free will vs. determinism

There is little question that humans have an awareness of choice in our day-to-day lives. We assume we make choices; that we are not just puppets of either God nor the blind forces of the universe. But do we actually make these choices? Or are these choices made for us before we even come to a certain situation?

I think that there’s something out there that has predetermind what we will do and when we’ll do it. I guess I don’t really think that we’re all completely free to make our own choices. It seems to me that the independent choices we think we make are a really just a result of our ignorance regarding our deterministic future. The “choices” we make are influenced by a series of factors, even though it is as if we act like we are independent from these factors.

I guess what I’m saying is that I feel that the reason we think we have free will is because we really have no knowledge of this deterministic universe…

but then…on the other hand…if there is such a thing as free will, and we can infact make our own choices…would that have something to do with the conscience…How the conscience will tell you one thing…but lets you choose to follow it or ignore it? hmmm…

now i’m confusing myself. Anyone have any other ideas about free will/determinism???

You wake up one morning and its cold as hell. You make your way to the kitchen and there is hot chocolate and frozen Gatorade. Which one will you pick? It seems you had the choice between the two but did you really get to pick? You picked the hot chocolate and go on your marry way thinking you were free, but did you make this choice or did the environment surrounding you make it for you. What ever (if anything) is controlling the environment is controlling us.

Another example is, well the world. If we plant a tree in a well controlled area we know what will happen. If we do math we can predict the future. Example being we could predict where Pluto will be in the universe if we calculate with the past, make sense? How could can people for see the future if it isn’t already predetermined.

Now all of this is easily arguable but I really don’t think we are free. We are slaves to feelings we don’t control, we have no free will. This makes me wonder about Jesus and such. If we have no free will then how could we have sinned? If we didn’t sin wouldn’t that make Jesus crucifixion pointless?

“The problem is choice, right? …”

–Neo :sunglasses:

No more pointless than anything else. :slight_smile: I’m sure you’ll agree, that even if we don’t have free will (God included), we all have no choice but to act as though we do.
As to whether or not we have free will, I know I do- I experience my acts of choosing as directly as I experience my emotions. You’d need a damned rigorous argument to shake my belief in the acts of choice I experience everyday! As far as I’m concerned, we either have free will, or we have some mechanism that provides a perfectly seemless illusion of free will. The former seems the simpler explanation to me.

Yes seemingly so, but can you proposed how we can go beyond such seemingness and establish once and for all that we are not deluded. For example can we show that IF free will is an illusion we arrive at a contradiction somewhere. Then we would have known. Now only seemingly.

I don't see a need to do that, any more than I see a need to prove that any tree I come across is a real tree vs. an illusionary tree. I think it's rational to believe the deliverances of my senses until some powerful argument comes along and shakes them. I've never seen a conclusive enough argument against free will that makes me second guess my experience of choosing. I acknowledge that I can't prove free will exists- but I'm satisfied with it as the most rational thing to believe, given what I know.

mxchicmx,

Here is a paper written by a “friend” that I, personally, really enjoyed. Its very simple to understand.

-Toward the Happy Marriage of Free Will and Determinism-

Unable to understand how or why the person we see behaves as he does, we attribute his behavior to a person we cannot see, whose behavior we cannot explain either but about whom we are not inclined to ask questions. We probably adopt this strategy not so much because of any lack of interest or power but because of a long-standing conviction that for much of human behavior there are no relevant antecedents. The function of the inner man is to provide an explanation which will not be explained in turn. Explanation stops with him. He is not a mediator between past history and current behavior, he is a center from which behavior emanates. He initiates, originates, and creates, and in doing so he remains, as he was for the Greeks, divine. We say that he is autonomous–and, so far as a science of behavior is concerned, that means miraculous.

B. F. Skinner Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1971

The Tick-

If I were to tell you I knew of a world other than our own, either you would think me a crackpot or I would think you one. Nonetheless, I contend that I have been granted a glimpse of just such a world, and have reason to believe it is real.

On the surface, this world appears almost exactly like ours. At the top of the food chain is a race that looks just like us and has achieved the same levels of technology and comfort. The only difference I could see is that on the head of each person is a fat tick. It is not quite fair to call these animals ticks, for they seem to have a lively intelligence. That is the best analogy I can make, however, since they exist as complete parasites, living on the blood of their hosts.

It appears that each “human” somehow acquires a “tick” sometime during infancy, which remains attached to the head until the host dies and the supply of blood runs out. I believe the tick dies with the host, rather than leaving it for another. I have worked long and hard to figure out why the people allow these parasites to live on them, but have found no answer since my only source of information is one of the ticks.

