a misconception about determinism

In what sense do we speak of determinism in that quotation? If you hold that determinism means that all the processes which take place in the world can only have one outcome, are determined to only one result, that there is only one possible path the universe can follow, then of course, such an experiment disproves determinism. But it must be stressed that the denial of determinism taken in this sence does not entail the approval of freedom of the will. In effect, though it is true that many possible outcomes of a situation of choice is a necessary condition of freedom of the will, it does not suffice. It is not a sufficient one. It takes another necessary condition: namely, consciousness acting upon the body. Consciousness must be an agent, and not only a witness.

So, if we take determinism to be merely the denial of free will, then the experiment would not be enough to reject it. However, if the experiment had the same outcome in many successive times (the person choosing always the same thing), then it would be a strong argument FOR determinism.

I wonder if the deterministic illusion of mechanicists, behaviourists and others will last forever. Knowing that I am free to make choices and to determine what I want or don’t want to do don’t make my life easy, but if my acts were all determined, it’d be a thousand times worse.

Determinists are people who see the world with slave-minded and theistic eyes.

yes you make your woen decisions.

but a determinist would see you as part of a larger (universal) deterministic web.

your decisions and thoughts are yors. who else’s could they possibly be they come from your brain and are carried out by your body.

i would never suggest that they are anything but yours, or that they are anything but real and true,

it’s just that they are caused by more than JUST you. because other things have led to you being able to make that decision. and i’m talking about a moleclar or even quantum level.

and it applies to EVERYTHING.

on an emotional level i don’t believe in determinism because i always feel i could have made another choice.

but on a rational level i can’t believe anything else. sometimes it is important to separate what you feel about an idea to what you think about it. because emotions generally get in the way. some things the human brain just cannot accept or emotionally engage with. like you (rationally) know you were once living inside your mother yet when you REALLY think about it, you can’t quite get a grip on it. can’t quite accept it. same with death. same with the size of the universe.

there are lots of things that don’t ‘feel’ right yet we know (as well as we can know anything) that they happen. so give determinism a try… ignore that fact that it feels wrong and think about it. it’s beautiful.

and i aint no theist. so it’s not about thinking it’s god’s will.

it’s just what makes sense. in fact nothing else makes sense. … to me.

Fabiano you are an idiot. Theists believe in freewill, not determinism. In fact, the idea of freewill is born out of theism.
There is no evidence to support freewill, while cause and effect can be observed.
Faith is the domain of theists, and freewill is a faith based belief.

 There's Calvinists and Arminians, one on either side of the free will debate.  Theists come in both stripes, and even in completely Christians circles with no skeptics allowed, the debate is hot. If one of you is an idiot, you both are, so let's just chalk it up to a mutual lack of knowledge.

Determinism is wholly defendable if one takes a few basic leaps of faith

Free will is brought on by our experience of life as successive moments, I was something, I am something else, I will be something else still.

The idiot here has another name, do you want me to tell you who he is?

I could tell yourself why I think this way, but I have generally nothing to say to you, Dr Satanical. Forget me.

Nicely said.

I am tired of this endless determinism/free will debate, although I believe free will is a thousand times more defendable.

And Dr Satanical is a mechanicist fool.

I think determinism and free are both needed to understand our existence. Determinism may help to explain how we came into our present but the present being constantly evolving requires the acceptance of free will to set the future direction or outcome a person wants to satisfy his desires and emotions.

The essence of (judeo-christian) theism hitches on the idea of freewill, the ability to choose ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, heaven or hell.
To walk the straight and narrow path.
Without freewill the whole thing just collapses…

But it still wouldn’t deny free will. I can choose to do the same thing on successive days (let alone in a repetitive scene) and it just proves that I want to. I wake up, I start the coffee every day. Today, I didn’t. All of this may be a part of a causal network, but that doesn’t in the least disprove or show that free will isn’t around.

They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they have very little to do with each other.

On the other hand, if your wants and desires aren’t caused by something, that turns us into causless causers and that’s just a bizarre idea. In fact, I suspect that it is and impossible idea to construct coherently.

Free will is alive and well. Determinism may be the nature of the universe. But, in the end, the two can happily coexist together.

Like Hume’s, your position is at least more coherent than just saying: Free will does not exist! as some “devout” determinists do.

