Determinism

[Kungfuzed]

I've been accused before of being in my own little world. Detached from the rest of reality. I tend to daydream alot. Perhaps this is the metaphysical reality you're talking about?

 

[Moni_Gail]

Consider the question from the point of view of physics/Vedanta:

There is no time, as we experience it. Time is just another dimension, mathematically equivalent to length or breadth. From this perspective the idea of predestination becomes moot, as the concept of pre- is meaningless.

One's life is a filmstrip of sequential, already extant scenes. As we are capable, in ordinary consciousness, of seeing only one frame at a time, we experience the illusion of change and motion, just as we do on the silver screen. All our life experiences, past and present, exist, will exist and always have existed. All are equally real. The only thing really changing is our conscious focus on one or another frame.

Now here's where free will comes in:
Reality is not a linear filmstrip with only two adjacent frames/possibilities, nor is it a sheet of film with four adjacent realities. It's not even a 3-D "block" of film (this is getting hard to picture [ :sorry1: ]) with 6 (?) adjacent frames.

The universe has dimensions we can't even consciously perceive; dimensions that can only be worked out mathematically and explored experimentally. Yet they are as Real as the three we currently experience. Among theoretical physicists, the current hot number is 11.

Here is how free will works:
A consciousness (jivanmukta), zipping along it's filmstrip. may, at any time, choose to turn left, right, up, down &c. Each choice is an "alternative ending;" even though each has always existed and is, therefore, completely determinant. Another consciousness coming along behind the first, living/experiencing the same life, might choose to turn "up" at the point the first jiva turned left. He would then move into a different reality or life experience from the first entity.

In the multidimensional Universe every physically possible alternative is adjacent to each frame of Reality. Consciousnesses dart about freely, choosing their own realities and scripts. This is their free will. The Universe is a timeless, motionless, unchanging amalgamation of everything possible. The only movement or change is the focus of our awareness. Thus, Reality (Brahman) is both determinant and indeterminant.

*jawdrop* OMG! Confusing, intriguing, and inspirational all at once. Thanks for that!

 

[Willamena]

*jawdrop* OMG! Confusing, intriguing, and inspirational all at once. Thanks for that!

I found it just confusing.

 

[eudaimonia]

Basically, does or can authentic freewill exist in a conditioned causal Universe?

I'd say yes. The reasons it might seem otherwise are many.

For instance, the Newtonian "billiard ball" view of causality, where one act (an event) is caused by a prior event, makes freewill seem nonsensical. However, if one takes the view of agent-causality, where it is agents (or entities) that act according to their natures, and not solely due to prior events, then free will starts looking more sensible because events start looking more like influences than determinants.

Another issue might be reductionism. If one insists on reducing the activities of the brain down to smaller and smaller parts, until one has to rely on one's intuitions regarding physics, then free will seems nonsensical. However, if one takes a non-reductionist view where an entity may have emergent properties that belong to the system, but not any of the parts, then free will seems more sensible.

The way I look at it is this: if free will is so difficult to explain and defend starting with a purely "scientific" viewpoint, well so is consciousness. Neither is easy to understand. The only reason that scientistic people accept consciousness over free will is because consciousness is less easy to deny based on personal experience.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ozzie]

Beliefs in predestination, fate, clockwork universe, the unreality and absence of freewill.

Discuss...

"A Clockwork Orange" is a commentary on determinism, "a clockwork universe" means belief in a maestro director/creator.

 

[Wandered Off]

If we lacked free will, would we know it?

 

[Valjean]

If we were avatars in a AI computer program would we know it?

 

[Ulver]

Here is how free will works:
A consciousness (jivanmukta), zipping along it's filmstrip. may, at any time, choose to turn left, right, up, down &c. Each choice is an "alternative ending;" even though each has always existed and is, therefore, completely determinant. Another consciousness coming along behind the first, living/experiencing the same life, might choose to turn "up" at the point the first jiva turned left. He would then move into a different reality or life experience from the first entity.

In the multidimensional Universe every physically possible alternative is adjacent to each frame of Reality. Consciousnesses dart about freely, choosing their own realities and scripts. This is their free will. The Universe is a timeless, motionless, unchanging amalgamation of everything possible. The only movement or change is the focus of our awareness. Thus, Reality (Brahman) is both determinant and indeterminant.

