Free Will does not exist.

[jmgresham]

People have no control over their verbal thinking because of the reflexological condition known as the speech reflex. By reflex I mean an involuntary reaction to stimuli not just in the brain but also from outside it! I hope this convinces you all that objective psychology like this blatantly dismisses the concept of free will.

[Rafiq]

The notion of free will, an inherently pseudo-religious concept is something few people would admit to taking seriously. Free will assumes a background of agency, a boundless multitude of choice which refuses to be named openly to avoid descent into metaphysical ridiculousness ('the soul'). What is able to utilize 'free will" and under the backdrop of what? I simply cannot even fathom how anyone could prattle of free will without an ignorance which hinders the ability to perpetuate the usage of reason in the long term. The fact that our thoughts, and our behavior can be traced to rationally explicable phenomena, can be traced to physical processes means absolutely nothing. What can, in effect, not be traced to physical processes? Certainly the mere dimension of thought from which such stupid abstractions are derived should not be reduced to neurological processes (The brain has existed for as long as we have as a species - yet this drivel is new), though this is not an argument that these are ultimately grounded in something outside of the physical. Nothing exists outside of an identifiable universe - nothing exists beyond matter - including ideologically perpetuated ignorance of this fact, rationally explicable.

Our magnitude of choice is not reducible either to ourselves as individuals or a limited direct approximation of the physical world around us but social dimensions of articulated possibility.

[The Disillusionist]

Hmmm.... you're wrong. Free will does exist. Because I say it does. Because I want to say it does.

[BIXX]

Who even cares?/its besides the point.

[OzymandiasX]

Who even cares?/its besides the point.

No, I think this is at the very heart of the point. The entire material, structured world around us is established on the notion that we have free-will. Concepts of individuality, justice, and bigoted perceptions of self-importance will all disappear if not for our blind faith in free-will.

The moment we realize that we are not individuals, then we must ask what it is that we are.

And the only sound definition of humanity after this understanding is that we are mirror reflections of 7 billion (subtly) unique experiences of the universe. All that has happened, has been an inevitability.

It is, in it's own capacity, a form of religion. Albeit one much more rationally sound.

Of course this isn't an argument promoting passivity.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The existence/nonexistence of free will does seem beside the point, as humans necessarily perceive their existence as being separate from the experience of other humans. Just because I know that my actions are molded and mediated by my environment doesn't change the fact that I interact with that environment as an atomized unit confronted with a myriad of choices to be made.

Your view of humanity is interesting to think about, but still ultimately irrelevant even if it could be proven true.

[Palmares]

All you need to do is fill out a form.

For example:

http://funeralguide.co.za/write-your-own-will/free-will-template/blog.html

[OzymandiasX]

... I interact with that environment as an atomized unit confronted with a myriad of choices to be made.

Those choices are precisely what free-will concerns. And the understanding that we don't have free-will necessitates the understanding that we do not have choices....regardless of the illusion thereof.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

How does not believing in free will change the fact that I'm confronted with the choice of going to work or staying in bed each morning?

[OzymandiasX]

How does not believing in free will change the fact that I'm confronted with the choice of going to work or staying in bed each morning?

Because that choice is an illusion. You perceive the entire scope of your life in 40 millisecond increments and this provides to you a sense of choice and identity.

Those who do not believe in free-will recognize that there are tremendous forces carving out our character at every moment, and the product of these forces made evident in your character determine every choice you are ever going to make. Regardless of what you perceive in the immediate moment.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

i'm ok with having no free will cos that means its not my fault that i'm a terrible friend who spends all day in bed thus legitimising my terrible life choices or lack thereof.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Fine sure, but the ubermensch who knows that his choices are false illusions is still nonetheless confronted with the choice as to whether or not he will rise from bed in the morning. His knowing better does not change his daily conditions. It doesn't matter that free will is a lie, he is forced to live and make subjective choices in spite of it

[BIXX]

No, I think this is at the very heart of the point. The entire material, structured world around us is established on the notion that we have free-will. Concepts of individuality, justice, and bigoted perceptions of self-importance will all disappear if not for our blind faith in free-will.

The moment we realize that we are not individuals, then we must ask what it is that we are.

And the only sound definition of humanity after this understanding is that we are mirror reflections of 7 billion (subtly) unique experiences of the universe. All that has happened, has been an inevitability.

It is, in it's own capacity, a form of religion. Albeit one much more rationally sound.

Of course this isn't an argument promoting passivity.

But the fact is that whether or not free will does not exist, most people will live their lives in exactly the same way.

[OzymandiasX]

@Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

What we are discussing is the source of our decisions, not the perception of choice. We obviously have the illusion of choice. And because of this it will always appear as though we deliberate and make conscious decisions. But that has all been learned. The information we have to work with, our methodology, or perception of reality. This has all been determined. And the framework has been set for one decision in every matter for every person. We simply don't know what the decision is until the time comes to make the decision.

@Placenta cream

I hope so.

[BIXX]

@Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

What we are discussing is the source of our decisions, not the perception of choice. We obviously have the illusion of choice. And because of this it will always appear as though we deliberate and make conscious decisions. But that has all been learned. The information we have to work with, our methodology, or perception of reality. This has all been determined. And the framework has been set for one decision in every matter for every person. We simply don't know what the decision is until the time comes to make the decision.

@Placenta cream

I hope so.
Given that it won't change people's actions, then why the fuck does it matter?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yes the position I've been arguing is that it doesn't matter. I don't personally believe in free will, but that's just navel-gazing, it has no real world impact

[OzymandiasX]

Given that it won't change people's actions, then why the fuck does it matter?

Because then we will stop perceiving people as individuals but as products of their environment and I believe that this is fundamental for any major transformation of society. The problems we face in this age are problems in perception. We spot problems and we attribute them to aberrant individuals. We spot success and we attribute them to the pro-activity and intelligence of individuals.

