Free will, determinism and absolute knowledge.

[Dan From Smithville]

In my opinion: science, archaeology, and philosophy demonstrate adequately that the claims of Christianity are false, and that the Bible is fiction.

Well, not really a topic of this thread, but I respect your right to your opinion. While I do not believe the Bible is false in the sense of providing allegories about the authors feelings on the subjects contained within and certain aspects of behavior, its claims are based on belief that cannot be tested by science.

 

[Skwim]

dedicated to the new information philosophy

I assume you're referring to this:

Logical philosophers describe indeterminism as simply the contrary of determinism. If a single event is undetermined, then indeterminism would be "true", they say, determinism is false, and this would undermine the very possibility of certain knowledge.
​

If you believe this unqualifiedly says philosophy rejects determinism then you need to hone your reading skills.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I assume you're referring to this:

Logical philosophers describe indeterminism as simply the contrary of determinism. If a single event is undetermined, then indeterminism would be "true", they say, determinism is false, and this would undermine the very possibility of certain knowledge.
​

If you believe this unqualifiedly says philosophy rejects determinism then you need to hone your reading skills.

.

I find the comment on certain knowledge to be more interesting than the rest of the description. On that basis, the acceptance of determinism and certain knowledge would imply the acceptance of the perfectly predictable.

 

[Skwim]

T Never-the-less, predictability is what you are claiming based on the idea that we do not have free will. I see this as a stumbling block for free will.

Absolutely not. Prediction is a process of the human mind. And if there wasn't a single sentient creature in the whole of the universe bright enough to weigh all the factors and predict an event, that event would still be determined by the causal events that led to up to it.

I see that. Free will is assumed or needed in order to maintain the pretext of the religious views being held.

At least those views where responsibility for one's actions are necessary or at least important.

If a person exercising free will to avert temptation is so successful that they overcome all temptation, their life now becomes perfectly predictable.

I don't see why. Predictability is only accomplished by having all the relevant pieces of information and analyzing them properly so as to come to a correct conclusion. And I fail to see why a particular accomplishment, overcoming temptation in this case, would establish such a possibility.

Can a perfectly predictable person truly be free?

Truthfully, I don't believe anyone has free will, be they predictable or not.

.

 

[Skwim]

I find the comment on certain knowledge to be more interesting than the rest of the description. On that basis, the acceptance of determinism and certain knowledge would imply the acceptance of the perfectly predictable.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be using "predictable" as theoretically predictable. That given a super-duper-pooper-scooper mind and feeding it all the necessary information anything and everything could be predicted. If that's the case, then yes, perfect predictability would be possible.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely not. Prediction is a process of the human mind. And if there wasn't a single sentient creature in the whole of the universe bright enough to weigh all the factors and predict an event, that event would still be determined by the causal events that led to up to it..

So there is no predictability with determinism? That does not seem to fit what I know of the idea.

At least those views where responsibility for one's actions are necessary or at least important..

How important are they, if they are outside of the will of the person? If theft is not a choice but a determined condition, how do we deal with thieves?

I don't see why. Predictability is only accomplished by having all the relevant pieces of information and analyzing them properly so as to come to a correct conclusion. And I fail to see why a particular accomplishment, overcoming temptation in this case, would establish such a possibility..

Predictions are made all the time without benefit of all the available information or even absolute values for the information that is available.

Unless you can explain to me how determined behaviors are not predictable--lack of evidence is insufficient, since theoretically, at least, all evidence could be known in a rational universe--I do not see how predictability is not an indicator of determined behavior. This point comes right out of a defense of the position against free will that was raised in some of the material you have provided here and elsewhere.

Truthfully, I don't believe anyone has free will, be they predictable or not.

.

I have my doubts too and they are reflected in some of the points that you have made.

Truthfully, you are one of the people that I hoped would show up on this thread.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be using "predictable" as theoretically predictable. That given a super-duper-pooper-scooper mind and feeding it all the necessary information anything and everything could be predicted. If that's the case, then yes, perfect predictability would be possible.

.

As I understand the concept of determinism, once the causes are known, prediction should be readily possible. From a practical position and as a scientist, I know that we cannot account for all the variables. At least not in our present state.

Please keep in mind, that I no longer see myself as having a hard position on one argument or another and am presenting arguments and asking questions based on my current understanding. I am looking to the responses for new information and new ways to look at them, but not without question. I have been leaning more to determinism over these last several years, but that is not a closed door.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Absolutely not. Prediction is a process of the human mind. And if there wasn't a single sentient creature in the whole of the universe bright enough to weigh all the factors and predict an event, that event would still be determined by the causal events that led to up to it.


At least those views where responsibility for one's actions are necessary or at least important.


I don't see why. Predictability is only accomplished by having all the relevant pieces of information and analyzing them properly so as to come to a correct conclusion. And I fail to see why a particular accomplishment, overcoming temptation in this case, would establish such a possibility.


