't that require the freewill to make those decisions that are conducive to goal congruence? To actually achieve a goal, doesn't one have to make specific decisions/choices based on the circumstances as they present themselves, rejecting some options while embracing others?

**Fledgist** · 03-25-2004, 02:39 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
[qb] In an exchange with 'Servant' on the subject of divine omniscience and free will, it occurred to me that the issue of liberty of the will has not been properly aired. So I thought I'd start a thread on it.

Here's the issue: either we can make choices (subject to the constraints of nature) or our actions are determined by an external force
If the former case, then we are capable of making decisions for ourselves and we are said to have free will -- the ability to choose freely among available alternatives.

I have to state it in this way because we are not free to will anything, but are constrained by our physical givens (I can't choose to flap my arms and float through the air for example). The issue is important when it comes to moral, political, and other choices that matter.

Why is it important? If we have free will, then we are responsible for our choices, and must stand or fall by them. This is moral agency.

On the other hand, if our actions are determined by an external force, then we have no moral agency and are not personally responsible for our actions.

My own philosophical position is a weak determinism; I believe that we have choice but it is constrained not only by physical nature but by our environmental givens (upbringing, social and economic structure, culture) and by our genetics. For example, I cannot choose to be sexually attracted to sea slugs. There may be, for all I know, persons sexually attracted to sea slugs (though it isn't mentioned in Krafft-Ebing), but I cannot be one, not because I have not formulated the volition but because I cannot. It is not possible for me to do this because of constraints that have nothing to do with physical nature nor with mental choice. I simply cannot formulate this choice.

If someone else can formulate a sexual preference for sea slugs, is that a true volition or is it something else that is not volitional? If the latter, is that sexual preference a morally evaluable choice?

Of course, this could be said about other things. I could not bring myself to eat horse, for example, but millions of French people can. There, though, the constraint is cultural. If I choose not to eat horse, am I, in fact, exercising free will? [/qb]

LOL, I'm surprised that you choose such a simple example like eating a horse. There are ppl who ate other

{Fledgist: I chose it precisely because it is simple, and because it is a good way to operationalise the problem.}

[dead] human beings when certain conditions presented themselves like a plane crash; in one case some of them were PPL they knew...the decision to eat them was made as a means of survival under unnatural conditions, so they made a choice based on the conditions, regardless of their cultural upbringing re cannibalism..which throws one theory out the window...and plse don't attribute this to them being delerious, the fact

{Fledgist: I know the case you're thinking of, and there have been other cases. But the fact that small samples violate their cultural conditioning under lifeboat situations doesn't mean that all people in lifeboat situations would do so. In many cases,under pressure, some people have violated their cultural conditioning, others have not. It is the latter fact that is the more interesting one, in regard to this issue. That is to say, why could they not violate their cultural conditioning while others could? So the problem still remains.}

is however irrational it might seem, it was a choice that was made and some would argue....in the same way that criminals rationalise their deviant behaviour..in a given set of cirumstances an act that might be viewed as being obnoxious or irrational takes on a different dimension under another set of conditions.

{Fledgist: But was it a *choice*? That is to say, in conditions where it's either violate your cultural conditioning or die, can you speak of a real choice? That's part of the problem.}

Don't ask me if the conditions weren't there would they have done otherwise...the fact is there have to be a set circumstances when choices are made [afterall we don't exist in vacuums,] and they do not exist, and if not then the question regarding freewill based on determinism shouldn't exist either.

{Fledgist: Part of the problem is this: when are choices real, and when are they apparent rather than real.}

I personally am not in favour of the argument re determinism conjoined with that re "freewill." Separate okay, linked, a healthy scepticism and "NO". While for the sake of argument "every effect has a cause" I don't see the link; regardless of what the philosophers might say. They are postulating that the concept of "freewill" MUST be contingent on the absence of x y and z some of which you have stated above. However if one buys into this concept, then the entire human race is NOT free...how morbid and sad. Basically it is implyhing that we are all in some sort of captivity/bondage, even if it is a mental one.

Mills and Kant et al.

{Fledgist: Mills? What did Gladstone or Don have to do with that? If, in fact, we are driven by forces external to our knowing selves, then the 'choices' that we make are not true choices. If we aren't, then choices are real. If, as a matter of stern reality, we are constrained in the nature of what we can choose to do, to what extent can we, as choosing individuals, be said to be responsible?}

..but this is not the case. The human mind has capabilities waaayy beyond what psychologists, psychiatrists, and philosophers have tapped. I purport and maintain that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. WE have not yet discovered the vast capabilities not only of the human mind but of the brain itself with it's trillions of cells. Maybe someone out there is composing another indeterminist argument...or probably not, thinking it a waste of time to even bother.