Once we start attributing both good and bad to a vast array of complex interwoven circumstances, then we will have the proper lens through which to tackle the problems of our age.

This belief hasn't changed my behavior, but it has definitely effected how I sense the world around me. Then perhaps it has changed my behavior in sub-conscious manners which I cannot observe.

[BIXX]

That's idealism. The world wont change just because we think about bit differently.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Its difficult to envision any society completely separating a person from his or her actions, just due to the existing biological reality of being human. It's even harder to envision how one could properly contexualize their actions. When I chose water over soda for lunch there was undoubtedly a mechanistic chain of events leading up to that decision, but how could I ever consider those events or even know about them? We would need a centralized computer database that tracks every action taken and simultaneously provides all that information to a single human preparing to carry out a task, like choosing a beverage for lunch. It's unrealistic.

The problems of our age stem from property relations and the constructs that result from those relations, which include perceptions among other things. But simply changing ones perspective on individual action does not change the property relations that underpin our society and lead to those perceptions in the first place.

[OzymandiasX]

That's idealism. The world wont change just because we think about bit differently.

It wouldn't be the world changing, we would be changing as we come to understand our role in the world. And to this extent I believe every major change in our situation, from labor, to civil, to social rights, has stemmed fundamentally from changes in the way we think. Changes specifically in the manner in which we think about our social relationship, not, in this case, about how we think about who we are. Which I would imagine would generate a vastly more profound form of change.


Its difficult to envision any society completely separating a person from his or her actions, just due to the existing biological reality of being human. It's even harder to envision how one could properly contextualize their actions. When I chose water over soda for lunch there was undoubtedly a mechanistic chain of events leading up to that decision, but how could I ever consider those events or even know about them? We would need a centralized computer database that tracks every action taken and simultaneously provides all that information to a single human preparing to carry out a task, like choosing a beverage for lunch. It's unrealistic.

The problems of our age stem from property relations and the constructs that result from those relations, which include perceptions among other things. But simply changing ones perspective on individual action does not change the property relations that underpin our society and lead to those perceptions in the first place.

I don't know of any human quality that would require us to form concepts of individual identity. Fascinating idea though. But there are actually languages in the world that do not offer distinct pronouns for individuals. So anytime one speaks of oneself, one is speaking of the group. So it isn't entirely incomprehensible for us to dispose of our sense of self.

That's absolutely correct regarding the chain of events leading up to the selection of water. I am not saying that the decision making process is easy to understand or that we should even try to understand it, considering especially that that specific action is very trivial. But when it comes to behavior such as murder or rape; these are behaviors which we should definitely try to understand and stop attributing them to individuals if we sincerely care about resolving them indefinitely. Also, not every event in our life has an equal affect on the decisions we make. We're discussing psychology now, but there are plenty of identifiable environmental causes for nearly every adverse social behavior.

The property relations will change when most people change the way they perceive property relations.

[Subversive]

"Free Will" is one of those concepts that actually means nothing when you think about it.
The "Free" part seems tacked on; a superfluous addition to make the concept seem deeper than it really is.
Is 'Will' itself not always 'Free'? How can you define 'Will' without 'Freedom'?

And what is 'Freedom' in regards to 'Will'?
- If it is to mean that 'Will' is unrestricted, then this is not the case. Our choices are restricted by what is available to us, we are restricted by mortal bodies.
- If it is to mean that 'Will' is unhindered, then it is also not the case. We are hindered by the world around us.
- If it is to mean that we do not abide by 'Fate', then what is this but misleading? Fate would be defined by our choices, the inevitable conclusion of those choices. So what then does 'Fate' even mean but that it is a reflection of Freedom or Will, as well as the obstacle to it?
- If it is to mean that our choices are not made necessarily, then what meaning does this have? Our minds feel it is necessary for us to choose our options because without feeling the need then we do not have the reason.
- If it is to mean we are not enslaved, then enslaved by what? This is only relevant in context. We are enslaved by emotions. We are enslaved by chemical processes. We are enslaved by Capitalists. We are not enslaved by individuals. We are not enslaved by foreigners or alien races. And what options, or 'Will' do we even possess in physical enslavement?
- If it is to mean that we are not imprisoned, then imprisoned by what? Again this is contextual. We are imprisoned by our organic bodies, by the Capitalist system, sometimes by a real prison and other times not. We are not, usually, physically shackled or chained. Again, what choices do we have if we are physically bound?

Ultimately, this concept of 'Free Will' seems to mean only one thing: That we have choices, and that we can make choices. It makes no assumptions about the limitations on those choices, and there is no regards to what 'Freedom' really is but an imaginary ideal that cannot be made possible; real, except by our own Will, if given the opportunity.

Thus, 'Free Will' is the 'free opportunity'. Is it not?
So I conclude: The more opportunities we have the more 'Free Will' that we possess.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

It wouldn't be the world changing, we would be changing as we come to understand our role in the world. And to this extent I believe every major change in our situation, from labor, to civil, to social rights, has stemmed fundamentally from changes in the way we think. Changes specifically in the manner in which we think about our social relationship, not, in this case, about how we think about who we are. Which I would imagine would generate a vastly more profound form of change.



I don't know of any human quality that would require us to form concepts of individual identity. Fascinating idea though. But there are actually languages in the world that do not offer distinct pronouns for individuals. So anytime one speaks of oneself, one is speaking of the group. So it isn't entirely incomprehensible for us to dispose of our sense of self.

That's absolutely correct regarding the chain of events leading up to the selection of water. I am not saying that the decision making process is easy to understand or that we should even try to understand it, considering especially that that specific action is very trivial. But when it comes to behavior such as murder or rape; these are behaviors which we should definitely try to understand and stop attributing them to individuals if we sincerely care about resolving them indefinitely. Also, not every event in our life has an equal affect on the decisions we make. We're discussing psychology now, but there are plenty of identifiable environmental causes for nearly every adverse social behavior.