After a lengthy conversation with this informant, I saw that this world was utterly unlike our own. The parasites are clearly under the impression that they are directing the lives of their hosts. He referred to “my body”, “my job”, and “my wife” though the context clarified that he meant those of his host organism. With all the tact I could muster, I suggested that I was confused because it seemed to me that the humans were free and independent beings while he and his kind were merely unproductive spectators. He did not get upset, but was merely puzzled by the idea of humans getting anything done without their ticks to guide them.

Given that my information is limited, I must admit it is possible that the ticks’ exchange of fluids with the brains of the humans allows them to both receive sensory input from their bodies and direct behavior. This admission, however, is merely a footnote to my main hypothesis.

I believe the race of “ticks” is under some sort of mass delusion, carried on for generation after generation. Somehow they have evolved to produce interpretations of their passive role which enable them to believe they are in control. When the host starts to do something (whether it is to scratch, quit his job, or fall in love), the tick sees signs of this course of action and invents reasons why he (the tick) has decided on it.

Even without advance warning (which may or may not come with the fluid exchange), this illusion might still be maintained. Nietzsche (1889) noted a similar phenomenon in our world: that a sleeping human who hears a cannon fired in the distance will insert into his dream circumstances which seemed to precede and predict the report. Perhaps they can do awake what we do in dreams, bending time to make sense of the world.

In spite of these explanations of how the trick could be done, I find it difficult to imagine such an all-encompasing delusion on such a vast scale. It seems that over the centuries at least one of the creatures would have to open his eyes and shout “Hey–we’re just along for the ride!” as I have done.

Determinism-

When I speak to people about the problem of determinism, their answers are mostly very similar. They say yes, one’s environment pushes and pulls you toward certain decisions, but we have free will: the final decision is ours. Let me begin, then, by saying that this is not at all the way people work and not at all what I mean by determinism. I believe a strong case can be made for absolute determinism, for a world in which there is no independent entity to make any “final decision,” in which there is no speck of choice left for which one can take credit. A world in which the “self” is merely a powerless observer–and not even powerful enough to observe the whole being upon whose head it rides.

Everything must come from somewhere. One cannot be a first cause, a self-generating entity, judging and selecting from above the world, outside of life. Our efforts to uncover the complex web of causes which determine our behaviors are often frustrated after going only a couple of steps back, but this does not disprove the existence of such a web. Where is the self, the spirit, the soul to come from if not from the world? Only by positing an eternal soul can one avoid attributing the self to outside causes, and such a belief brings up another whole set of impossibilities.

Now, for me, this is enough. The proposition has been proven. Regretfully, I am not at liberty to suspend all use of the concept of free will at this very moment, as I would not then be able to speak about such things as choosing what to believe and what to throw out. One cannot say “I” in the same sense that one said “I” while believing in an independent self. One cannot say “he” and “she” without performing some serious revisions to the idea of what it is to be a person, what kind of thing a person is. The words “will” and “self” have meaning. They refer to something, even if type of entity for which we have used them does not exist. The contradiction between free will and determinism has been a difficult one precisely because we cannot afford to give up either concept. Thus our goal: a “happy marriage”.

The Courtship-

My breakthrough with this problem was to come up with a way to approach it. It struck me that the first thing necessary was merely to find a way to have faith that the contradiction could be solved. I found this faith by comparing the problem to the problem of absolute truth, to which I will therefore digress for a moment.

Humans make mental models or representations of parts of the world, and use these models to understand, predict, and give meaning to life. (This is just one such model, as we could describe the process in other ways, but I think it is a valid one.) Some of these representations work better than others. Those that work better are closer to “the truth”. “The truth” is an abstraction, the idea of a model which would perfectly describe some piece of reality. “Reality” is a word that refers to that which exists, to that which we attempt to describe in our models. It is always separate from the models themselves, since it denotes that which they describe. There is another sense in which “truth” need not refer to an ideal of perfect knowledge, but merely to mental models which have performed well and which we consider trustworthy. There is a distinction to be made between asserting that one has “a truth” and “the truth”.

Absolute truth is an ideal. It is not that it is unattainable because we are imperfect. It is unattainable because that’s what ideals are. Being unattainable is part of the concept. Given this sense of the word, there is no shame in the lack of perfect truth. The best truths there are are our imperfect human representations. Many of our truths are amazing in the degree to which they explain and predict our lives, in the beauty of their simplicity, or of their complexity. Our truths are great achievements, and creating and improving such truths are noble causes on which to spend one’s life.

The only reason there is a problem with truth is that we have inherited some erroneous ideas about what truth could and should be. We believe in absolute truth and are frustrated by our inability to defend it. The assertions of religions that absolute truth has been attained through divine revelation are the most obvious source of this myth. It also derives, however, from a natural if simplistic model of knowledge. One begins understanding things with models that are black and white. In the case of truth: right and wrong. Even without a history of faith-based beliefs, one begins with the idea that one either has the truth or does not. Once this fallacy is dismissed, respect for our imperfect truths falls right into place, and the problem is solved.

