Psychological and Behavioral Effects of Belief in Determinism vs. Belief in Free Will

[Nous]

Why would a determinist be any less concerned with virtue, honor, ethics, or morality?

Hello? Belief in behavioral determinism is the belief that one's acts are already determined, and that (therefore) the individual cannot choose to act "with virtue, honor, ethics, or morality."

 

[Nous]

I am not a determinist.

Glad to hear it. As we have seen on this board, the thesis of determinism is difficult to argue for.

I am convinced that we humans have a measure (though surely not total) of free will -- or something remarkably like it.

Yes, as Alfred Mele points out, among the arguments against the having of free will is the claim and idea that we are influenced in our decisions. It's a straw man. No one denies that we are influenced in our decisions. Nevertheless, we can still choose to do those things even that we desperately do not want to do--such as showing up to get one's physical in order to be drafted.

But what I read about the studies above is that it seems to be fairly easy to convince some people of things, for no particular reason than that it's the last thing they read. If you read about non-free-will determinism, then you may not (for a while) feel guilty about cheating. My question about this is very simple: "why do you actually think you believe something, if it's so easy to toss away?

That's a point worth examining.

In some cases, they were quite authoritative texts espousing determinism and mercilessly ridiculing the idea of free will (e.g., Francis Crick's writings). Also, it isn't a matter of the participants tossing their beliefs of free will out the window. They showed a weakened belief on the FWD (et al.) scale.

We can quickly convince you that your belief in free will is nonsense, can we not? Everything you've ever thought, every decision you've ever made, is the product of the electrochemical activity of your neurons. It's all deterministic. There are no multiple possibilities of what you can do or choose--you do and decide and choose what the electrochemical activity of your brain dictates. Right?

 

[Nous]

I an contrasting determinism with a worldview in which we are eternal beings and our developed good qualities are not annihilated at death. A spiritual view makes me more concerned with internal good qualities that as they say 'you can take with you'.

The pessimism will come with seeing I am just getting older and declining into annihilation. That's kind of depressing. And I would see the next generation heading for their short ride.

Sure the present has value but the mind knows of its soon end and our minds always works to the future and sees the bigger picture.

I also believe our nature is Brahman meaning our nature is pure being-bliss-awareness. So in the physical world I believe the natural drive of all living things is for happiness and survival.

Now, I am more talking about an eternal spirit than determinism but I do not hear of a determinism that includes a spiritual existence.

Haven't some of the big name Advaitins been vociferous advocates against free will, against the individual's ability to choose what acts to perform?

 

[Nous]

I wonder to what extent the results of the study correlate with a person's cultural background?

Well, the interesting thing is that in the experiments that used 3 groups (one reading pro-deterministic material; one reading pro-free will material; and one reading neutral material), there was (at least usually) no difference between the latter two groups. At least for those students who are putting forth the effort to get a post-secondary education, the belief that a person can choose to initiate actions (or not) seems to be the default.

Beyond that, the truth or falsity about free will trumps for me any consequences to moral behavior.

What is "the truth or falsity about free will"?

In writing the OP, I was thought about including a sentence such as: The findings of these studies seem to suggest that even if determinism were true, it is still better to promote the idea that people can choose what acts they perform.

But I did choose to include that last sentence in the OP. The causal efficacy of consciousness (e.g., beliefs) is the primary (and really, only) prerequisite for having the ability to choose.

 

[George-ananda]

Haven't some of the big name Advaitins been vociferous advocates against free will, against the individual's ability to choose what acts to perform?

No. By determinism I assume we mean our choices are produced through mechanical operation in the brain. In advaita, non-material consciousness controls the brain. This is quite different.

 

[Nous]

Even if one is a believer in determinism, the everyday process of making choices, would still be real. Even if it's just an illusion of free will, we would still feel like we made a choice.

It's interesting that no one here who is a disbeliever in having free will has challenged or disputed your statement here. I wonder why?

How can we separate an illusion of free will, and actual free will? Could we ever know the difference?

Here's one way: If I lacked the ability to choose what movements my body made, all such movements would be involuntary acts--like a muscle spasm, or hiccup, or heart attack. I am unable to predict my involuntary bodily movements (except those that happen regularly, such as breathing or heart beat). But I am able to "predict" with great accuracy which day next month I will log on to my account for my utility company and pay my bill. I can even "predict" with fairly good accuracy (ceteris paribus) which day of the month I will do so for the rest this year. Of course, I am not really predicting something that will happen to my body; my accurate "predictions" are just a product of the fact that I know that I can cause my body to make those movements to pay my utility bill.

 

[Nous]

I believe that I have "free will" only to the extent that I'm aware of my own consciousness and ability to make my own choices, within the limitations of what is physically possible. I'm also aware that I will be held accountable for my choices and may face consequences if I choose to do something illegal.

But when it comes to human "will" itself, that seems a bit more complicated. Our bodies have limitations. A person's will can be broken if they go through too much physical or mental trauma. They may not be able to make sensible decisions all the time.

So much of our "will" is tied in to our biological organism and functions over which we have absolutely no control. Such as our need to sleep, but you can't "will" yourself to sleep if you have insomnia. Long-term insomnia and sleep deprivation could lead to psychosis, which could wreak havoc on one's "free will" - even if the insomnia went against one's "free will."

I can't even consider my own memory to be all that reliable. Sometimes I forget things, and it drives me nuts. I'm not "willing" myself to forget. I realize there's a medical and scientific explanation, but it seems to contradict the idea of "free will" when brought up in a religious context.

I agree with everything you said here. Yes, we have the ability to choose what acts we will perform (or not perform) that are possible for us to perform, but our choices are often influenced by a variety of factors. Obviously we can't choose to grow wings and fly. We can't consistently will ourselves to recall something that we just can't recall at the moment (often, when watching Jeopardy, I know the answer, but I just can't formulate the words or the name in the few seconds before my husband does, or the buzzer buzzes, or one of the contestants answers).

 

[Nous]

No. By determinism I assume we mean our choices are produced through mechanical operation in the brain. In advaita, non-material consciousness controls the brain. This is quite different.

Well, it's still determinism, regardless of what is claimed to actually determine what acts we will perform.

In any case, what I was thinking of were assertions such as one might hear from some Westerners in the context of, say, occasionalism (i.e., "God has already made all the decisions"). I believe some of the advaitins have espoused such.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Demonstrate your "real education," if you have one.

Demonstration of your lack of one is sufficient.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, it's still determinism, regardless of what is claimed to actually determine what acts we will perform.

In any case, what I was thinking of were assertions such as one might hear from some Westerners in the context of, say, occasionalism (i.e., "God has already made all the decisions"). I believe some of the advaitins have espoused such.

I think the point I want to make is that there are relative realities to each of the planes of nature. At the ultimate level (where we don't live at) it is all an act/play of Brahman and we are that Brahman. However there is also certainly a physical plane 'relative' reality which is what we are talking about in this thread. A determinist (as the term is being used in this thread) believes that our behavior is controlled by physical mechanical operation in the brain. In advaita, we believe our actions on the physical plane is influenced by an individual soul on a higher plane. This would certainly not be determinism as it is meant in this thread.

 

[Nous]

Demonstration of your lack of one is sufficient.

You have failed in that demonstration also.

 

[Nous]

A determinist (as the term is being used in this thread) believes that our behavior is controlled by physical mechanical operation in the brain. In advaita, we believe our actions on the physical plane is influenced by an individual soul on a higher plane. This would certainly not be determinism as it is meant in this thread.

Well, when you put it that way, yes, I agree that that modern (naive materialist) concept of determinism is grossly different than the metaphysics of advaita.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You have failed in that demonstration also.

But, again, your demonstration of this has been wildly successful.

 

[Nous]

But, again, your demonstration of this has been wildly successful.

That will probably be the only true statement you will make here.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That will probably be the only true statement you will make here.

Indeed. Your clear lack of an actual education was the only point I was communicating. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.

 

[Nous]

Your clear lack of an actual education was the only point I was communicating.

I've already graduated 3rd grade--I'll match your education any day. Go right ahead and demonstrate something erroneous I said here.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've already graduated 3rd grade--I'll match your education any day. Go right ahead and demonstrate something erroneous I said here.

I have my doubts about the 3rd grade thing.

 

[Quintessence]

Quote whatever it is you find to be ironic" in the OP.

Nah. If you don't see it, I don't feel the need to point it out for you. It's tangential anyway. I just find the irony hilarious.

Here's something ironic: someone critiquing an experimental design and the findings when s/he doesn't understand the purpose of randomization and independent vs. dependent variables in experiments.

Yes, that would be ironic if it were true. In my experience, scientists would be quite happy to have someone suggest another method for approaching a question. It means doing another study, and learning some more new things. And yet you balk at me wanting to see another study that sorts people based on their inherently held perspective instead of experimentally manipulating it? And you balk at being concerned for confounding variables? I don't understand your problem with that, honestly.

Hello? Belief in behavioral determinism is the belief that one's acts are already determined, and that (therefore) the individual cannot choose to act "with virtue, honor, ethics, or morality."

Accepting that you have no choice in the matter does not mean one is unconcerned with virtue, honor, or ethics. Sorry. Try again.

 

[Nous]

Yes, that would be ironic if it were true. In my experience, scientists would be quite happy to have someone suggest another method for approaching a question. It means doing another study, and learning some more new things. And yet you balk at me wanting to see another study that sorts people based on their inherently held perspective instead of experimentally manipulating it? And you balk at being concerned for confounding variables?

No, I didn't "balk" at anyone's concern about confounders. Are you saying that you haven't understood why one cannot infer cause-and-effect from observational study? You haven't understood why randomized experiments are more reliable, more informative?

Accepting that you have no choice in the matter does not mean one is unconcerned with virtue, honor, or ethics.

Explain why someone who disbelieves that he is free to choose his actions would be concerned with behaving virtuously, honorably, ethically?

How do you account for the findings noted in the OP showing just the contrary?

 

[Nous]

I have my doubts about the 3rd grade thing.

When you graduate hopefully you'll understand what people who had graduated from the 3rd grade understand.