The property relations will change when most people change the way they perceive property relations.

You've got it backwards. The property relations are what drives perceptions. Everything from belief in individual agency to what constitutes violence and who is justified in wielding it. These ideas serve to reinforce and protect the relations they are based on. I'm not a fan of quoting Marx but this is base-superstructure stuff.

You should check this out if you're interested: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1969/misc/reproduction-daily-life.htm

[OzymandiasX]

You've got it backwards. The property relations are what drives perceptions. Everything from belief in individual agency to what constitutes violence and who is justified in wielding it. These ideas serve to reinforce and protect the relations they are based on. I'm not a fan of quoting Marx but this is base-superstructure stuff.

You should check this out if you're interested: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/perlman-fredy/1969/misc/reproduction-daily-life.htm

Well, yes, in a sense. It is self-reinforcing. Much the way a theist uses the very rhetoric from their dogma to defend their belief from outside criticism. But initially it is our perspective that permits us to hold these beliefs. Without the sort of framework that permits us to recognize ownership we wouldn't have the means to worship capitalism or glorify wealth.

Now of course it's difficult to pull a person out from a two dimensional reality and ask them to perceive the world from three dimensions. To indulge possibilities where money might not exist. Most people would shun us at the mere prospect of democratic labor, nonetheless a world without property.

[Rafiq]

Who even cares?/its besides the point.

That is a rather lazy way of thinking. As an abstract metaphysical debate, it certainly is of zero consequence.

However, the notion of free will, or free choice is not something reserved for fringe metaphysicians in ivory towers but is a concept which pervades, if not defines the very heart of Liberalism as a pervasive ideology. The notion of free choice renders existing conditions as they are unquestionable - our very condition as such is nothing more than the summation of a multitude of individuals employing their own free choice in whichever degree, whose misfortunes can be judged by their own sense of responsibility, adherence to values, or even worse: By some kind of innate unknowable substance which characterizes their choices as living beings, their "race" or their "culture" or their piss poor "genetics" or whatever you want.

The notion of free choice not only renders a criticism of our present condition as unquestionable, but our present means of legitimizing our condition unquestionable: Ideology. In our society, ideology is not presented as a codified rule-book like an overt vulgar doctrine (i.e. the ten commandments), and cannot be articulated as ideology at all. Derived from present relations to production and power, ideology is expressed through the facade of being deduced by one's own 'unique' experiences and freely deduced ideas. This is why postmodernism possesses a systemic function, this is why anti-intellectualism is inherently chauvinist: Whether one likes to admit it or not, truth is a subjective phenomena, i.e. it is a monstrosity, a gross violation of another's "freedom of thought" to forcefully demonstrate that they are objectively full of shit even without making any attempt whatsoever to forcefully restrict their freedom of expression. The present order of things, not content with rendering the forceful struggle for a new order by the hand of the working people as "totalitarian" even the imposition of objective truth is articulated as a violent restriction on one's freedom. The assertion that all truth is subjective makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the means of conceiving systemically perpetuated ideas, the only difference is that their epistemological being, i.e. the ideas themselves are perceived differently. In our de-industrialized epoch, the nature of truth itself is articulated as an individual phenomena which varies by the individual by merit of everyone's "unique" characteristics. This approach to truth is not only a pre-requisite to modern political pluralism or liberal multiculturalism, it is consequential to neoliberal globalization and the dynamic ability for capitalism to 'peacefully' integrate indigenous cultures (therefore the necessity to legitimize such 'cultural' multitudes of difference - suppressing the silent but haunting possibility of a Communist universality) as well as de-industrialized consumerism which has led to the cult of the self (or false self, that is).

The relevancy is simple: Are our choices made freely, or do there exist unnameable forces which restrict our potentially manifested choices?

Wherein is the possibility for freedom grounded? Not in a false sense of dignified, abstract collectivism (The cult of the "community' is no better - not to say collectivism is opposed in principle, but that the collective must act upon something greater than itself). It is certainly not in a cheap positivist determinism wherein we simply demonstrate the inescapable reality of the causation of chioce. The means by which free choice can be attacked is through an attack on the origin of such choices - not the individual but ideology. The solution is not grounded in forming a dichotomy between the individual and a greater cause, but exposing that the subversion of the individual to higher class interests exists regardless - that Communism is not an imposition of blind faith but a knowable SUBSTITUTION of an unknowable, pre-existing faith in the ruling order. Choices are not simply "determined", they are EXPRESSIONS of ideology in varied ways. The recognition of Communism as an ideology, a historic legacy as a collectively refined space, a commons irreducible to any individual to which we all are ready to sacrifice ourselves for. The mere imposition of truth, today, is a Communist act.

[BIXX]

While I do appreciate the effort of making you shit shorter rafiq, it appears that the point never got reached. Whether or not free will exists is irrelevant. What would actually change it it was false, or if it was true? Nothing. That knowledge won't change the fact that folks will go about their lives consuming food and culture and each other and reducing to a mechanical excretion.

[Rafiq]

While I do appreciate the effort of making you shit shorter rafiq, it appears that the point never got reached. Whether or not free will exists is irrelevant. What would actually change it it was false, or if it was true? Nothing. That knowledge won't change the fact that folks will go about their lives consuming food and culture and each other and reducing to a mechanical excretion.

As an abstract metaphysical debate, it certainly is of zero consequence.

However, the notion of free will, or free choice is not something reserved for fringe metaphysicians in ivory towers but is a concept which pervades, if not defines the very heart of Liberalism as a pervasive ideology.

The notion of free will IS of relevance because it is an integral means by which people falsely conceptualize the world around them, which in turn perpetuates the power of the existing order. It is like saying antisemitism, or the idea of a god, and so on makes little difference because it doesn't actually change something that has always been there. If the existing order is sustained by the notion that it is the result of our individual choices, how could it even be thought of that this isn't of any importance?