That the problem of truth could be solved primarily by recognizing a traditional concept that set up unrealistic expectations gave me hope that the present problem was the result of a similar inherited error. Surely it was only an immature model which led us to place our faith in an image of the human as unmoved mover, as an independent agent. If we can dismiss this expectation, if we can coax our pride to no longer require this status, then perhaps everything will again fall into place.

The Wedding-

I do not have a single theory which will accomplish the desired matrimony, but only a few reflections which have helped me to feel alright in a world without free will. If I am only a tick on the head of this body and self I have called my own, how am I, the observer, to make this an acceptable role? First, that term “self” must be expanded. I am indeed part of this “self”, but perhaps I am not all of it. Perhaps one can have a sense of saying “I want…” and meaning “The I which is speaking, as a representative of the larger I, expresses a desire for…”, can see “I” as merely shorthand for “that of which I am aware and that which drives me unseen”. This, of course, we have already done to some extent with the awareness of sub-conscious drives to which Freud led us, but how would we speak of “free will”, and “I made the final choice” if we really gave credit to those parts of ourself of which we are not aware? There is a definite sense in which we are accustomed to think of the self as being discrete, of having some kind of integrity which it clearly lacks. It is merely something to try to keep in mind.

As a “mere” observer, one may still make some claim to refer to the observed as “my” self. I have been carried along on this being through good times and bad. I have had to experience its pains and humiliations. I have shared in its greatest ecstasies. I have been witness to all this, and no other conscious being can make this claim. Therefore, to the extent that a consciousness can claim a whole being, this one is mine. In addition to being a unique observer, I have been made by these events as I observed them. I am a conglomerate of the many things which have happened to this being, of the circumstances which happened to converge upon it. It is mine and I am its.

“Conglomerate” is almost a defining characteristic of this self which is more than the self I know. It is (I am) not from any god, nor some eternal spark held in a physical container. A body came to be and within it grew this spark, somewhere (in Nietzsche’s words) “between plant and ghost”. It passes through the world and encounters things. Some of them it internalizes. Those already internalized determine what next shall be passed by and what shall be incorporated. It grows somewhat like an organism, but more like a city: with additions and detours created which often enough refuse to be interpreted in terms of any grand scheme. And this mess am I. But within this piecemeal self, distinctions can be made which make some things more central than others, which lay a stronger claim to call some pieces mine.

There are parts of my self which appear to be adopted whole and maintained intact from my parents, from Nietzsche, from some random event which crystallized a concept, from sources of which I am not aware. There are other parts which have undoubtedly been processed thoroughly after their arrival. Parts made of innumerable influences, parts which can be said to have my “flavor”, which share some essential characteristics and moods with other “heavily processed” items. I cannot say that anything is purely mine, that any part of myself does not owe it’s existence to something outside, but I can distinguish that which is realtively adopted from that which has been made relatively me. This is an important realization. Just as one can dismiss any expectations that truth be absolute, one can dismiss the expectation that the self be independent. Once that is done, it is quite sensible to speak of parts of the self within which one has exerted one’s will, which one has (relatively speaking) created.

This is the essence of the drive many of us share to claim free will. One wants to see that one has gone into all corners of one’s life and self and made conscious decisions. There is, at least, a certain kind of person who feels this need to “claim territory” by having the experience of selecting, naming, and willing. In the service of these goals, “will” and “free will” are resurrected as sensible and defensible notions. I exert my will by forever stirring the soup of sensations and opinions which have come to be me, making sure no noodle or piece of carrot fails to deliver that unique and proud taste of my personal spice.

-Mark at Thinedge.org

can free will and determinism coexist? I beleive Hume and Hobbes think that it can…what do u all think?

Why are ‘you’ or ‘I’ left undefined here? This is answered easily enough. The whole question dissolves once you stop pretending that ‘you’ or ‘I’ are somehow outside the deterministic universe. You or I are products of all those forces that you want to say take away our free will.

Free will is no illusion, the idea of a ‘soul’ is.

I don’t see why free will and determinsism can’t coexist. An in between is far less radical. Determinism surely exist. We all are all subjected to the laws of nature. And if you walk to the fridge, there is a choice. But the choice is limited by the situation (deterministic). But in fact everything could be in the fridge (free will).

My take is that classical physics might hold part of the answer. The universe started, and things started interacting, within the laws of physics. So down the line, anything that can happen is a direct result of the original “bang” (loosely speaking). So then we get to react to all these predetermined happenings, combined with the happenings that are results of others’ reactions. However, quantum physics tells a different story, a story which rivals the best fiction and fantasy. Unfortunately, it is quite complicated and I seriously doubt I’ll ever be able to tell it.

Free will and determinism do not and can not co-exist, because determinism does not exist. Since determinism does not exist, it can not co-exist with anything. (No, I don’t wish to go into a QM discussion here, it’s all been done before, you can just read a physics list if you’re interested.)

You all are such puppets anyways….who know who’s pulling the strings.

People like to get drunk so much because then they can do anything, or so they think. Then they really have free will.

Brad wrote:

I say that free will is an illusion; a very real illusion, whereas the idea of a soul is a fiction; a fairly unimaginative fiction.

Consider, for a moment, the bandwidth of visual radiation. Imagine that you could tune your optical bandwidth in the way that you’d tune the dial of an FM radio. Now, imagine turning your optical dial towards the shorter wavelengths: violet, to ultraviolet, to x-ray and finally to gamma waves. All right, now look at your arm. Well, you couldn’t, it would be invisible.

The fact that your arm normally appears to be “solid” is an illusion brought about by the frequency detection limitations of your eyes. Is your arm really opaque or is it really transparent? It’s both, yet neither way of seeing your arm captures the complete essence of what your arm really looks like. For instance, your arm would look altogether different from an infrared perspective, and we’re left to wonder what it might look like from a gravitational or an electrostatic perspective.

Is a rainbow real or is it an illusion?

A rainbow a real illusion. Our notion of a free will is similarly a real illusion. They both exist in the context that we experience them. A dog can acutely hear every note of Beethoven’s “Pastoral” Symphony, and yet it doesn’t hear Beethoven’s “Pastoral” Symphony at all. From a great distance, a raven can see every brush stroke of a Monet landscape canvas, and yet it doesn’t see a Monet landscape at all. Similarly, why should we think expect that the human experience can capture every aspect of possible consciousness? I suspect there are modes of consciousness that I pass over as blithely as a mouse runs across a page of Rilke’s poetry.

“Hay smells different to lovers and horses.” – Stanislaw Lec

If there is a Homunculus in my head pulling my strings, then I ought to wonder what little Homunculus is living in his head and pulling his strings? To envision the world as exclusively causal is to send ourselves down a path of infinite regress in an endless search for the author of ourselves. I don’t even start down that road. Instead, my conscious life is my illusion.

Mind you, I’m not making a claim of Idealism. Those physical things “out there” won’t dissapear along with me, it’s only my illusion of this world that will eventually dissapear. At the same time, there is nothing more precious to me than my illusions of love, beauty and happiness. I own a physical body, and as long as this body allows, I’ll be what I think I am. And as for the world; it can be no more beautiful than I imagine it.

Cheers,
Michael

edit: tag

I don’t have any problems with calling a soul a fiction, but I’m not completely comfortable with ‘real illusion’. It’s not wrong as far as I can tell, but it implies that there’s something essential missing from our description of a rainbow. It still leads in the Nagelian direction of a ‘view from nowhere’.

Hmmm, maybe it’s just semantics.

Hello Brad,

That’s a good observation. If a rainbow is only our illusion then there is no aspect to it other than what we perceive; a case of Berkeley’s esse est percipi, if there ever was one. But if there’s no aspect to it other than we perceive, then there’s nothing missing - there could be nothing missing - in our perception of it.

What this implies for the real illusion of the self is that there is no hidden aspect of it. Whatever facet of the self appears, comes into being as it appears. Being, as long as there is being, is a continual process of bootstrapping. This reminds me of something Pierce said in his, What is Pragmatism:

“A person is not absolutely an individual. His thoughts are what he is ‘saying to himself,’ that is, is saying to that other self that is just coming in the flow of time.”

It’s interesting that you’d mention Nagel’s A View From Nowhere, as I’d been thinking of his “The Absurd” from Mortal Questions. The Absurdity being that a mere phantom could value itself so highly. On page 19 he writes:

"We can not shed our ordinary responses, and if we could it would leave us with no means of conceiving a reality of any kind…We do not step outside of our lives to a new vantage point from which we see what is really, objectively significant.

It seems that we can’t step outside of ourselves, and yet we do to some extent. We can’t have a view from nowhere, but it seems we can have a view from somewhere outside of our hodological self; as long as there is a self to step away from. It seems that I’m free to be other than I am - to become - as long as I have a self to depart from.

I’ve been staring at a line in my journal for the past few days which says, “We mustn’t forget that sometimes we are the why.” During this time I’ve had the urge, off and on, to cross out “sometimes.” I’m wondering which is more radical, to leave it in or cross it out? Once I decide that, I’ll have to decide whether or not I want to be radical.

Advice is welcome.

Michael

edit: one more thought

Wow!

I just have to share this:

An illusion indeed is real, and what’s real dont exist.

I wonder if animals discern a rainbow.

Hehe, i like that.

ha. that said nothing!

Ok rex???

I thought I would complement on a message, who would of that of doing that?

Did rex_b get mad because the complement wasn’t for him? Such a fragile person.

That didn’t say much ether!