Define “free will” and defend your position, then. Otherwise this is nothing but a claim.

That depends on the definition of “free will”. You have to do better than just making claims.

Again, depends on the definition of “free will”.

Fabiano,

“your position is at least more coherent than just saying: Free will does not exist! as some “devout” determinists do.”

Whats the diffirence between saying “Free will does not exist!” and, “Free wil does exist!” Just saying it, both are equally incoherent. And in my experience, saying that is all free will believers can do. Ive not heard 1 good free will argument, not one… Personally, I feel like its the same question as of providing evidence for randomness. The non-determinist’s free will defies logic, it is unreasonable, since that is their very position, that free will operates outside of reason. Just like someone that claims that true randomness exists, in that something exists that doesn’t follow reason, something that happens without reason, without causality. You can not reasonably provide evidence for something that you claim is unreasonable… Thats my position, so, I do not see how you or any body could reasonably, logicly support a non-determinist free will. And without reason and logic, it is, as celox says, nothing but a claim. It is useless, the same as saying something rediculous like dogs are cats, or the world will blow up tomorow, or… that theres a god… Give me a reason to believe the claim, and it becomes something more than just a claim. This is what I do not believe you can do, but please, feel free to prove me wrong.

of course free will exists. just not the way we think it does.

Do you really think I want to prove something to you, Russiantank? Believe what you will, as I have said I am tired of this endless determinism/free will debate, I am not here anymore to defend one or other position. Bye.

Haha, Fabiano, I would have thought that posting on a philosophy forum sort of implies the desire to discuss ones beliefs, specifically the beliefs posted:

“your position is at least more coherent than just saying: Free will does not exist! as some “devout” determinists do.”

but I guess you just like spouting your opinions and ignoring any attempt at advancing reason and logic through discussion and argumentation. Thats fine by me, ile just have to remember to stop paying you any mind, and I humbly advise the rest of you that care to be reasonable to do the same… Bye Fabiano, Bye…

It’s like this: For every cause there is an effect. I’m not quite sure how A doing B the second time disproves determinism but that’s ok. I don’t believe that anything disproves causality and that’s what determinism is. This is the basis upon which a detective may solve a mystery. If foot prints are imprinted in the ground then surely something must have caused them. If the foot prints have defined markings of a particular shoe bottom then sure enough, they are the foot prints of someone who has precisely these patterns on their shoe. If these foot prints lead from point A to point B then certainly this person went from point A to point B.

A very common explanation of free-will I hear is, I can choose to do what I want to do. But as Voltaire said, I do not know why I want to do what I want to do. Freedom to carry through desires is one thing, but why one desires as they do is entirely another, and such a case is no exception from a causal universe. It’s just more complicated. There’s too many factors to take into account to be able to predict human behavior with absolute certainty like we may be able to do with the motion and pathways of the planets. So if determinism implies that something must be predicted before it can be called deterministic then fine, determinism is disproven. So what? It’s a silly title that I personally have no attachment to. What cannot be denied with any certain proof or reason is causality, for every cause there is a sequential effect and so on.

If we want to learn to throw a football we must try. We will mess up several times perhaps before we get it right but that’s the evolving process everything experiences.

I simply do not understand by any means how the will is free. I have enough trouble defining the attributes of a free-will much less argue in favor of such. I’m not sure if this extracts purpose from life and human beings in people’s minds but it doesn’t with me. It’s like gravity you might say, you just have to learn to accept it and understand that we will always, always feel the illusion of free-will for as long as we live. That’s what matters right?

Hi, dsalvato. Welcome to the board.

Well, I’m not sure about this. I think I would argue that, to an honest philosopher, the truth matters, even if it means having our illusions shattered.

It seems to me that for one to prove determinism one needs to prove the mind is mechanistic. I can see how deterministic factors from the beginning of the universe on forward have ultimately led to me being at this very point, where I am sitting at my desk, posting a response on a philosophy message board. I wouldn’t argue, then, that we have total freedom of the will. But I would argue for something like “practical” freedom. Within my mind I have, for example, the ability to imagine the various responses that I might post. I might even imagine my responses are being read by the queen of England.

