Do you believe in free will?

http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/laughlines/yodelingpickle.jpg

"No" ftw!

I believe

http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/animals/234x.jpg

What, no, "argh, quantum mechanics, I'm confused, maybe not" option?

Do you believe in causation?

I believe that correlation does not imply causation!

This idea of determinism, that if everything were to run all over again we would make the same decisions - well big deal. Of course identical input will produce identical output. (Ignoring random factors which undoubtedly exist but are largely irrelevant for this argument.) People who think determinism defeats free will - what is the alternative? What does a non-deterministic universe behave like? This "I" that you are so scared of losing - where does it reside? How does it operate?

My brain is a computer, my mind is a program. "I" is a program. I am a program. Just like a computer program I am entirely based in hardware, in the physical universe. For given input I produce output in a deterministic, theoretically predictable fashion (ignoring QM which like randomness doesn't really contribute to this argument).

However in order to predicate my behaviour you would need a program at least as complex as me, in fact you would have to replicate exactly my program, as well as the relevant inputs, which could extend to a relatively sizeable portion of the universe. Not that that makes me unpredictable; anyway that wouldn't be very interesting, certain chaotic systems can be very simple and yet unpredictable; the point is that nothing could predict me without, in effect, being me. I am irreducible!

I am irreducible

unlike poor eduardo

Being irreducible isn't the same as being self-determining. If we believe in a mechanical, determinist universe, then we render moot any question about free will. Free will can only exist (hell, is only relevant) in a god-governed, non-determinist universe.

That's all just talk though. You can do whatever you want, Tuomas. I won't stop you.

Yes and no. Depends entirely how you define it, as most questions of this nature do.

http://www.stetina.com/lessons/examples/RUSH_freewill_lead.gif

I just don't understand what non-determinstic free will could refer to. There is no gap between determinism and randomness, nowhere that free will could fit it.

it in

We discussed this in verse once:

We argue about free will - in rhyming couplets

ledge has the answer. "Free will" sounds so simple and reasonable -- of course I can do whatever I want! -- but it's actually just another sneaky way of making you think the world is other than it is, and trying making you dependent on "higher" authorities by undermining your powers of reason. Fuck a free will.

What is non-self determining about my program? All programs are self determining. They take input and produce output according to their own rules. So what if a program that, say, sums integers is only free to produce integer sums as output. What more freedom could it be granted? Any other output could only be described as random.

Ok so you could easily view that as determinism. I just think that the alternative, free will as it is usually conceived, is meaningless.

Right. There's no such thing as a decision taken in a vacuum, so all choices are the result of multiple outside influences. Yet choices are still self-determined. So, yes and no.

ledgebot more like.

In my electric dreams

I think you're being intentionally obtuse, ledge. The concept of free will is rooted in a religious question (apologies in advance for the masculine pronoun): "can man be responsible for his own salvation?" The question isn't whether or not we seem to follow in-built rules in making decisions, but whether or not we can be considered morally responsible for the decisions we seem to make.

In order to meaningfully assume moral responsibility, we must have the ability to render more than one decision in a given circumstance: there must be at least one "right" and "wrong" choice available to us. A deterministic universe assumes all decisions are the result of a fixed input/output system, thereby rendering this question moot. Not only are right and wrong ultimately irrelevant in such a universe, our decisions are determined in advance. In a determinist universe, we have only the illusion of choice, and there's no point in holding anyone responsible for following the undeniable dictates of history, physics and fate.

That is, in a determist universe, god decides whether or not you will follow him. You have no free will, and only believe you are independently choosing the path of righteousness. This view appeals to some because, in it, god remains all-powerful and all-knowing. But it causes problems because it negates man's moral culpability. How can a just god punish man for choosing evil, if the choice was never man's to make?

Do you believe in free will?

Yes.
Sure.
Yeah.
Of course.
Obviously.
Don't see any reason why not to

Nicely done.