[BIXX]

Now this is a length of post I'm willing to engage with.

What this debate comes down to, rafiq, is whether or not you think that people arrive at radical standpoints because they think in a certain way, or because they experience events that challenge the liberal narrative of out society and cause them to explore their self-interest more directly. That is the basis of my rejection of the whole free will debate.

[Slavic]

Now this is a length of post I'm willing to engage with.

What this debate comes down to, rafiq, is whether or not you think that people arrive at radical standpoints because they think in a certain way, or because they experience events that challenge the liberal narrative of out society and cause them to explore their self-interest more directly. That is the basis of my rejection of the whole free will debate.


How do you make the conclusion to reject the dichotomy of free will and determinism?

You basis is just frames a portion of this dichotomy, I don't understand your reasoning for your rejection.

[BIXX]

I don't reject the dichotomy, I don'tthink the dichotomy can be rejected. I'm rejecting the importance of the dichotomy.

[Qbill harris]

The notion of free will, an inherently pseudo-religious concept is something few people would admit to taking seriously. Free will assumes a background of agency, a boundless multitude of choice which refuses to be named openly to avoid descent into metaphysical ridiculousness ('the soul'). What is able to utilize 'free will" and under the backdrop of what? I simply cannot even fathom how anyone could prattle of free will without an ignorance which hinders the ability to perpetuate the usage of reason in the long term. The fact that our thoughts, and our behavior can be traced to rationally explicable phenomena, can be traced to physical processes means absolutely nothing. What can, in effect, not be traced to physical processes? Certainly the mere dimension of thought from which such stupid abstractions are derived should not be reduced to neurological processes (The brain has existed for as long as we have as a species - yet this drivel is new), though this is not an argument that these are ultimately grounded in something outside of the physical. Nothing exists outside of an identifiable universe - nothing exists beyond matter - including ideologically perpetuated ignorance of this fact, rationally explicable.

Our magnitude of choice is not reducible either to ourselves as individuals or a limited direct approximation of the physical world around us but social dimensions of articulated possibility.

You wrote: "Nothing exists outside of an identifiable universe - nothing exists beyond matter"

Assuming that you're using 'identifiable' in the correct sense of 'everything that we have identified as having causal properties within universe', you're simply wrong.

That's because, in science, much of what's observed as existing is presently without an identifiable cause.

For example: Although we can measure the energy of a neutron, the total energy of its three quarks add up to only one-fifth of what's present. The rest of the energy simply appears out of empty space.

For example: measured brain activity cannot account for thought.

In both cases, there's existence without identity of cause.

In terms of the later example, the existing reality is that people make choices whose basis are not reductable to identifiable mental states. They are likewise given the ability to choose, particularly in situations involving law. This is what is commonly referred to as 'free will'.

In philosophy, this problem of the gap between observed, existing brain output and the identifiable neurological processes is called 'consciousness'. To those for whom 'Marxism' designates an infantile disorder of abusive name-calling, rest assured that nearly all participants assume that somewhere, somehow, an identifiable material cause might be found.

In other words, 'free will' is the particular neurological expression of what in all of science is known as the 'Null- hypotheses. Although we assume is that everything that happens has a material cause, we still call things by their appearances until we prove a particular hypotheses correct.

Another example, from astrophysics, would be Krauss' 'A universe from nothing'. Speaking of which...to say that nothing exists beyond matter dates one's physics to about the time Trotsky was getting exiled to Siberia. Special Relativity clearly gives the matter/energy interchange. Or is this yet another example of bourgeois idealism?

[Rafiq]

I've responded in the "criticism of Marxism" thread to the above post in full, and I'd like to move the discussion there if you don't mind.

[Qbill harris]

I've responded in the "criticism of Marxism" thread to the above post in full, and I'd like to move the discussion there if you don't mind.

I do mind: the issue of free-will pre-dates Marx by a good 2000 years. So if Marxist theory(s) have a contribution, fine. But discussing Marxist theory (per thread) only touches upon free will as such.....

[Guardia Rossa]

Guys, this is depressing me arleady.

Am I using my free will to get depressed or the "World-God-Thing-Material-Atomic Energy" is pushing me to that?

[Tim Redd]

What this debate comes down to, rafiq, is whether or not you think that people arrive at radical standpoints because they think in a certain way, or because they experience events that challenge the liberal narrative of out society and cause them to explore their self-interest more directly. That is the basis of my rejection of the whole free will debate.

Why couldn't it be both, or more aspects?

[Slippers]

I don't understand the idea of free will. To me it just seems like all it is is when you stop asking "why" when it comes down to human motivations and decisions. As if you can't do that?

Am I making sense?

To me free will clearly does not exist. Others are free to believe otherwise, whatever I just thing the whole idea of free will is flawed from the root?

[Luís Henrique]

To me free will clearly does not exist. Others are free to believe otherwise

:grin:

If free will does not exist, then people are not free to believe in it (or to disbelieve it, fwiw). Those who do believe must be led to such belief by some compelling force.

Which begs the question, "what force?"

If we can't answer that question, then our efforts to dispell the notion of free will rest on shaky foundations.

Reminds me of the tale of fish that always swim backwards, so to avoid getting water into their eyes...

Luís Henrique

[edwad]

:grin:

If free will does not exist, then people are not free to believe in it (or to disbelieve it, fwiw). Those who do believe must be led to such belief by some compelling force.

Which begs the question, "what force?"

If we can't answer that question, then our efforts to dispell the notion of free will rest on shaky foundations.

Reminds me of the tale of fish that always swim backwards, so to avoid getting water into their eyes...