Truthfully, I don't believe anyone has free will, be they predictable or not.

.

By the way. My hope that you would comment here was a positive one. I like that you throw in tough questions that I cannot always walk around or find easy answers for. Even if we disagree over the number of taxonomists in the world or other issues, I value your approach.

 

[Willamena]

I assume you're referring to this:

Logical philosophers describe indeterminism as simply the contrary of determinism. If a single event is undetermined, then indeterminism would be "true", they say, determinism is false, and this would undermine the very possibility of certain knowledge.
​

If you believe this unqualifiedly says philosophy rejects determinism then you need to hone your reading skills.

.

You're free to assume.

 

[Skwim]

So even though free will is an illusion and our actions are out of our control, we are accountable for our actions?

We shouldn't be.

But I must say that although I recognize that no one chooses their actions, good or bad, and should not be held accountable for them, for whatever reason this recognition does not carry over into my waking life, and I'm left living the illusion wherein I do hold myself and others responsible. I hold myself and others to be accountable because I can do no differently. I'm at the mercy of a deterministic universe.

.

 

[Skwim]

As I understand the concept of determinism, once the causes are known, prediction should be readily possible. From a practical position and as a scientist, I know that we cannot account for all the variables. At least not in our present state.

Please keep in mind, that I no longer see myself as having a hard position on one argument or another and am presenting arguments and asking questions based on my current understanding. I am looking to the responses for new information and new ways to look at them, but not without question. I have been leaning more to determinism over these last several years, but that is not a closed door.

Good for you. There aren't enough open minds around here.

.

.

 

[Skwim]

You're free to assume.

Too embarrassing to admit to?

.

 

[Skwim]

.

SORRY IF THIS COMES OUT OF ORDER, BUT I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH A PILE OF REPLIES.​

So there is no predictability with determinism? That does not seem to fit what I know of the idea.

I think I've covered this in other replies, but predictability relies on the ability of the human mind to select and process the proper information, and lacking such an ability has no bearing on determinism's effect on thinking.

How important are they, if they are outside of the will of the person? If theft is not a choice but a determined condition, how do we deal with thieves?

But that's the trick. Religions, Christianity at least, requires that free will be true. As for dealing with criminals, one can always take the view that punishment, although undeserved, can act as a deterrent to others. It's certainly not fair, but until everyone comes to recognize how unfair punishment, AND praise, is, we're stuck with it.

Predictions are made all the time without benefit of all the available information or even absolute values for the information that is available.

But usually only where the circumstances are narrowed to generating only a few possibilities. And often the predictions come with a margin of error, some of which are breached rendering the prediction worthless.

Unless you can explain to me how determined behaviors are not predictable--lack of evidence is insufficient, since theoretically, at least, all evidence could be known in a rational universe--I do not see how predictability is not an indicator of determined behavior. This point comes right out of a defense of the position against free will that was raised in some of the material you have provided here and elsewhere.

I believe I've already covered this.

.

 

[osgart]

What about when people have the option of making an informed decision vs. an ignoring decision. The motivation of accountability drives people to stick to their duties and inform their decisions. Whereas if they did not have the motivation of accountability they would surely neglect a duty. So the motive is crucial.

Then there is the matter of conscience. Then there is the matter of being inspired.
Then there is the matter of having the strongest desire to have peace.

A persons character might be the deciding factor in if they have free will or not. People do sacrifice their lives for others. People also act totally against their will.

The greatest character motivations decide if a person has free will or not.

A good coach might inspire his people to do beyond what they otherwise might do. Whereas if that coach wasnt there then those same people might not do as well.

So there are will enablers.

So informing actions makes a big difference too. Coaches are paid to make decisions, so they gather information to make the best ones they can. Having the wherewithal to correct poor decisions.

Athletes train themselves to make split second decisions that are highly disciplined.

If people are resigned to doing things they have always done, then they wont have the impetus to change.

This is all free will talk. But it makes a big difference in causing better results.

 

[blü 2]

Whether we decide directly or choose an indirect system, they are still choices. If consciousness arises as an emergent property of brain form and function with an admixture of quantum events, does this mean that our behavior is determined? That seems to be the implication or am I wrong?

Unless quantum randomness is involved, I agree that follows. That makes the alternatives determined, or mostly determined, occasionally random.

I take it from your statement here that alternatives mechanism have not been found.

I don't know of any, but I'm always willing to learn.

That is what it feels like to me, but is that feeling of something real or is it a false sense?

It's a false sense if you look at it with a hard eye. It doesn't matter if you authentically feel the decision is yours. The latter is the basis of responsibility in western society, not least in courts. (SCOTUS has recognized that ─ if I can phrase it this way ─ the adolescent brain is not equivalent in function, hence responsibility, to the adult brain, but as I recall so far that's in the context of the death penalty, not of responsibility/guilt as such.)

That is the basis for seeking to find out and for the arguments that have arisen. Where I once felt sure that it was free will, I find I am now uncertain.

The trouble with completely free free will is that once cause+effect and randomness are ruled out, there's no description of the mechanism by which it could make decisions.

 

[ChristineM]

I agree with the definition of atheism. I think it is the best definition based on the evidence. My question was actually to understand whether atheism has further implications that relate to free will.

Actually, that is one of the arguments for free will. But having made a choice, any claim that another option could be chosen has no value as supporting evidence, since it was not chosen. The claim of choosing an un-chosen option begs the question that has free will as the answer. Or at least that is the challenge to the argument that I have seen.

Perhaps we use different meanings of free will.

My view is that free will may cause a person to become atheist (or an atheist choose to take up theism) but it has no baring on atheism itself other than ones free will to believe in gods or not. Any attributes one attraches to atheism other than disbelief in gods are personal.

Should one make a choice then afterwards circumstances/evidence can cause them to change their mind.

Some will claim everything is predestined, they are perfectly free to make that claim.

 

[ChristineM]

Is that free will or volition? Do we really have a choice? That we could take another direction is not evidence that we could, since none of those other directions were taken.

Philosophy is not reality.

Should i have eaten the steak or the chicken? I made the choice using fee will

 

[Nimos]

If this were presented in a series of selection tests and there were no pattern to which was chosen, it would suggest free will is operating. If there were anything driving selection that was beyond the scope of will, then it would suggest that choice was determined by other factors than free will.

I think one could make a lot of interesting experiments with this.

If we take a series of babies which have never tastes M&Ms, and you place two red ones in front of them and let them choose. I would expect that the would choose rather random, maybe those that are right handed would prefer the one to the right slightly more than the left one, simply because of this. So to remove the chance of that, you could switch the M&Ms around from their initial position, even though they are identical but to see if that would change how the babies chooses. Obviously while the they ain't looking.

Now next experiment, you have a lot of babies that have already made that decision, so now you could replace one of the red M&Ms with a yellow and see whether they stick to what they know, meaning the red or if this doesn't matter and you could test this with them being in varies positions as well.

You could even place them slightly apart so for instance it would be slightly easier for the baby to choose the yellow one over the red, an see if there is some preferences to go for the red now that they have tastes it and know it tastes good.

So in the first test if they choose completely random, but doesn't in the next one where they have already gotten experience with the red one, whether that seem to affect how they choose.

Obviously you would and should expand on these experiments to set up some well thought out senaries as these are just from the top of my head. But think it could be quite interesting to see how they would behave.

 

[Nimos]

My view is that free will may cause a person to become atheist (or an atheist choose to take up theism) but it has no baring on atheism itself other than ones free will to believe in gods or not. Any attributes one attraches to atheism other than disbelief in gods are personal.

Should one make a choice then afterwards circumstances/evidence can cause them to change their mind.

Some will claim everything is predestined, they are perfectly free to make that claim.

Im not sure I would agree with what you are saying here, that free will can cause a person to become an atheist or not. The reason for this is that it seems to be backwards. The concept of a God is fairly complicated. So imagine as you are born, having never heard of God, to choose between atheism or theism requires more than free will, so to me everyone is born an atheist, but as they start to wonder about life, you get influence by ideas from religion, maybe you are introduced to God etc. And that can cause you to believe that something like that might exists, because there is a lot of things in the universe that we can't explain.

I also think that is why religious believes have evolved over time, if you go to the earliest religions, they are fairly simple compared to for instance more modern religions, so you would start to apply some sort of Power to nature and spirits in nature, very basic things. But as people started to get more and more questions about life and the environment in which they lived, the religions also had to explain more and more, so they evolved. I think this make good sense, because for early humans to create their first religion as complicated as Christianity is for example, requires a lot more thinking and understanding of other concepts before doing so. So basically its the same as babies not randomly reaching the conclusion of God, heaven and hell etc. Because its way to complicated a starting point.

Would you agree with that?

 

[Koldo]

In another thread also about free will which you might have read, a guy on youtube suggest that we have no free will and that this is purely based on our "wants", and since we can't really control what we want we don't have free will. Now I think a good counter argument to this is that we can only know what we want through our own senses and since these are part of us, its arguable that we do have free will regardless of us being unable to control them directly or not. They feed us information about the world and can be seen as neutral agents which only goal is to help us survive in the world in which we live.

I don't get how that is a counter argument at all. Can you explain ?

Another example could be, if we imagine that you have never tasted or seen ice cream before and the only thing you have been told about it, is that you can eat it.

Now I place to identical bowls in front of you with identical ice cream in them, except the flavor, so lets say banana and coco. You can't smell or see any difference between them. So now I ask you to eat from one of them? If you have no free will, how will you decide which one to eat or not to eat any of them?

Position ? I might have a predisposition to picking something in the left for instance. Although this kind of preference would belong to the subconscious so we can't really be sure about whether it is the case.