See my problem then is with these choices, how can it be disproven that these choices are results of previous occurances. Previous determining factors including weather, genetics, brain chemistry, physics of surrounding objects, previous mental history, concious experiences from the past, unconcious experiences from the past..... etc.

?

 

[Quiddity]

Okay. the compatibility of Freewill and Determinism: let's assume God made the Universe with a Divine Plan in mind which pre-determined the "chosen" path of his creations (Us). How can we have freewill if our choices are predestined?

Same question as Neo faces in the Matrix movies, but if anyone says "You here to understand why you made the choice" I'll scream.

Basically, does or can authentic freewill exist in a conditioned causal Universe?

Yes it does. It is the unquantifiable equation. It is the only thing outside of God not bound by anything. It can say no and yes to anything. Things can affect it and influence it, but it ultimately chooses.

This gift can’t predetermine what people will choose, but rather predetermine all scenarios. It’s the only thing God can do without violating free will.

I think determinism at its root bows its knee to human weakness. One can still trump strong influences.

 

[Fluffy]

Either an action (in this case specifically a choice) is caused or uncaused. Neither possibility can be accurately defined "free will".

Determinism might be incompatible with free will but that is largely irrelevant since free will is not a coherent concept and in order to make it coherent, we have to redefine it into something that it is not (see soft determinism).

 

[Willamena]

If we lacked free will, would we know it?

We would be incapable of "knowing" anything. Knowledge comes of having a conscious mind, and a conscious mind has free will.

 

[Quiddity]

Either an action (in this case specifically a choice) is caused or uncaused. Neither possibility can be accurately defined "free will".

Determinism might be incompatible with free will but that is largely irrelevant since free will is not a coherent concept and in order to make it coherent, we have to redefine it into something that it is not (see soft determinism).

What do you mean by free will is not a coherent concept?

 

[Fluffy]

What do you mean by free will is not a coherent concept?

It is self contradictory. In order to choose to affect something else we have to admit a connection between the will and the action. Since the will causes the action, we say that the action does not have the ability to choose its consequences. Yet the will itself must be the result of an action (implication of accepting the first premise) and so we have contradicted ourselves.

Essentially, free will relies on cause and effect (ie determinism) but in requiring that mechanism, it also prevents itself from working. Therefore, it is not a coherent concept.

We would be incapable of "knowing" anything. Knowledge comes of having a conscious mind, and a conscious mind has free will.

Consciousness and free will are entirely seperate and it is also completely possible for the conscious mind to lack free will.

 

[Quiddity]

It is self contradictory. In order to choose to affect something else we have to admit a connection between the will and the action. Since the will causes the action, we say that the action does not have the ability to choose its consequences. Yet the will itself must be the result of an action (implication of accepting the first premise) and so we have contradicted ourselves.

Essentially, free will relies on cause and effect (ie determinism) but in requiring that mechanism, it also prevents itself from working. Therefore, it is not a coherent concept.


Consciousness and free will are entirely seperate and it is also completely possible for the conscious mind to lack free will.

I’m not sure if I understood but why in the world do you speak of the action as something alive and part of the person?

We may have differing views of free will. Free will and the human conscious intertwined for us. I’m curious where you got your understanding from?

 

[Willamena]

Consciousness and free will are entirely seperate and it is also completely possible for the conscious mind to lack free will.

Depends on how we define free will, doesn't it? (i.e. determination)

 

[Fluffy]

I’m not sure if I understood but why in the world do you speak of the action as something alive and part of the person?

Free will requires that our choices can display themselves in our actions. This means that free will requires cause and effect in order to operate.

Cause and effect means that any event is the sum of a group of preceeding events. We sometimes refer to the first as the effect and the last as the cause but this is confusing since really it is just one event contributing to another and then to another and so on in a chain.

It gets even more confusing because we refer to some of these events as "actions" or "choices" or "thoughts". Essentially, under cause an effect, the required mechanism, every event is the sum of the preceeding events regardless of the affectations we view an event with. So when you ask me what caused me eat an apple, I will say that I chose to. When you ask what caused me to choose to, I will say that I thought about it and decided. When you ask me what caused me to think that thought, I will say it is because I had not eaten in awhile and so I felt hungry. When you ask the cause of that, I will say it is because I forgot to take my lunch to work and so was unable to satiate my biological need.

You should notice that in this scenario, whilst I make a choice and this choice constitutes an event in the chain, it is no more "free" than any of the other events in the chain. It is the sum of the preceeding event and so on effectively meaning that I did not have free will when I made that choice.

We may have differing views of free will. Free will and the human conscious intertwined for us. I’m curious where you got your understanding from?

Depends on how we define free will, doesn't it? (i.e. determination)

Perhaps we do. I consider free will to mean that we are in control of our actions and that our actions are not the sum of a chain of events leading back to the big bang. In other words are actions are not predetermined before we have chosen to do them.

I assert that this position is faulty because it relies on a mechanism that contradicts itself.

Now if you want to say that free will is in fact just our ability to analyse and process data that results in a choice then fair enough but that is equivilant to inputting and outputting data and it seems weird to call it a choice when it happens in our heads and a probability when it is displayed in the deal of a hand or a rock falling off a cliff or a bacterium reproducing.

So I treat "actions" as though they are alive because those who advocate free will are essentially saying that at least one action, our will, is just that. Since there appears to be no distinction between an event in our mind and an event anywhere else, the two must be treated similarly.

 

[Quiddity]

Free will requires that our choices can display themselves in our actions. This means that free will requires cause and effect in order to operate.

Not to me. Free will doesn't require anything. That's the point.

Now if you want to say that free will is in fact just our ability to analyse and process data that results in a choice then fair enough but that is equivilant to inputting and outputting data and it seems weird to call it a choice when it happens in our heads and a probability when it is displayed in the deal of a hand or a rock falling off a cliff or a bacterium reproducing.

Why would it seem weird if it happens in our head?
Where else would you think free will would be excercised?

Free will is expressed at every situation in your life.

 

[Fluffy]

Not to me. Free will doesn't require anything. That's the point.

In that sentence, I use free will to mean the idea not the incidence. If the idea of free will does not require anything (such as a definition which is essentially what I meant) then it doesn't mean anything.

Why would it seem weird if it happens in our head?
Where else would you think free will would be excercised?

Free will is expressed at every situation in your life.

I am saying it is weird because what happens in our heads is equivilant to what happens outside of our heads and so to say that our action is the result of free will is like saying that the rolling down the hill was the result of the free will of the rock. I do not find it weird to assert that free will happens in our heads. I find it weird to treat inside and outside as different entities rather than identical yet at seperate locations.

What is your definition of free will and is it compatible with our actions being predetermined from the beginning of the universe (hypothetically)? When you say free will are you asserting that we are in some way in control of our actions and that our actions are not the sum of prior inputs?

 

[Quiddity]

In that sentence, I use free will to mean the idea not the incidence. If the idea of free will does not require anything (such as a definition which is essentially what I meant) then it doesn't mean anything.

Ok, what I meant is that the definition does not require anything. It is bound to nothing.

I am saying it is weird because what happens in our heads is equivilant to what happens outside of our heads and so to say that our action is the result of free will is like saying that the rolling down the hill was the result of the free will of the rock. I do not find it weird to assert that free will happens in our heads. I find it weird to treat inside and outside as different entities rather than identical yet at seperate locations.

What is your definition of free will and is it compatible with our actions being predetermined from the beginning of the universe (hypothetically)? When you say free will are you asserting that we are in some way in control of our actions and that our actions are not the sum of prior inputs?

I am saying that we are in control of our actions and that previous input can either influence or not influence.

 

[Fluffy]

I am saying that we are in control of our actions and that previous input can either influence or not influence.

I am saying that in stating "we are in control of our actions" you are admitting a causal link between ourselves and our actions (in other words cause and effect).

I am saying that since we cause our actions, there must be something that causes us to cause our action and therefore we cannot be in control of anything. If you say that we are caused to cause our action yet we are in control then I would argue that this would have to apply to any cause so all causes control their effects regardless of human input.