Luís Henrique

what "force" makes us believe in free will?? how about the question of free will itself? liberal ideology? religions which tend to push concepts of free will? philosophy degrees? the illusion of choice? threads on revleft?

this is actually extremely easy to answer tbh. thats the whole point of determinism actually. one thing is related to another thing and determines the outcome of that second thing. just because its not a "force" that you can pinpoint doesnt mean it isn't there. similarly, just because we didnt have much of an understanding of physics for a hundred thousand years didnt mean that the laws of physics didnt apply and that objects didnt follow a certain trajectory based on those laws.

[StromboliFucker666]

I have free will. As long as I have the option to commit suicide, no one can control me. When I submit, it's only because I do not wish to die or because I am happy to submit to that.

So yes, "free will" exists. In the end, I always have the choice to life or die.

[Tim Redd]

So yes, "free will" exists. In the end, I always have the choice to life or die.

Determinist claim that your decision to chose whether or not to live or die has been pre-determined by prior events.

[StromboliFucker666]

Determinist claim that your decision to chose whether or not to live or die has been pre-determined by prior events.
I disagree. Prior events can put me in that situation, but how I get out of it is up to me. If I watch a loved one die, I might get suicidally depressed. How I choose to escape is up to me. I have two choices, give in and die or seek help. I have that choice and the right to make it. Some of us are likely to give in because it's just who we are while others are fighters and will reject their feelings to survive. I believe it's a matter of who you are.

[cyu]

Again, there are two different definition of "free will":

1. Being allowed to do what you want. Not being forced by another person to do something else. This is *not* the definition that determinists argue against. As far as determinism goes, this is an unrelated topic. Most determinists would certainly love it if they didn't have to be forced to do anything.

2. A person making decisions that is not based on pre-existing conditions. Determinists do not believe this is possible. Everyone makes decisions based on pre-existing conditions - whether your memories, environmental input, or a combination. Determinists believe that when given the same memories and environmental input, you would make the same decision every time. If you choose an apple over an orange, you had a reason to make that choice - whatever your reason was, those reasons led inevitably to your choice, and you couldn't have chosen the other fruit, unless the initial conditions of the experiment were different.

[Tim Redd]

Originally Posted by Tim Redd http://www.revleft.com/vb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2841730#post2841730)
Determinist claim that your decision to chose whether or not to live or die has been pre-determined by prior events.


I disagree. Prior events can put me in that situation, but how I get out of it is up to me. If I watch a loved one die, I might get suicidally depressed. How I choose to escape is up to me. I have two choices, give in and die or seek help. I have that choice and the right to make it. Some of us are likely to give in because it's just who we are while others are fighters and will reject their feelings to survive. I believe it's a matter of who you are.

What I mean is that hard determinists contend that your response to the suicide or live question is pre-determined. Whatever you choose, or do is pre-determined. You are not really exercising a choice, but rather acting according to impulses which necessarily cause you to act in a certain way.

[StromboliFucker666]

So if you looked at every detail of my life up to that point, you could tell what I would do?

[The Disillusionist]

Hmmm.... you're wrong. Free will does exist. Because I say it does. Because I want to say it does.

That moment when you make what is arguably the most perfectly and succinctly made argument in any philosophical discussion ever, and everyone ignores it because they (probably) think you are just being an idiot.

[Rafiq]

What a profound statement. indeed, free will exists, because "wanting" to say it exists is testament to the freedom for one to choose their beliefs out of their ass. Indeed, the most perfectly and succinctly made argument in any philosophical discussion - make room Hegel - such a level of profound insight has yet to be surpassed.

It ends here. You cannot question why someone would want to say this. There is no basis of causality. That's it.

/philosophy

[StromboliFucker666]

That moment when you make what is arguably the most perfectly and succinctly made argument in any philosophical discussion ever, and everyone ignores it because they (probably) think you are just being an idiot.

I saw it and did not respond as I did not have anything to say.

[Tim Redd]

So if you looked at every detail of my life up to that point, you could tell what I would do?

Especially if the context in which you have lived your life is examined.

In one sense we know that a person's thinking and ideas are determined to exist along certain avenues because of the being of their life. This is a fundamental corollary of materialism which is a key basis of Marxist philosophy. Not sure if this constitutes the hard materialism I describe in a prior post, but it's relevant to acknowledge this foundational quality of what it means to be a materialist (versus being an idealist).

[Hatshepsut]

Not being forced by another person to do something else. This is *not* the definition that determinists argue against.

In fact this absence of constraint by others is probably a definition for personal liberty, not for free will.

The mere presence of a chemical or electrical process that goes on inside the brain while making a decision doesn't obviate free will, however. That's why it's a tough question. Not all physical processes are deterministic: In quantum mechanics only the probability of an outcome is determined by the equation of motion; the actual outcome is unpredictable. We don't notice quantum uncertainty in daily life because it mostly affects things on the atomic or molecular scale, and because statistical averaging over a huge number of atomic events smooths things over.

But research in computer science has shown that quantum effects can alter the outcome of a computation. If this can happen in a laboratory setup, it could conceivably happen in the brain as well.

So, the main argument against free will is no longer absolute determinism operating alone. Instead, the con argues that neither deterministic nor random processes constitute free will in any meaningful way. Determinism means no choice. Randomness allows many outcomes but Agency cannot be random; it must be purposeful. We get a more sophisticated yet inconclusive answer this way, as loose ends remain. We need to define what we mean by "purposeful" and then show that no combination of determinism and randomness in a system can lead to behavior that directs itself toward a goal state. To my knowledge this last problem is still unsolved.

I take comfort in that debate at the above level helps neither biblical creationist nor Kantian even a whit. The existence of a free (or indeterminate) will hardly causes supreme beings and duty to spring forward in the first place. I've always wondered why the unstated premise that it does.

[Tim Redd]

Not all physical processes are deterministic: In quantum mechanics only the probability of an outcome is determined by the equation of motion; the actual outcome is unpredictable.

