Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Suffices to say that the term Freedom itself has n´t any Scientific sustainability or explanation...Free of what and from what ?
If anything free goes straight against the requirements of Science who demand a causal link on phenomena as means of explanation...

But the greatest contradiction is on one side to argue that there are random events going on when it comes to full causal links, and on the other hand to say that I am the cause of my actions...

...a contradiction in terms that´s what it is !

1 - Either I am the cause of my actions and Soft Determinism and Causality are true...

or:

2 - Something causes my actions and Hard Determinism and Causality are also True

or:

2 - There are random events going on and phenomena are not caused but merely correlated...

If I am not to be the complete cause of my actions necessarily by definition I am not free, this given my dependence on external conditions, in the case randomness...

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

For your purposes, you make choices all right, just that a strong enough computer could have calculated it, there's no room for variability. If it exists, it has to be explained how dead matter formed variability.

I believe that you are confusing my argument and ughaibu's. Before I can address the rest of your comment, could you please explain the concept of "dead matter" and how it relates to the debate at hand?

It wasn't meant all that precise, just disregard the dead matter comment. The point is that if matter formed free will, that is not the default position, but has to be explained. For example, we know that the brains of smaller animals like lobsters are merely a causally determined sequence of electrical stimuli. There is no room for variability, we could calculate all their reactions in advance. The brains of humans consist of the same matter, just more complicated. If that matter formed free will, i.e. somehow escaped the confinement of causal determination, it has to be explained how that happened.

Razzleg wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

The problem is that "free will" cannot be demonstrated in a single demonstration of choice. It requires the presentation of the same choice to the same subject multiple times,and the collection of data and evidence as to whether the means of decision-making develops. Undoubtedly, the changes in decision-making procedure or priorities will be based on, in part, the consequences of the previous choice, but not simply in reaction to stimuli. A stone always rolls downhill, not up, a person may choose skip or they may choose to run. The single event of skipping or running is not evidence of free will, but given similar conditions, the variation in behavior might be said to support an argument for it.

Pretty much, yeah. You can't make "the same" choice twice. So it is impossible to prove free will.

You pretend to represent a scientific viewpoint, but you don't believe that conditions can be controlled sufficiently to make experiments?

Not in a philosophically pure sense, no.

Razzleg wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

Well, it's achieving the opposite. It makes your posts longer and harder to read. And your thoughts are much harder to grasp because the reader has to struggle through the semantics.

Sorry to hear that, but I'd imagine that my syntax is much more challenging. Hope the wiki link helped.

Yes, thanks.

Razzleg wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

The point is that "x exists" has the burden of proof against "no it doesn't", the latter should never have the burden of proof. Which is what the free will crowd is doing.

Hmmm...perhaps, in some cases, I'd agree with you. My point, is that skepticism alone provides no basis for argument. If someone were to continue to provide arguments, and you were unwilling to accept any premises, then no proof exists. I'm not sure what proponents of "free will" you've been arguing with besides ughaibu, but they have not failed to provide arguments. You are making a sort-of logical argument against scientific data. If you do not allow any of the empirical premises to stand, how is the argument to progress?

Valid arguments, that can stand the test of critics, will be accepted as accurate. That is the point. And that is precisely how science works; the default position is always skepticism. And if someone has a theory, he has to defend it against critics; those pesky "deniers". If he can, his theory is accepted, if he can't it is not. I am in fact defending the institution of science against it being redefined in a completely contrary way to how it has worked the last 2000 years.

Razzleg wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

I was not atheists that explained that lightning is a discharge of electricity so people no longer had to explain it as coming from the gods. It was progress figuring out that lightning is a discharge of electricity that made atheism plausible. So the causation is the other way around.
Philosophically atheism is the default position, it does not have to make arguments.

Razzleg wrote:
On the contrary, atheism preceded modern scientific methods, science did give it a fresh spin though.

Atheism has of course always been there. But as a major modern movement, atheism was fueled by scientific progress, which was a consequence of technological progress. It was not atheists that caused science, it was science that caused atheism. Or where did the atheists come from? Did people just suddenly decide to be open to new ideas and thus new ideas were developed?

Razzleg wrote:

And you're right, many scientific discoveries and explanations were first presented by people of a religious nature, which when popularized helped to shake the faith of some people.

It's not really a matter of science vs. religion. Science is in itself a faith. It has to assume that the universe is deterministic, or else it makes no sense to measure it and make laws about it. So in that sense science is not a antipode to faith, but merely a competing religion.

Razzleg wrote:

In my earlier references to atheism's use of scientific explanations, I was talking about the early days of science in the West. Within that historical context, the religious view was the default position, and the onus lay on atheist to make the arguments. The default position is a conservative concept, whatever opinion happens to represent the quantitative or power majority tends to occupy it.

That's what I attempted to convey with the atheism analogy. Philosophically, atheism should have been the default position. That it was not, was a flawed situation due to reality (people) not conforming to scientific ideals. Are you suggesting to repeat the same flaw with free will because we did always do it that way? That would, ironically, be a conservative concept.

@EmperorNero,

I'm afraid that the following will be brief, as I'm about to head to work.

EmperorNero wrote:

It wasn't meant all that precise, just disregard the dead matter comment. The point is that if matter formed free will, that is not the default position, but has to be explained. For example, we know that the brains of smaller animals like lobsters are merely a causally determined sequence of electrical stimuli. There is no room for variability, we could calculate all their reactions in advance. The brains of humans consist of the same matter, just more complicated. If that matter formed free will, i.e. somehow escaped the confinement of causal determination, it has to be explained how that happened.

If you'd like to drop the topic of "dead matter", that's fine by me. I asked about it, because it seemed relevant to why you are skeptical about free will. I do have reservations and questions about some of the claims you present. Could you explain how we know that lobsters brains are causally determined sequences of electrical stimuli? In what way does predictability disprove agency? Does increased complexity never yield qualitative difference?

EmperorNero wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

You pretend to represent a scientific viewpoint, but you don't believe that conditions can be controlled sufficiently to make experiments?

Not in a philosophically pure sense, no.

Valid arguments, that can stand the test of critics, will be accepted as accurate. That is the point. And that is precisely how science works; the default position is always skepticism. And if someone has a theory, he has to defend it against critics; those pesky "deniers". If he can, his theory is accepted, if he can't it is not. I am in fact defending the institution of science against it being redefined in a completely contrary way to how it has worked the last 2000 years.

I am afraid that is in no sense the definition of science, at it is not least not how the word has been defined for the last 400 years or so. I invite you to read up on the scientific method. You can look it up in your elementary school textbook, or here, at the ever helpful, always 100% accurate wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method<br />

Out of curiosity, what constitutes your test for valid theories?

EmperorNero wrote:

Philosophically atheism is the default position, it does not have to make arguments.

Philosophically, atheism should have been the default position. That it was not, was a flawed situation due to reality (people) not conforming to scientific ideals. Are you suggesting to repeat the same flaw with free will because we did always do it that way? That would, ironically, be a conservative concept.

I have to admit, I'm a little confused by what you mean by "philosophically" here. I'm not trying to play the kennethamy card, but I am genuinely confused. I'm not using the term "default position" to mean either the imperative or the correct position. I mean it is position with historical precedent. People couldn't possible hold the position of scientific atheism before the development of modern science. For modern science to develop it had to contrast itself from the general intellectual movement that preceded it. It did not do so by saying that the preceding arguments were illogical or bad, it did so by setting innovative and effective standards for verification.

In all of this, I can't help but notice that you have failed to address my proposition that the existence of learning curves substantiates the free will argument. How does that variation on the argument impact your skepticism?

If anything learning curves demonstrate conditioning to action in a more sophisticated way...anticipating results and predicting consequences is a good argument for cause and effect...
The paths I choose, are chosen out of my interest, out of my needs, and out of my capability´s to make judgements, none of which depends alone in my will...we are not collapsing worm hole singularity´s out of touch and sync with the surrounding world. Decision in human behaviour is not in any way an independent close system, thus applying the term free is abusive extrapolation on what is actually going on.

Throughout this entire thread and discussion there has been one unexamined assumption which, if no one is wiling to examine it, everyone ought, at least, to be aware of it. That assumption is that free will is the antithesis of determinism. Even if that assumption seems obvious, shouldn't it be at least mentioned, even if not examined. Otherwise, if you think of it, the issue of whether there is free will boils down to simply the issue of whether determinism is true or not. And, at least to me, that seems to be a change of subject.

I understand that is what you and some mean by "having free will". Namely, that our choices are not caused, not determined, But now consider this: 1. Such a view of what it means to have free will implies that if Determinism is true, then free will is false. So, all that "free will" means on that account is, that an act of free will is a causeless act, and undetermined by any thing. In other words, it is a chance event (out of the blue). But how would anyone be morally responsible for such a chance event? And don't we think that it is just because a person does something of his own free will that he is morally responsible for his action? So, if a contracausal act is what we mean by an act of free will, what is the role of the responsibility of people for their actions? Is this the kind of free will worth having? And, second. The way you use the term, "free will" (to mean an causeless action) is certainly not the way the term "free will" is ordinarily used in everyday discourse. It is, if I can put it that way, and ivory tower use of the term, invented by theologians and some philosophers. (Not all philosophers, for Hume, for example, considered that use of "free will" pointless. And most modern philosophers agreed with him. The point I want to make is that in ordinary discourse, doing something of one's own free will does not mean doing something without reason or cause. What we mean (in ordinary discourse) when we say of someone that he did something of his own free will, is that he was not compelled to do what he did, and it is on that account that we think that a person who did something of his own free will (robbed a bank, raped a woman) is morally responsible for what he did. For, to the extent that we believe that a person did something wrong, but, nevertheless, could not have helped doing what he did, then it is to that extent that we do not think that person is morally responsible for what he did. So, from that point of view, it is not that a person's action had a causal explanation which implies he did not do that action of his own free will. Rather, it is that his action had a certain kind of cause which leads us to think that he did not do what he did of his own free will. And, that certain kind of cause is that he was compelled to do what he did (or, and this is something to be discussed) that he was ignorant (in some way) of what he was doing. So, if you think of it from this view, from the view of how we actually ascribe moral responsibility to agents, and how we actually think and talk about whether or not they did what they did of their own free will, determinism as such vanishes as a consideration, and it no longer is a question of whether their action had a causal explanation, but rather, what kind of explanation their action had. And, more particularly, whether they were compelled to do that action (or whether their action was done in ignorance). In other words, what in common parlance we would say, they had an excuse for what they did. Now it seems to me that the question of whether someone did something of his own free will arises when it is believed that the person's action was wrong, and the question is whether he did that action voluntarily and knowingly. And if we think the answer to that question is yes, then we are willing to say of that person that he did that action of his own free will. And the question of whether or not determinism is true, does not seem particularly relevant.

@kennethamy,

A good answer to your reply is in a similar Thread on the forum, and it goes all the way through the argument of making choices up to the infinity...I and others have mention identical perspectives on this before, but then you just ignore them...what´s the point on keeping the debate on ?

It resumes :
...without causal completeness systems are dependent on third party´s (other systems )therefore compelled and not free.

Link: http://able2know.org/topic/158145-1

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

ughaibu wrote:
EmperorNero wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
What I would like to know is your actual reason for denying free will, prepared to spill it?
I'm a scientist, I don't believe in stuff unless it's shown to exist.
Do you deny the existence of dark matter and dark energy? Do you deny that the speed of light is constant for all inertial reference frames? Do you deny the process of abiogenesis?
As I said, I don't have to be against the war in Iraq to be against the war in Afghanistan. I don't have to agree with polygamy because I agree with gay marriage. It's not all or nothing.

Exactly, you have no consistent position and you are engaging in special pleading to deny free will. Why? Cut out the posturing, what is your actual reason for denying that which you, and all other healthy human adults, unavoidably assume, and successfully act on the assumption of, the reality of? Give me any good reason to not dismiss you as another irrationally denialist.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
EmperorNero wrote:
ughaibu wrote:
What I would like to know is your actual reason for denying free will, prepared to spill it?
I'm a scientist, I don't believe in stuff unless it's shown to exist.
Do you deny the existence of dark matter and dark energy? Do you deny that the speed of light is constant for all inertial reference frames? Do you deny the process of abiogenesis?
As I said, I don't have to be against the war in Iraq to be against the war in Afghanistan. I don't have to agree with polygamy because I agree with gay marriage. It's not all or nothing.
Exactly, you have no consistent position and you are engaging in special pleading to deny free will. Why? Cut out the posturing, what is your actual reason for denying that which you, and all other healthy human adults, unavoidably assume, and successfully act on the assumption of, the reality of? Give me any good reason to not dismiss you as another irrationally denialist.

As Hume pointed out, there are many things we all "unavoidably assume" but whose assumption we are unable to justify. For instance that there is an "external world". The fact that we cannot help believing something is not much of an argument for the conclusion that something is true. And certainly not that the belief is justified.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

The fact that we cannot help believing something is not much of an argument for the conclusion that something is true.

Who gives a shit? Can you quote a post in which I suggested that we draw the conclusion, from the assumption, that the reality of free will is true?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
The fact that we cannot help believing something is not much of an argument for the conclusion that something is true.
Who gives a shit? Can you quote a post in which I suggested that we draw the conclusion, from the assumption, that the reality of free will is true?

So, it is a psychological fact that we cannot help believing in free will (whatever you may mean by that). So what? What is that supposed to show about the reality of free will (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Hume held that since the question of whether there is an external world is undecidable, that we devote our attention, instead, to the question why we believe there is an external world (which is a psychological question. You might learn from his suggestion. Except that like the question of whether there is an external world, the question of whether there is free will (as you understand it) is a pseudoproblem.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu wrote:

Exactly, you have no consistent position and you are engaging in special pleading to deny free will.

Free will and dark energy are not a position, but utterly unrelated topics. I don't have to have an opinion about dark matter at all to be "allowed to" challenge your demonstration of free will.
I claim that your supposed demonstration is just stating what you want to demonstrate with different words, so it's begging the question. You didn't feel like responding to that.

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

I claim that your supposed demonstration is just stating what you want to demonstrate with different words

You mean it's a demonstration of what I claim to demonstrate?! I hope so.
On the other hand, your claim to be a denier because you're a scientist and dont accept anything unless it's proved to exist, just doesn't wash, does it?

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

If you'd like to drop the topic of "dead matter", that's fine by me. I asked about it, because it seemed relevant to why you are skeptical about free will.

Matter is physical stuff, it's dead, it doesn't have free will. Like a cogwheel. If a cogwheel doesn't have free will, but a machine that's made out of many of them appears to have free will, then it has to be explained how it happened.

Razzleg wrote:

Could you explain how we know that lobsters brains are causally determined sequences of electrical stimuli?

We studied their brains enough figure out that every of their moves is the outcome of predictable electrical stimuli. Thus we know they don't have free will in the sense I speak of.

Razzleg wrote:

In what way does predictability disprove agency?

It's not about agency, we all agree that we are acting.
If I could predict all your decisions, and not just measuring the decision itself before you are consciously aware of it, but calculate the decision before you even make it, that would disprove that you could have made the other decision. I.e. that you have the capability of having made either decision.

Razzleg wrote:

Does increased complexity never yield qualitative difference?

Yes. But that would have to be explained and not assumed to be the case.

Razzleg wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
Valid arguments, that can stand the test of critics, will be accepted as accurate. That is the point. And that is precisely how science works; the default position is always skepticism. And if someone has a theory, he has to defend it against critics; those pesky "deniers". If he can, his theory is accepted, if he can't it is not. I am in fact defending the institution of science against it being redefined in a completely contrary way to how it has worked the last 2000 years.

I am afraid that is in no sense the definition of science

That is not the formal definition from school textbooks, but that is the spirit of it. The default is - should be - denial, no position should be declared the default because it sounds obvious or because of majority opinion (consensus), or because the church happens to like it.
That's how science should work, but my point was that that is being redefined recently.

Razzleg wrote:

Out of curiosity, what constitutes your test for valid theories?

I don't propose a different test than is generally accepted in science.

Razzleg wrote:

I have to admit, I'm a little confused by what you mean by "philosophically" here. (...) I'm not using the term "default position" to mean either the imperative or the correct position. I mean it is position with historical precedent.

Ah, that's the problem. You mean historically default, I mean philosophically default. Philosophically should maybe rather be called 'epistemologically'. The default is the position that is true if proposed hypotheses are wrong. That position, ideally, is either skepticism, i.e. nonexistence, or what's obviously true. The position with historical precedent is of course considered obviously true, and that means in practice that the skeptics have to do the dirty work of disproving it. But ideally they should not have to.

Razzleg wrote:

In all of this, I can't help but notice that you have failed to address my proposition that the existence of learning curves substantiates the free will argument. How does that variation on the argument impact your skepticism?

I don't think it impacts free will in the sense that I explained above and in recent posts. I mean free will not in the sense that we are zombies. If it does, please explain.

He probably refers to Dennett´s point of view considering free will as the capability one has to improve "avoidance" through natural selection and evolution besides education...but then again it begs the question once the degree of avoidance that you have is not set by yourself neither it is infinite...it only goes so far, once you can´t really predict the full consequences of your actions or choices...

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utai74HjPJE

One of this day´s you and me will probably gone be reading on the free will of nowadays computers because some of them are in fact programmed to avoid and predict to some extent...obviously this is pure nonsense...we do have to go all the way to get the entire picture !
Are we in full control ? Not by far ! ( and we don´t even need Godel´s infinity´s to get to that conclusion...a googolplex of chain tree options suffices ! )

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex

...In other words, you don´t avoid avoidance...to prove free will we would have to possess Godly powers, namely Omniscience and Omnipotence...and that is, to say the least, highly improbable !

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

to prove free will we would have to possess Godly powers, namely Omniscience and Omnipotence...and that is, to say the least, highly improbable !

Yes, precisely, it is impossible to prove free will. That it is impossible to prove does not prove that it is wrong, but assuming it's existence is faith.

My impression from what I heard so far is that Dennett approach is over simplistic almost naive on this one..."the mountain gave birth to a mice"...

@EmperorNero,

EmperorNero wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
to prove free will we would have to possess Godly powers, namely Omniscience and Omnipotence...and that is, to say the least, highly improbable !

Yes, precisely, it is impossible to prove free will. That it is impossible to prove does not prove that it is wrong, but assuming it's existence is faith.

In that case, don't you also have faith that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago? Don't you have faith that you aren't dreaming? Don't you have faith that if you put a gun to your temple and pull the trigger you will die?

I'm just trying to figure out why "faith", in this context, is a dirty word. It's not like you have faith that Jesus will catch you if you jump off a building.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:

Fil Albuquerque wrote:
to prove free will we would have to possess Godly powers, namely Omniscience and Omnipotence...and that is, to say the least, highly improbable !

Yes, precisely, it is impossible to prove free will. That it is impossible to prove does not prove that it is wrong, but assuming it's existence is faith.

In that case, don't you also have faith that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago? Don't you have faith that you aren't dreaming? Don't you have faith that if you put a gun to your temple and pull the trigger you will die?

I'm just trying to figure out why "faith", in this context, is a dirty word. It's not like you have faith that Jesus will catch you if you jump off a building.

That I visited the restaurant without being compelled to do so would seem to me adequate proof that I visited the restaurant of my own free will.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

EmperorNero wrote:
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
to prove free will we would have to possess Godly powers, namely Omniscience and Omnipotence...and that is, to say the least, highly improbable !

Yes, precisely, it is impossible to prove free will. That it is impossible to prove does not prove that it is wrong, but assuming it's existence is faith.

In that case, don't you also have faith that the universe wasn't created 5 minutes ago? Don't you have faith that you aren't dreaming? Don't you have faith that if you put a gun to your temple and pull the trigger you will die?

I'm just trying to figure out why "faith", in this context, is a dirty word. It's not like you have faith that Jesus will catch you if you jump off a building.

Good question. Here's what I would respond.
Faith is a dirty word in scientifically precise contexts. In a less scientific, everyday use, it does not have to be. That it is considered a dirty word in everyday use, I think, is a relatively recent development. In a frenzy of rationalistic zeal, we started to transfer terms and concepts from their scientifically precise use to everyday use, in the belief that it will bring scientific objectivity and rationality to all aspects of thought. I think it didn't work and utterly backfired, but one of the effects was that faith has become a dirty word even in everyday use as well. Which it does not have to be, I think in our everyday lives faith can be a good thing.
So while my rejection of free will stands against any arguments that claim scientific precision, any more personal, subjective argument would not be subject to such intellectual meticulousness.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know