How can a just god punish man for choosing evil

HOW CAN A JUST GOD ALLOW EVIL TO EXIST, HUH? HUH?

The moral/religious question is a possible aspect of the free will question, but I don't think it's rooted there. Certainly not theoretically, and perhaps not historically.

And I think one can be held to account for one's actions in a deterministic universe. Imagine a program for summing integers which actually gets it wrong some of the time. Wouldn't you say that the program is, in some sense, at fault? That it's a bad program? Not morally bad perhaps, but only because in this simple example it's not performing moral actions.

Historically speaking, in Western thought, the concept of "free will" (as such) arose from a specific religious question. Only recently have we come to separate the idea from this theological basis.

Imagine a program for summing integers which actually gets it wrong some of the time. Wouldn't you say that the program is, in some sense, at fault? That it's a bad program?

-- ledge

No. The program is not at fault. The programmer is at fault. The program may be "faulty", but it bears no responsibility for the sums it generates.

I have come to think of "free will" as a purely political concept.

"You have free will." = "You could get a job if you really wanted one."

It's nothing more than a way to still scare you with the possibility of going to hell no matter WHAT you do.

free will is a theological question in the same way that all philosophical questions, up until about 500 years ago, were theological questions

This is true. That's why we now comfortably separate free will from the idea of salvation. But the roots are still there, and that's why free will becomes more-or-less meaningless if you try to separate it from moral culpability.

i hate free will - it's the only reason we can't travel forward in time any faster than we already are

free will becomes more-or-less meaningless if you try to separate it from moral culpability.

I don't know if that's true, but the converse seems undeniable - freedom is necessary for moral culpability. I would still argue that we are free even in a deterministic universe - but blaming a simple program for its errors does seem silly, even though I do it every day. Perhaps consciousness figures into this somehow...

ledge otm. what could free will possibly mean?

The religion thing is easily solved, too: we have a perception that we are free to choose between alternatives -- and this is strong enough to hang moral judgements on. It's only not "free will" if you're coerced into acting, and that's not what determinism means.

The perception of choice is not the same as choice. It's absurd to hold a mechanism morally responsible for behaving as it must. Given a purely determist world view, it's as silly to blame a mass murderer for killing as it is to blame a poorly-designed bridge for collapsing.

The above with the caveat that I belive the universe is probably purely mechanical, and still blame murderers for killing. Internal consistency is overrated.

The universe, fortunately, does not demand consistency from us to keep on doing its thing.

No, but if you stood a good chance of stopping the bridge collapsing by, i dunno, yelling at it and giving it praise for staying up, blaming it for falling down wouldn't be silly in the slightest. The perception is all we've got, since the idea of "choice" is completely incoherent.

It's absurd to hold a mechanism

self-awareness, the aspiration to ethics, etc., are a few of the ten thousand things that elevate humanity above quotidian mechanism

all of those are consequences of language

also, pass the bong

ET OTM, re: language & baongs.

No thanks, I'll pass the bong along and stick to coffee, because coffee tends to inhibit my willingness to argue for the fundamental lack of design or purpose in the universe.

i kinda disagree; i believe in some semblance of intrinsic universal morality

Do you know what? I don't care if it exists or not. Okay. I will also have some coffee.

I have decided on the "apathetist" philosophy.

xxpost Ok, just one hit.

Why does it need to be intrinsic to be moral?

i have always imagined moral core as intrinsic and birth-given, and ethical structures as learned by practice and social intercourse.

so what's the moral core, then?

biophilia, will to ascendancy

life loves to love life

Is that a moral core? Sounds more like a hugs core.

even if that were true, don't know if you could call it a "moral" core, really. What would immorality be at that level? Not being cuddly? xpost

we would rather will nothing than not will at all

that's sort of insultingly reductive, don't you think? (xp)

I'm confused as to why any non-religious/atheistic/anti-metaphysics person (such as Tuomas) would give any credence to the idea of "free will"

no more than saying morality is essentially love for life, surely xpst

To demand of strength that it should not express itself as strength, that it should not be a desire to overcome, a desire to throw down, a desire to become master, a thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs, is just as absurd as to demand of weakness that it should express itself as strength. A quantum of force is equivalent to a quantum of drive, will, effect—more, it is nothing other than precisely this very driving, willing, effecting, and only owing to the seduction of language (and of the fundamental errors of reason that petrified in it) which conceives and misconceives all effects as conditioned by something that causes effects, by a "subject," can it appear otherwise. For just as the popular mind separates the lightning from its flash and takes the latter for an action, for the operation of a subject called lightning, so popular morality also separates strength from expressions of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum behind the strong man, which was free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such substratum; there is no "being" behind doing, effecting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction added to the deed—the deed is everything. The popular mind in fact doubles the deed; when it sees the lightning flash, it is the deed of a deed: it posits the same event first as cause and then a second time as its effect. Scientists do no better when they say "force moves," "force causes," and the like—all its coolness, its freedom from emotion notwithstanding, our entire science still lies under the misleading influence of language and has not disposed of that little changeling, the "subject" (the atom, for example, is such a changeling, as is the Kantian "thing-in-itself"); no wonder if the submerged, darkly glowering emotions of vengefulness and hatred exploit this belief for their own ends and in fact maintain no belief more ardently than the belief that the strong man is free to be weak and the bird of prey to be a lamb—for thus they gain the right to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey.

biophilia = perpetuation of life and living systems, including our own = some piece of the big moral picture

denial and destruction of life and living systems, including our own = some piece of the amorality picture

Man can, indeed, act contrarily to the decrees of God, as far as they have been written like laws in the minds of ourselves or the prophets, but against that eternal decree of God, which is written in universal nature, and has regard to the course of nature as a whole, he can do nothing.

i'm sorry, but it's definitionally psychotic to claim protection and elevation of living things over non-living things is not a very integral element of human moral core

Given a purely determist world view, it's as silly to blame a mass murderer for killing as it is to blame a poorly-designed bridge for collapsing.

we blame bridge designer for getting his calculations wrong. i don't think this works as an analogy unless you have opinions4us on how "mass murderers" work.

i'm also sorry for the phrasing of that sentence (xp)

Didn't mean any insult, Remy (responding since I said more-or-less the same thing as stet). I can see the logic behind altruistic, "life-loving" action from an evolutionary point of view, but I'm not sure how that equates to a universal morality. More a question than a criticism.

Shakey OTM.

killing a duck because you would like to preserve the health of a family with meat and warmth: good, noble, moral

killing a duck because he sat on your tire swing: selfish, ignoble, wanton, amoral.

contenderizer,

i don't think the two (biophilia/morality) are synonymous, but i strongly feel that the love-and-perpetuation of living things -- especially those most like ourselves -- is an important constituent of the broad moral category.

POOR DUCK.

for practical purposes, i believe in something that is conventionally called "free will" anyway.

we blame bridge designer for getting his calculations wrong. i don't think this works as an analogy unless you have opinions4us on how "mass murderers" work.

-- that one guy

I agree with you. We blame the bridge designer. Problem WRT to people is that there is no morally culpable "bridge designer". The designer is simply the universe itself. Those who interacted with or gave guidance to the murderer cannot be held responsible, as they are no more self-determining than the murderer himself.

In other words, by assigning blame to people for their actions, we are denying a mechanical, determist universe. The act of assigning moral blame requires at least the pretense of belief in free will.

The designer is simply the universe itself.

what?

now the universe has free will?

it presupposes choice, which is different than free will

for practical purposes, i believe in something that is conventionally called "free will" anyway.

-- that one guy

Me too. That's what I was saying earlier. In spite of all extremely fascinating philosophical argument, I still know it's up to me to decide whether or not I'll get out of bed in the morning.

....

universe = sum total of "inputs" in the computer analogy made above

x-post

weird analogy

"The designer is simply the universe itself."

what?

-- that one guy

In a determinist universe, all action is predetermined from the origin point of that universe (the big bang, for instance, if not unto infinity. So if responsibility is to be assigned for what happens, it must be placed with the laws that govern that universe.

"I'm not responsible for stealing that apple; history and the laws of physics are reseponsible."

Ye, I think I mostly agree with you actually -- am just not convinced that you can call biophilia a moral core any more than you can call hunger a (erm, grasping here) haute cuisine core. They're too separate. I can conceive of an immoral biophilic, for instance.

ah xposts, yeh I totally agree with that last post of remy's.

I LOVE the idea that I have a choice on this getting out of bed thing

what is outside the universe that inputs into it?

xpost to shakey

TOMBOTLBY THE SCRIVENER

In a determinist universe, all action is predetermined from the origin point of that universe (the big bang, for instance, if not unto infinity. So if responsibility is to be assigned for what happens, it must be placed with the laws that govern that universe.

this leaves it an undecidable until the "laws" governing human action have been ascertained. before then can they be said to exist?

it presupposes choice, which is different than free will

This makes no sense to me. In the absence of truly free will (i.e., conscious choice that is not preordained by external determining systems), "choice" cannot really exist. As I said before, the perception of choice and choice itself are not the same thing.

it also necessitates an absolute pattern or matrix of potential patterns for existence to follow that is mas o menos the same thing as a deistic logoi

(xp)

^^this

(last one re: remy, way upthread.)

this leaves it an undecidable until the "laws" governing human action have been ascertained. before then can they be said to exist?

-- that one guy

That's a damn good question. But I think the answer is "yes". If our behavior is entirely predetermined, it doesn't matter whether or not we understand or even apprehend the laws that govern us. We are no less governed in our ignorance.

xp @ contend,

it's a greek classical thing, i think. i have always imagined limited choice within a range of potentialities, but never absolute or wholly free.

what is outside the universe that inputs into it?

flying spaghetti monster, pistis sophia, mr. mzxtylplyk, the buddha, etc.

it also necessitates an absolute pattern or matrix of potential patterns for existence to follow.

-- remy

True. And that's a big potential hole in the argument I'm making. If we conceive of a universe that is purely mechanical (operating by fixed scientific laws), but that is at the same time inherently unpredictable, then we can reconcile scientific rationalism w/ something resembling free will. But I'm not sure anyone's really made that argument yet.

I have always imagined limited choice within a range of potentialities, but never absolute or wholly free.

-- remy, again

Yeah, that's where I wind up, too. But deep down I suspect I'm rationalizing, simply 'cuz I don't want to admit that I'm not at the wheel.

admittedly, embarrassingly, and because of this ^ i tell myself to 'go with the flow' quite a lot.

How would even limited choice work? xp haha

i always find this stuff confusing, but i do remember from college that some philosophers think determinism and free will are compatible

these laws are all explicitly defined by humans, right? no-one's saying they are objective laws "out there", yeah?

are you talking in terms of language, or in the operation of the "system"?

some philosophers think determinism and free will are compatible

-- artdamages

I think strict mechanists do this by saying that the perception of free will = free will (which seems like a cop out). The more spiritually inclined say that consciousness and/or the soul are free, even if the physical universe remains in bondage.

the whole construct of free will hinges on the idea that things could have gone differently in any $situation. it is easy to say 'if the coin had come up heads, i would've...' or 'if i'd just...' but there is absolutely no way of knowing if this is (or would have been) true.

in other words, the belief that each incident unfolds in its only way possible seems to find the universe strictly deterministic, while the belief that things could have turned out differently -- slightly or significantly -- allows a free will.

How would even limited choice work? -- stet

limited choice admits that the universe is not strictly, dogmatically, literally deterministic, but we are also limited in the choices we do make to within a relatively narrow band of possibility inculcated in us by hard genetic wiring, social upbringing, lack of imagination, intervening deity ... pick your reason

are you talking in terms of language, or in the operation of the "system"?

-- stet, Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:37 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

tricky distinction -- but these laws, we have to admit, are subject to change, to blak swan arguments, etc. they aren't immutable.

black

by saying that the perception of free will = free will (which seems like a cop out).
This isn't too far from my position. I don't think it's a cop out though, it's more to explain why we think we have free will, despite that being an incoherent idea (in a strictly deterministic universe)

but we are also limited in the choices we do make to within a relatively narrow band of possibility
yes, but in what way are these choices made, other than by cause and effect somewhere in our domes?

these laws are all explicitly defined by humans, right? no-one's saying they are objective laws "out there", yeah?

Yeah, the laws I'm talking about are universal constants: the laws of physics. Given that the behavior/interaction of atoms and subatomic whatevers seem to be governed by inflexible physical laws, and given that human consciousness seems to be the product of electrochemical activity in the brain, the idea of "free will" becomes absurd.

and my own pet theory, actually:

in present tense, in real time, our actions are determined. the structures that will allow us to make any decision are already extant: we might think we are choosing the red car over the blue car, but the data that informs that decision and the conditions surrounding the choice are long-extant and inexorable.

in preterit, and in future, in analysis and theory we have untethered free choice. we can admit of times and instances other than the one we currently inhabit that there were 'choices.' But this is a little like a feint-dodge, because there is (will be, was) only one way in which the universe unfolds.

IOW we can can conceive of choice, but we cannot experience it

limited choice admits that the universe is not strictly, dogmatically, literally deterministic

The universe is "not strictly, dogmatically, literally deterministic"? How do you justify such an idea? It seems to reject science (or at least the prevailing scientific understanding). You're talking either about a leap of faith, or an act of denial.

Aaaand then your more recent posts set things right again.

Yeh, I've got a bit confused between which Remy I agree with :)

they aren't immutable.
It is a tricky distinction. I think our "laws" aren't immutable, but the processes underlying them could well be, no?

It is a tricky distinction. I think our "laws" aren't immutable, but the processes underlying them could well be, no?

-- stet

The only thing tricky about it is the definition of terms. When I say "physical laws", I mean the system of processes that we use science to (hopefully) understand. Others might use the phrase to mean "system of codified scientific explanations".

On the level of atomic/subatomic physics, however, we are governed not by our current scientific understanding, but by the underlying (immutable) physical processes. That's where the rubber hits the road in this discussion.

The only thing tricky about it is the definition of terms
Yeh, which is what I'm asking, cos it looks like that one guy says the system itself isn't immutable.

i'm saying we don't know, so like my boy wittgenstein, we can't say. or moreover that this knowledge is subject to change. surely the history of science teaches us modesty in this respect?

ah gotcha

i don't think the brain science people -- and i've been a guinea-pig for 'em -- have it all sussed yet.

oh and i LIED MY WAY THROUGH ALL THE TESTS so their findings are BUNK anyway. i got mine and that's what counts.

i'm saying we don't know, so like my boy wittgenstein, we can't say. or moreover that this knowledge is subject to change.

-- that one guy

Yeah, but like I said earlier, not knowing the laws of the universe is one thing. Not being governed by them is something else entirely.

The free will question hinges entirely on whether or not one is governed. Sure, it's possible (hell, guaranteed) that our understandings will change over time, but given what we know now, it's impossible to reconcile old-school, truly free "free will" with scientific determinism.

Or maybe I'm missing yr point? I dunno. Help me out here.

Yeah, but like I said earlier, not knowing the laws of the universe is one thing. Not being governed by them is something else entirely.

well, certainly i don't have the "free will" to run faster than it's physically possible to, etc. i'm not sure what we know now, about the way the mind works, that makes this a fait accompli. it all seems pretty up for grabs doesn't it? and i'm all about black swans and paradigm shifts -- arrogant not to be. i don't think any of this stuff will be locked down for good, at any time.

That makes a good deal of sense. Esp this: "i'm all about black swans and paradigm shifts." OTM 1000%.

I'm tempted to push the issue (no matter what we do or don't know about how the mind works, it seems absurd to think we'll contravene the predermined particle-things bouncing off other PDTs in predictable ways bit), but I can't see anything good coming of it. And, as you suggest, what "seems" isn't the same as what is.

Still, the point yr. making could be used to negate any philosophical or scientific argument. It basically boils down to: "present knowledge = incomplete, dubious". True enough, but this discussion was always grounded in a "current understandings" premise (as least that's how I saw it).

no.

i am but a vessel of hate, the nightspirit's will made flesh. i will eat you and your kind. i will shit you out, and piss on the shit.

where is Tuomas anyway? I would like him to explain why he "believes" in something that cannot be proven

I think he was just making a joek

where is this chicken?? i would like it to explain why it ACTUALLY crossed the road

What stet said. Tuomas' only point was the joke (all poll answers the same, but all affirming free will).

Still, Shakey, why else would you "believe" in anything? I mean, if you can definitively prove something, your beliefs about it become a non-issue...

the belief that i will not be murdered is what gets me out of bed every day

the certainty that i will die makes me say nice poems about somebody else's god before i go back to bed at night

Still, Shakey, why else would you "believe" in anything? I mean, if you can definitively prove something, your beliefs about it become a non-issue...

S: Tuomas being cunty on various religion vs. atheism threads

I read a while ago that in the history of Eastern philosophy there was never really a debate about free will--they avoided making distinctions like "human" vs "natural" and so the concept didn't really come up. I understand this to mean that they viewed the process of a dude choosing between a red car and a blue car as no different than any other natural process. Maybe that boils down to determinism, I guess.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

We argue about free will - in rhyming couplets

I am free to be entirely confused about strict determinism. It always seems so improbable to me.

You would say that.

joek

We exist in the physical world. All motion therein is either inexorably causal or utterly random. Tell me where free will fits in.

FWEE WILL

http://thespecial.ca/ts/Shatner-782796.jpg

I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

I believe in the Church of Baseball. I've tried all the major religions, and most of the minor ones. I've worshipped Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan. I know things. For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I heard that, I gave Jesus a chance. But it just didn't work out between us. The Lord laid too much guilt on me. I prefer metaphysics to theology. You see, there's no guilt in baseball, and it's never boring... which makes it like sex. There's never been a ballplayer slept with me who didn't have the best year of his career. Making love is like hitting a baseball: you just gotta relax and concentrate. Besides, I'd never sleep with a player hitting under .250... not unless he had a lot of RBIs and was a great glove man up the middle. You see, there's a certain amount of life wisdom I give these boys. I can expand their minds. Sometimes when I've got a ballplayer alone, I'll just read Emily Dickinson or Walt Whitman to him, and the guys are so sweet, they always stay and listen. 'Course, a guy'll listen to anything if he thinks it's foreplay. I make them feel confident, and they make me feel safe, and pretty. 'Course, what I give them lasts a lifetime; what they give me lasts 142 games. Sometimes it seems like a bad trade. But bad trades are part of baseball - now who can forget Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas, for God's sake? It's a long season and you gotta trust. I've tried 'em all, I really have, and the only church that truly feeds the soul, day in, day out, is the Church of Baseball.

http://fasthugs.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/whm_goofy.jpg

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Film/Pix/pictures/2007/04/13/wild.jpg

(Crash OTM, btw, except for that throwing in a gratuitous Susan Sontag reference to seem smart is also self-indulgent crap.)

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

what in god's name is that shatner stormtroopers photo from

http://thespecial.ca/mt/mt-search.cgi?search=shatner&IncludeBlogs=1

Oh, you mean...

Oh god, Abrams doing a Star Trek film will be ABYSMAL.

ask a philosophical zombie