The outcome is not specifically determined, however the quantum mechanics wave function sets the probability of one outcome versus another. The probability of one outcome versus another is determined by the wave function.

[RedWorker]

Not all physical processes are deterministic: In quantum mechanics only the probability of an outcome is determined by the equation of motion; the actual outcome is unpredictable.

Not having read the rest of the discussion;

Is this actually scientifically accepted? Because last I checked it seemed to be controversial. In any case it would have to be debated whether this proves determinism wrong.

[Tim Redd]

Not having read the rest of the discussion;

Is this actually scientifically accepted? Because last I checked it seemed to be controversial. In any case it would have to be debated whether this proves determinism wrong.

On the contrary, I'm not saying the operation of the quantum mechanics Schrodinger wave means determinism doesn't occur (is "wrong"). I'm asserting rather that because the outcome of a quantum mechanical (QM) event is determined by a set of preexisting probabilities that are present and taken into account as a part of solving the Schrodinger wave function (among possibly other mathematical functions) that makes the case that determinism is present/operating in the sphere of QM.

The fact that there is a known set of outcomes and we know the probability for which each outcome occurs (by applying the QM Schrodinger wave formula), that is a manifestation of determinism even though chance is at work as well.

[Hatshepsut]

The outcome is not specifically determined, however the quantum mechanics wave function sets the probability of one outcome versus another...

Which is what I said. That's enough to eliminate Newtonian determinism, "the clockwork universe," however. At least on small scales. Quantum mechanics doesn't matter much for planetary orbits.


Not having read the rest of the discussion; Is this actually scientifically accepted? Because last I checked it seemed to be controversial. In any case it would have to be debated whether this proves determinism wrong.

It's taught to students and used for actual calculations in the lab. So, in that sense, it's scientifically accepted. Absolute determinism itself is a philosophical viewpoint. Therefore, I would expect science has no opinion on it. My understanding is that the parameters of an event can be determined up to the degree of Heisenberg uncertainty. That is, if position is completely known, then momentum is completely unknown. Or, if timing is known, the energy becomes unknown. This allows things like virtual particles to appear and last for a brief time during the uncertainty interval, and also allows tunneling through energy barriers that would otherwise forbid a transition. Beta decay in radioactivity is a tunneling event.

[Tim Redd]

Not all physical processes are deterministic: In quantum mechanics only the probability of an outcome is determined by the equation of motion; the actual outcome is unpredictable.


Not having read the rest of the discussion;
Is this actually scientifically accepted? Because last I checked it seemed to be controversial. In any case it would have to be debated whether this proves determinism wrong.

It's true if stated this way: The outcome is not specifically determined, however the quantum mechanics (QM) wave function sets the probability of one outcome versus another. The probability of one outcome occurring in a set of possible outcomes may be calculated by filling in the variables of the Shrodinger wave function.

The fact that at least on the atomic and sub-atomic scale, events occur according to the time evolution of a Shrodinger wave equation is one of the fundamental facts of quantum mechanics. (The fact that objects change the state of their major features or properties in discontinuous quantum chunks and not in a continuous gradual way is the bedrock of the science of QM.)

(The Shrodinger equation is a wave equation because, as stated in Wikipedia, solutions to the equation are functions which describe wave-like motions.)

[Tim Redd]

The outcome is not specifically determined, however the quantum mechanics wave function sets the probability of one outcome versus another. The probability of one outcome versus another is determined by the wave function.


Which is what I said.

Not quite. I was clearing up what I think might be misunderstood in your formulation. You said:


Not all physical processes are deterministic: In quantum mechanics only the probability of an outcome is determined by the equation of motion; the actual outcome is unpredictable."

I think it's more accurate to state that the predictability of the occurrence of one or the other outcome is given by the probability of its occurrence that we find out by applying the quantum mechanical wave equation to the circumstances.


That's enough to eliminate Newtonian determinism, "the clockwork universe," however.

To me determinism is still present because we can predict the occurrence of a specific outcome as its probability of occurrence given by applying the wave equation.

It's a determinism of the probability of one or the other particular outcome (of a known set of outcomes) occurring by applying the wave equation. Often we calculate the probabilities of this or that outcome occurring beforehand - before the experiment, or before the occurrence of other quantum mechanical events.

[Tim Redd]

So, the main argument against free will is no longer absolute determinism operating alone. Instead, the con argues that neither deterministic nor random processes constitute free will in any meaningful way. Determinism means no choice.

I think there is choice or free will within or in conjunction with determinism.

As I see it deterministic avenues exist and within that there are streets of potential choices or free that will that lead to the deterministic avenue. If you are a member of a project that has been determined to go to Mars, you can make various acts of free will that are congruent or in line with the project.

[Hatshepsut]

I think it's more accurate to state that the predictability of the occurrence of one or the other outcome is given by the probability of its occurrence that we find out by applying the quantum mechanical wave equation to the circumstances....To me determinism is still present because we can predict the occurrence of a specific outcome as its probability of occurrence given by applying the wave equation.

Predictability is not the same as probability. You can't predict a single event from a probability. If you roll a die you know the odds of getting a six but you have no idea which number will actually come up.

Probability becomes useful only with large groups as far as prediction goes. If you roll a die a million times, you should get 166700 sixes, with a roughly 0.7 probability of getting between 166300 and 167100 of these outcomes. How large the groups have to be depends on how precise the prediction desired; election polls with 3-point 95% confidence intervals can be done with about 2000 interviewees. Although 95% confidence in a broad range of possible events is far short of predicting the exact thought that someone will have in response to a given stimulus, which is what you must do to prove determinism.

I think Determinism vs. Free Will is a false dichotomy anyway. That's why philosophers with Ph.D. degrees have been arguing about it for hundreds of years with no conclusions reached. Everyone has their own pet view on the subject, needing never listen to the arguments others set forth. We haven't adequately defined what Free Will is supposed to be—or even what Determinism is for that matter. We can't use political preference to decide which of the two we want and expect Mother Nature to conform to our wishes. Lysenko tried to do that in the USSR with Stalin's approval but with poor results on the farms.

Determinism is favored by the radical Left for political reasons when it comes to conscious process and decision making, as the religious folks are usually arguing free will in this arena. Yet the Left tilts against genetic determinism, insisting the newborn mind is a blank slate upon which any behavior pattern can be written arbitrarily, and rejecting Terman's hereditarian IQ beliefs in favor of sole environmental causation instead. Not that I love the IQ racists, but I just don't feel the questions are essentially political. We know that genes do in fact influence brain development, whether we like it or not. Determinism is a context-dependent phenomenon that can't be studied in any simple way.

[Tim Redd]

As I see it deterministic avenues exist and within that there are streets of potential choices or free that will that lead to the deterministic avenue. If you are a member of a project that has been determined to go to Mars, you can make various acts of free will that are congruent or in line with the project.


Predictability is not the same as probability. You can't predict a single event from a probability. If you roll a die you know the odds of getting a six but you have no idea which number will actually come up.

To the contrary, the predictability of an event occurring is the same as the probability of the event occurring. How could it be otherwise?



I think Determinism vs. Free Will is a false dichotomy anyway. That's why philosophers with Ph.D. degrees have been arguing about it for hundreds of years with no conclusions reached.

Determinism vs. Free Will could be a real dichotomy simply without philosophers reaching a conclusion. Alleging that no conclusions have been reached doesn't mean that it is a false dichotomy. And what conclusions haven't been reached in your opinion?

I do think the identification and definition of most of the issues involved in the determinism vs free will argument have been agreed upon by the various (even opposed) camps weighing in on the issue.


Everyone has their own pet view on the subject, needing never listen to the arguments others set forth. We haven't adequately defined what Free Will is supposed to be—or even what Determinism is for that matter.

From what I observe in academic philosophical discussion, the various sides have listened to one another and often do agree on definitions of free will and determinism.


Determinism is favored by the radical Left for political reasons when it comes to conscious process and decision making

Well the socialist/communist left understands that the dynamics of the theory of historical materialism exists objectively. That theory mainly asserts that the material conditions of being ultimately determine the nature of the social superstructure and the ideology held by individuals in a society. So yes that is a determinism that accurate leftist maintain and should maintain in order to understand the workings of all past, present and future societies.


as the religious folks are usually arguing free will in this arena. Yet the Left tilts against genetic determinism, insisting the newborn mind is a blank slate upon which any behavior pattern can be written arbitrarily, and rejecting Terman's hereditarian IQ beliefs in favor of sole environmental causation instead.

Are you asserting that religious folks base the predominance of free will upon some genetic determinism? Not so sure about that. They could be basing the religious mindset upon people being socially acculturated to religious thought and practices.


Not that I love the IQ racists, but I just don't feel the questions are essentially political.

Which questions are not political?


We know that genes do in fact influence brain development, whether we like it or not. Determinism is a context-dependent phenomenon that can't be studied in any simple way.

Because genes influence brain development doesn't necessarily make it true that genes are the primary driver influencing the ideology that an individual develops.

[Hatshepsut]

Determinism vs. Free Will could be a real dichotomy simply without philosophers reaching a conclusion.

The discussion has become a bit unwieldy, so I'll take up just a couple points. Free Will is an arbitrary conceptual category from our Christian past. It corresponds to no known physical phenomena whatsoever. It's not needed for Leftist politics either, which makes me wonder why the Left is fighting over it. Philosophical arguments over Free Will have gone on since the days of St. Thomas Aquinas, intensifying when Calvin chose predestination for his answer to questions in soteriology, and finally taking on an abstract, secular character when the topic became an academic toy in modern university philosophy departments. But are we really concerned with Christian salvation here? Or with the esoteric debate in the groves?

On your other point, a statistical sense of the word "prediction," which does invoke probability, is often used, especially in the social sciences. But prediction has a theoretical sense as well, having nothing to do with probability. For example, Grand Unified Theory in physics predicts the existence of the Higgs Boson. It doesn't just say the Higgs has a 52% probability of being there; it says it exists unconditionally.

While the function Ψ in quantum mechanics is mathematically probabilistic, physicists don't reify it. Schrödinger's Equation is a computational device used to find the position of a particle, say an electron, and makes no physical claims regarding Ψ itself. The latter merely tells us where the electron is likely to be found. This point is misunderstood by non-physicists who create what amounts to a mystery religion out of the quantum realm.

No one has shown how quantum mechanics has anything to do with consciousness, Roger Penrose's microtubule speculations aside. The only dependence brain function may have on it is indirect, since QM explains a lot of general chemistry which in turn becomes involved in the physiology of the brain. Yet neuroscientists correlate conscious phenomena with the coordinated firing of groups of neurons, not with subatomic events taking place inside the brain's molecules. In physics, the firing of a nerve cell is a macroscopic, classical event, not a quantum one.

I won't accuse you of using quantum mechanics as basis for arguing Free Will; on this thread you haven't done so explicitly nor indeed, even stated which of the two poles you favor. I felt it desirable, however, to close the door on a nexus between QM or other probabilistic phenomena and Free Will. Determinism fares somewhat better because there are at least experimental situations whose outcomes are fixed by the initial conditions, albeit with the entrance of uncertainty.