So on that note, to pigeon-hole our thinking based on what philosophers of yore have expounded in their treatises and arguments is limiting our scope of thinking and going along with the programme because THEY say so...limiting our scope of thinking to say that man is not free to act [fuggedabout di irrational acts] within a given set of parameters...because such and such limits or constrains them.

Their argument centers around choice, chance and duty; and weaves morality somewhere in it, weaving in clear human impossibilities, like flyhing when it is not in the nature of man to fly... a flaw and dishonesty in their argument IMO..while I believe that freewill incoprporates only rational acts, since you mentioned sexual attraction to sea slugs, and while it is not in man's nature to mate with them...somewhere out there in the universe there might be a few, raised under similar set of circumstances who might just find this attractive, and might even pursue it just to prove an agenda re challenging the argument re physical constraints and cultural upbringing..

{Fledgist: We really can speak of morality only if there is a real exercise of volition. That's one part of the problem.}

I again make the point of two brothers who grew up in the same home, shown the same love and affection by the same 2 parents and one made the "freewill" choice of becoming a mobster engaging in despicable crimes, while the other made the "freewill" choice of becoming a clergyman. How would the "determinists"...[hahha] reconcile this? Or are there UNKNOWN factors individually based, upredictable, unconstrained, that brought about opposite choices?

{Fledgist: There could be genetic differences, or environmental ones (since nobody lives in exactly the same environment as anyone else) that could account for it. Or differences in circumstances, since the same events and circumstances don't necessarily apply to two siblings, even identical twins.}

While some of these philosophers deliver some good arguments, I don't limit myself to totally accept what they purport, I don't see myself as being in mental bondage for the simple reason that I am FREE to think... [/qb]

But how do you know that you are? That's the oldest part of the problem, since the question was proposed by Chuang Tzu (Zhuang Zi), 2,300 years ago.

**Fledgist** · 03-25-2004, 02:51 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:

While I don't believe in an externally-determined purpose, I do believe that human life is a good thing, which can be made better and more valuable through the purposive actions of the living person.

Sorry about just getting back to this (almost end of semester and a lot of work to do) but as I understand it, purposive actions are goal-directed actions. Doesn't that require the freewill to make those decisions that are conducive to goal congruence? To actually achieve a goal, doesn't one have to make specific decisions/choices based on the circumstances as they present themselves, rejecting some options while embracing others? [/qb]

That's a good point. From my perspective, we have a more limited range of choices than a believer in free-will would say we have, but we still have choices. Just not as many as we think we have.

**fOrTyLeGz** · 03-25-2004, 06:45 PM

Re: Free will and determinism

Originally posted by fOrTyLeGz:

I fall into the mechanistic-determinist group, I think. I believe that everything happens exactly as it must happen, and that our choices are illusions. We can't behave truly out of character ever. Every fish in the sea, every microbe, every human being, and what is coming out of all of their mouth right NOW, is exactly as it must be.

Originally posted by Fledgist:

I dunno. That indicates an externally defined purpose, and I can't see that in the world.

I mention no "purpose." I think things are exactly "as they must be", because there is no choice. EVERYTHING does exactly as it must do, and could not behave differently than it did, or will in the future. Like balls on a billiard table when hit, could not behave differently. We got hit by heat, and light (and exclamations, and nouns, and verbs, and writing, then printing).

by fOrTyLeGz:

....there may have been opportunities to act differently, but on careful examination of the facts, it will always be revealed, that there was a reason why x went y instead of z.

Originally posted by Fledgist:

In my line of business we call that path-dependency. I'm not sure that it's impossible to break away from an established path -- my version of determinism is weak, after all -- but it certainly is difficult.

I would say that if one did break away from "path-dependency", they could not have not broken away. Their prior experiences drove them cleanly into the side pocket... so to speak. They did exactly as they must have done, and could not have stayed on their prior path.

by fOrTyLeGe:
we are telling a story of ourselves, to ourselves. We are explaining it, or not. The tale makes sense. It is totally confusing.

Originally posted by Fledgist:

Actually, that's a very good point. We do tend to have very similar stories.

'Course what I am digging at is words... one of the main determiners in our lives (gravity, heat, and light) is words in our heads. And the way we were taught the beginning of our individual stories is crucial... that first 'break-shot'!

Originally posted by Fledgist:

While I don't believe in an externally-determined purpose, I do believe that human life is a good thing, which can be made better and more valuable through the purposive actions of the living person.

I don't consider myself as having an "externally-determined purpose" I believe that we discover ourselves in a story when we are two or three... sometimes younger or older of course. And the story is already unfolding, and that we feel, and think, and act, exactly as we must, given that bundle of sensors, and cells, and experiences that we are.

All those words, of course, are internal. But I have been out of the university atmosphere for a quarter of a century, and surely have lost touch with the proper words for many concepts.

Free will and determinism

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads