Determinism: the holy grail of Academia.

[Repox]

We all know the brilliance of academicians. They know things others don’t know because they have specialized knowledge. To learn about academic bias or assumptions, one must have insight into the academic enterprise. We all know it is about truth. In the halls of higher learning, most academicians believe we have no freewill. In academic studies, we learn there may be so many variables as to negate reasonable explanations. However, “educated people” assume everyone’s behavior is subject to deterministic circumstances.

Testing a hypothesis or research question, most academicians string variables like a well-tuned musical instrument, therefore proposing determinist relationships. Taking the same set of variables, some academicians may propose actors making freewill choices. How can we find the real answer? One Academician finds nothing but deterministic relationships, while another academician finds people making freewill choices. In the academic world, the most likely winners for proposing explanations are “determinists.” To make matters even more complicated, it is difficult to argue for positions other than determinism. How can one prove a freewill choice? One person thinks, “I made a choice.” Another person thinks, “I had no choice, circumstances made me do it.” Is that what happens when the murderer pulls the trigger? As for survival in the academic world, one may find their career in jeopardy for proposing freewill choices.

For the deterministic model, there are serious implications for theology. If God determined Satan to be rebellious, there is no sin or evil. Moreover, how can there be holy and obedient angels if they have no freewill choices? If human behavior is determined, good equals evil insofar as actions are concerned. Therefore, the murder is not guilty; circumstances made him or her do it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We all know the brilliance of academicians. They know things others don’t know because they have special knowledge. To learn about the academic bias or assumptions, one must have insight into the academic enterprise. We all know it is about truth. In the halls of higher learning, most academicians believe we have no freewill. In academic studies, we learn there may be so many variables as to negate reasonable explanations. However, “educated people” assume everyone’s behavior is subject to deterministic circumstances.

Testing a hypothesis or research question, most academicians string variables like a well-tuned musical instrument, therefore proposing determinist relationships. Taking the same set of variables, some academicians may propose actors making freewill choices. How can we find the real answer? One Academician finds nothing but deterministic relationships, while another academician finds people making freewill choices. In the academic world, the most likely winners for proposing explanations are “determinists.” To make matters even more complicated, it is difficult to argue for positions other than determinism. How can one prove a freewill choice? One person thinks, “I made a choice.” Another person thinks, “I had no choice, circumstances made me do it.” Is that what happens when the murderer pulls the trigger? As for survival in the academic world, one may find their career in jeopardy for proposing freewill choices.

For the deterministic model, there are serious implications for theology. If God determined Satan to be rebellious, there is no sin or evil. Moreover, how can there be holy and obedient angels if they have no freewill choices? If human behavior is determined, good equals evil insofar as actions are concerned. Therefore, the murder is not guilty; circumstances made him or her do it.

It all depends upon how such things are being approached. It's not really all black and white, or one way or another.

 

[Skwim]

For the deterministic model, there are serious implications for theology. If God determined Satan to be rebellious, there is no sin or evil. Moreover, how can there be holy and obedient angels if they have no freewill choices? If human behavior is determined, good equals evil insofar as actions are concerned. Therefore, the murder is not guilty; circumstances made him or her do it.

Which is why free will is more often than not championed by concerned Christians and others whose religion has a stake in culpability and judgement. Problem is, I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of how free will operates. All of them stop short of answering the obvious next question "Okay, so you chose A rather than B, but why? Why not B?" Invariably this is either ignored or followed by one more step in regression, which again stops short of explaining the "why did you chose C and not D, E, or F?"

.

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We all know the brilliance of academicians. They know things others don’t know because they have special knowledge. To learn about the academic bias or assumptions, one must have insight into the academic enterprise. We all know it is about truth. In the halls of higher learning,

You make them sound so esoteric and mysterious and something that is so much more than what it actually is. Special knowledge? They're people, not specially-gifted beings from another dimension.

most academicians believe we have no freewill. In academic studies, we learn there may be so many variables as to negate reasonable explanations. However, “educated people” assume everyone’s behavior is subject to deterministic circumstances.

That just shows your ignorance of academia, and the diversity of positions held by academics.

Testing a hypothesis or research question, most academicians string variables like a well-tuned musical instrument, therefore proposing determinist relationships.

I think I can speak on behalf of all researchers on this: it doesn't work out that well or harmoniously.

 

[shunyadragon]

We all know the brilliance of academicians. They know things others don’t know because they have special knowledge. To learn about the academic bias or assumptions, one must have insight into the academic enterprise. We all know it is about truth. In the halls of higher learning, most academicians believe we have no freewill. In academic studies, we learn there may be so many variables as to negate reasonable explanations. However, “educated people” assume everyone’s behavior is subject to deterministic circumstances.

Problem; contemporary academia, particularly science is not a search for truth. This is an fortunate anti-academic generalization the reveals your biased agenda.

You apparently do mot know, or you are not willing to know Methodological Naturalism and the nature of scientific methods.

Testing a hypothesis or research question, most academicians string variables like a well-tuned musical instrument, therefore proposing determinist relationships. Taking the same set of variables, some academicians may propose actors making freewill choices. How can we find the real answer? One Academician finds nothing but deterministic relationships, while another academician finds people making freewill choices. In the academic world, the most likely winners for proposing explanations are “determinists.” To make matters even more complicated, it is difficult to argue for positions other than determinism. How can one prove a freewill choice? One person thinks, “I made a choice.” Another person thinks, “I had no choice, circumstances made me do it.” Is that what happens when the murderer pulls the trigger? As for survival in the academic world, one may find their career in jeopardy for proposing freewill choices.

A very confusing and incoherent view of how science and academia functions,

For the deterministic model, there are serious implications for theology. If God determined Satan to be rebellious, there is no sin or evil. Moreover, how can there be holy and obedient angels if they have no freewill choices? If human behavior is determined, good equals evil insofar as actions are concerned. Therefore, the murder is not guilty; circumstances made him or her do it.

Theological presuppositions and beliefs, which are unfortunately inconsistent and variable, fortunately are independent of legitimate objective science academia by the methods of Methodological Naturalism, which is consistent and predictable.

 

[Repox]

Social acts relate to one's choice and one's explanation for it. As for determinism, it may be easy to explain, just relate the act to associated circumstances or situations. However, both positions are subject to much debate. Based on laws of probability, it is much easier to interpret decisions based on determinism, just look at associations. However, because people make decisions based on objective self-awareness, there is no way one can analyze independent decision-making. When people evaluate situations for action, they may or may not consider direct consequences. Invariably, they utilize their own knowledge of situations. Thus, we have an unpredictable world.

The big issue for social action is morality. If there is no freewill, morality is a product of culture, not of creation. However, how do you explain culture in a Godless world? If there is no God, it is an impossible task. Moreover, in a Godless world, what are consequences for bad acts?

 

[osgart]

what is everybody's definition of free will?

if you can conceive of it, you can live it to fruition.

 

[blü 2]

In the halls of higher learning, most academicians believe we have no freewill.

Here we go again.

The brain makes its choices as the product of very complex chains of cause&effect (possibly dotted at points by quantum randomness). It's an astonishing biochemical / bioelectrical structure, and we think it's wholly material because the evidence is fully consistent with that finding, and because no one has offered a plausible alternative.

Against that background, how do you say the 'free' in 'freewill' works? How does the 'free' brain arrive at decisions independently of the operation of its neurons? How is this alternative 'free' in some dignified sense and not just random?

Please enlighten me.

 

[Skwim]

what is everybody's definition of free will?

Although I've seen several, I've always liked: The ability to have done differently.

if you can conceive of it, you can live it to fruition.

Is that like a unicorn: if you can conceive of it you can ride it?

.

 

[DavidFirth]

Is that like a unicorn: if you can conceive of it you can ride it?

.

Wow, Skwim, if you can conceive a unicorn you'll be heralded as an evolutionary genius!

 

[osgart]

Although I've seen several, I've always liked: The ability to have done differently.


Is that like a unicorn: if you can conceive of it you can ride it?

.

within reality, if you can conceive of it you can live it. that's a freedom we all have.

 

[Skwim]

Wow, Skwim, if you can conceive a unicorn you'll be heralded as an evolutionary genius!

con·ceive
kənˈsēv/
verb
verb: conceive; 3rd person present: conceives; past tense: conceived; past participle: conceived; gerund or present participle: conceiving

1. 1.become pregnant with (a child).
   
   
2. 2.form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.

You can't conceive of a unicorn? Really? Well admittedly I would be stealing the idea from others, but it ain't all that difficult: Think of a horse, then imagine it with a single horn growing from its forehead. Ta Da! A unicorn. Simple as pie.

.
​

 

[DavidFirth]

con·ceive
kənˈsēv/
verb
verb: conceive; 3rd person present: conceives; past tense: conceived; past participle: conceived; gerund or present participle: conceiving

1. 1.become pregnant with (a child).
   
   
2. 2.form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.

You can't conceive of a unicorn? Really? Well admittedly I would be stealing the idea from others, but it ain't all that difficult: Think of a horse, then imagine it with a single horn growing from its forehead.

.
​

C'mon, Skwim, I was just messing around with you.

 

[Skwim]

C'mon, Skwim, I was just messing around with you.

Sometimes it's hard to tell.

.

 

[DavidFirth]

Sometimes it's hard to tell.

.

Yes, I guess it is. We get on fire in arguments around here and we forget we're all part of the same community.

 

[Repox]

Here we go again.

The brain makes its choices as the product of very complex chains of cause&effect (possibly dotted at points by quantum randomness). It's an astonishing biochemical / bioelectrical structure, and we think it's wholly material because the evidence is fully consistent with that finding, and because no one has offered a plausible alternative.

Against that background, how do you say the 'free' in 'freewill' works? How does the 'free' brain arrive at decisions independently of the operation of its neurons? How is this alternative 'free' in some dignified sense and not just random?

Please enlighten me.

By what methodology can you prove a person's thinking doesn't direct neuron activity for individual outcomes? Humans are different than other species, they use their brains to think objectively about ideas, situations, and possible outcomes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

within reality, if you can conceive of it you can live it. that's a freedom we all have.

Does that mean I'll be able to fly? And turn into a ghostly type of thing so I can kill politicians, corporate executives, televangelists and such and no one know it's me?

 

[Curious George]

? As for survival in the academic world, one may find their career in jeopardy for proposing freewill choices.

Really? Do you have a cite?

 

[blü 2]

By what methodology can you prove a person's thinking doesn't direct neuron activity for individual outcomes?

By pointing out that a person's thinking is a product from neuronal activity, associated biochemistry and bioelectricity, and hormones released or withheld by operation of the brain itself.

Humans are different than other species, they use their brains to think objectively about ideas, situations, and possible outcomes.

Yes, humans have evolved as the brain creature par excellence. Something like an extraordinary 20% of our oxygen intake is required for the brain, for instance, which means that in paying such a high price we must be getting extraordinary benefits from it for survival and breeding.

So our brains are remarkable, but they're not magical. They're simply the present top of the range model of the primate brain, from apes, great apes, early Homo to us, Homo sapiens sapiens (a bit of bragging there ─ 'smart smart Man').

 

[corynski]

An excellent point of view regarding this subject I think is Marvin Minsky's response on pages 306-308 of his 1985 book 'The Society of Mind', where he concludes "Whence comes this sense of being in control? According to the modern scientific view, there simply is no room at all for 'freedom of the human will.' Everything that happens in our universe is either completely determined by what's already happened in the past or else depends, in part, on random chance........ There is no room on either side for any third alternative. Whatever actions we 'choose', they cannot make the slightest change in what might otherwise have been - because those rigid, natural laws already caused the states of mind that caused us to decide that way. And if that choice was in part made by chance - it still leaves nothing for us to decide....... But none of us enjoys the thought that what we do depends on processes we do not know; we prefer to attribute our choices to volition, will, or self-control. We like to give names to what we do not know, and instead of wondering how we work, we simply talk of being 'free'. Perhaps it would be more honest to say, 'My decision was determined by internal forces I do not understand."
Minsky is saying that decisions made back before our minds and memories have developed do determine our current decisions, but that we can't know that...... We can't know that grandma's insistence upon us saying our prayers is what 'causes' our current belief since that early age has no conscious memories. And there are no memories of how the brain structures itself, so we give it a name such as 'faith'.
We know there are laws and predictability, since we can predict eclipses, and each instant of time follows, or is the result of the previous instant of time. But how does 'free will' work, and what determines when it will supersede evolution? These questions are never answered. Instead, we create a 'god', a force which is said to control everything.
What we perceive is that our minds, and thus our societies, are structured around the concept of 'responsibility', which has evolved from the past when we had no science to guide us........
How will this be resolved? I have no idea.......... But it certainly brings the notion that 'I' am in control into serious question. Minsky is a good read on this subject as he goes into incredible detail regarding how the mind might work.......