Is imagination physical, and therefore subject to mechanistic forces? Do we know who the “I” is that is doing the imagining? I’m not interested in the chemical processes and electrical impulses that make the brain function and allow me to perceive the imaginings, but rather I am interested in the who that is doing the perceiving.

This is a huge philosophical question that’s been debated for centuries without, to my knowledge, any kind of resolution. You may very well be right. I’m just saying there’s a philosophical case to be made for the opposing view.

Hey thanks for the welcoming. I must say right off that you have a point with philosophers wanting truth, no question about it. The thing with will is, is that it will always, always feel free. The very definition of free would have it that since our will is working in accordance with itself, it is free. But like Schopenhauer says, this tell us nothing.

We are not free if our will is suppressed by an external force: our will wants, it desires, it wills and it will manifest itself unless it has a suffient reason not to. In such a case of suppressed will, a fight erupts in attempt to gain personal freedom for the suppressed will. We call this freedom. This has to do with actions, the carrying through of the will and not the will itself. When we can do what we want we have freedom of action, but why we want what we want is where the lack of free-will arises.

At this moment we think this, at this moment we want to do this, at this moment we have to hear a particular song, at this moment a random thought pops into our head. We are floating along and our conscious is hardly doing any of the work, it’s really just like a computer monitor in the way that it simply is shown what is happening within the body and mind. If you tell the computer to sign onto the net, a whole lot of stuff happens instantly within the CPU; in fact a whole lot of stuff is always happening within the computer’s brain. But all we see is the final product, in this case the internet will display on the monitor. The monitor however is not thinking, it is not deciding what to do, it is not directing its will, it is letting the will direct it.

Our will directs us. We decide, we want, we act in accordance to it. We are essentially our will but what is driving that will to want what it wants has nothing to do with us. It is our character you might say which determines how are will is. Our character is generally the same forever, probably gets more and more consistent as we age, but it is changable no doubt. As we are introduced and come accross new things in our enviornment, new things are brought to the attention of our character and our will is quick to decide what it thinks of it.

Think about this now. We are not robots, we are not necessarily mechanical, we are in fact the Universe itself. Alan Watts says, the Universe is inside of us, we perceive it, yet we are inside of it. We are it. So how does the Universe operate? It operates as a causal system. It is essentially a spectrum of infinite possibilities. We grew out of the Earth, out of the Universe as a part, an aspect of the Universe.

You see it only takes a moment and we can already have an opinion on something. We already know whether or not we like it initially and we can grow to like it with time. But it does not take long to form an opinion. Do you know why this is? Remember the character. Our character is in all essence a system of logic, and that logic is entirely based on the factors, and the specifics of those factors, which not only created us but give us a personality, a sense of self. The character is our nature. It is also completely determined, even though it is far to complicated for humans to predict with any certainty. It is not like an animal species that we can predict based on species type. For a human being one must treat each human being as a seperate entity and one must be very careful about the assumption one lays down before observing and understanding. Individuals are far more complex than animals but essentially no different.

When we hear a news story or we are asked for our opinion on an ethical situation, we give our opinion right? However before we give our opinion we must first hear the story. Before the story can be told, there has to be a story to tell. This is causality, and it goes all the way for as long as we can imagine. It just adds on, takes off, cause effects cause, effect effects cause, and they go on like this like electromagnetism, or dominos effect. When the story is told we process it in our brains. The we come to an opinion. But what exactly did our brains do to get that opinion?

Our brains assessed the situation and compared it, tested it, tried it up against an internal jury which would ultimatley make a decision based on it’s system of logic, right and wrong, etc etc. The opinion, if it were possible to know the system of logic within a person entirely, is absolutely, completely and utterly determinable. The story itself and what gave possibility to the story was completely and utterly predictable itself if knowledge of the circuimstances that led to the accident or whatever were known.

Our will can decide against itself but what si that really? That which decides against itself is the will itself, and we are the will. We can very well have a desire, and decide that it would be better off not doing that, hell our will can even change if the reason against the initial will is suffiecent and reasonable enough.

I’m sorry if I did not explain well. It’s tough for me to articulate the depths of will. But I understand it and I will continue to explain better and better if you have any questions. Oh and what you said about ideas or thoughts not being physical; the truth is they are no different than physicality except for they are physicality in all possibility. But nevermind that right now, tell me what you think.