Although it won't matter in practical terms. I suspect that the concept of Free Will is meaningless, having little place in a materialist's outlook on the world. Perversely it's difficult for us to avoid it as our language is loaded with biases toward personal choice. Of course few Christian apologists think genetic determinism underlies Free Will; there I was referring to conservative psychologists like Arthur Jensen who take hereditarian views on IQ. What I meant to emphasize was that both Left and Right sit on both sides of the fence: Each favors determinism in one arena while opting for Free Will in another. Libertarian Rightists argue Free Will in economic affairs and class issues when they say all can be rich by making the correct moves; then turn 180 degrees to Determinism when asserting that private property is a necessary consequence of the nature of human relations. The Left argues against these positions; we have predetermined social classes alongside a bourgeoisie that freely enacts private property rights.

[Tim Redd]

While the function Ψ in quantum mechanics is mathematically probabilistic, physicists don't reify it.
As far as I understand even the Copenhagen school thinks that Schrödinger's wave function has an objective existence. What they say doesn't exist until we observe them are particles that are influenced by the wave function.

Quote:

Schrödinger's Equation is a computational device used to find the position of a particle, say an electron, and makes no physical claims regarding Ψ itself.
If indeed QM "scientists" of the Copenhagen school do deny the objective existence of Schrödinger's wave function that just shows how idealist is the position and beliefs they hold regarding QM as a whole.

The Copenhagen school denies that particles exist until we measure them and according to you they even deny the real (objective) existence of Schrödinger's wave function. This idealism and on the other hand there are materialist scientists who study QM and state that particles exist at all times and they take that Schrödinger's wave function exists objectively.



The latter merely tells us where the electron is likely to be found. This point is misunderstood by non-physicists who create what amounts to a mystery religion out of the quantum realm.
Given what I wrote above about materialist physicists it's not true that only non-scientists 1) accept the objective existence of particles affected by the wave function and 2) accept the objective existence of Schrödinger's wave function itself.

[Hatshepsut]

As for Niels Bohr’s apparent denial that the wave function is anything more than a computational device, see the Wikipedia entry, although he may not have really cared since he wasn’t a metaphysician.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Metaphysics_of_the_wave_ function

We should be very reluctant to assign something an objective existence when it’s never observed. Only the outcome, after the wave function “collapses,” is observable.

As for the “idealists,” it seems as they would be the ones reifying the wave functions (as quasi-Platonic forms), while the materialists concern themselves with the observable outcomes. A materialist need not worry about whether the wave function exists “at all times,” since any proposition concerning the wave function’s existence can be tested only when the particle is actually observed. If it is there at the time of observation, then we deduce its corresponding Ψ.

So we can ask whether the particle and wave function even have separate ontological identities—when we take a measurement of Ψ^2, the wave “collapses” and is replaced by the particle. The only difference is the fact of observation.

Leading us back to a familiar thought experiment, where we asked whether a falling tree makes a sound if no one is there to hear it. This question addresses our knowledge of reality more than it does reality itself. The general spirit of QM is merely to assert that sound cannot exist independently of the things that sound interacts with: ears, tape recorders, or a glass shattered by a singer’s voice.

In the end, none of which settles free will, because we haven’t shown consciousness to be a quantum phenomenon.

[Tim Redd]

I think it's more accurate to state that the predictability of the occurrence of one or the other outcome is given by the probability of its occurrence that we find out by applying the quantum mechanical wave equation to the circumstances....To me determinism is still present because we can predict the occurrence of a specific outcome as its probability of occurrence given by applying the wave equation.



Predictability is not the same as probability.

Yes, some outcomes that we are able to predict don't stand upon or are not involved with probability.


You can't predict a single event from a probability. If you roll a die you know the odds of getting a six but you have no idea which number will actually come up.

For me this die rolling circumstance is a case where we can predict the odds of the occurrence of some event actually taking place. It's not necessarily non-deterministic when multiple outcomes may take place. As long as you can determine the probability of the occurrence of an outcome, determinism is present in that set of circumstances.


Although 95% confidence in a broad range of possible events is far short of predicting the exact thought that someone will have in response to a given stimulus, which is what you must do to prove determinism.

The confidence interval (e.g. 95% as you assert for your case) is a statement about the accuracy of the outcome probabilities given when applying the wave function. Not being able to precisely determine when event W will occur as opposed to the other possible outcomes: X, Y, Z doesn't mean the nature of the way outcomes occur is non-deterministic or is purely up to random chance.


Determinism is favored by the radical Left for political reasons when it comes to conscious process and decision making, as the religious folks are usually arguing free will in this arena.

The Marxist left doesn't claim to know the precise year and date a revolution will occur. So in that case they understand the operation of chance. But they also understand that the operation of laws in the operation of society, especially those of historical materialism, can give us a broad outline for when significant events will occur.

[Tim Redd]

Predictability is not the same as probability. You can't predict a single event from a probability. If you roll a die you know the odds of getting a six but you have no idea which number will actually come up.

Before each roll you know the odds of one or another outcome occurring. Before each roll in fact, you do have an idea of the actual number that will actually come up based upon probability. That is both predictability and probability.


Probability becomes useful only with large groups as far as prediction goes.

There are mathematically known odds for each distinct roll of the dice/die. Probabilities for a large number of rolls may be determined based upon the analysis of the probability that exist for every individual roll of the dice/die.

[Tim Redd]

Which is what I said. That's enough to eliminate Newtonian determinism, "the clockwork universe," however. At least on small scales. Quantum mechanics doesn't matter much for planetary orbits.

Some scientists see how QM exists even in the macro (above atomic) realm.


It's [QM is] taught to students and used for actual calculations in the lab. So, in that sense, it's scientifically accepted. Absolute determinism itself is a philosophical viewpoint. Therefore, I would expect science has no opinion on it.

Scientific facts, or hypotheses constitute, or influence one or more philosophical viewpoints. In fact any philosophy, or philosophical viewpoint worth its salt is based upon scientific facts and hypothesis. A real and revolutionary philosophical viewpoint is rooted in scientific facts and sometimes scientific hypothesis.

The core of Marxist philosophy is the fusion of a scientific materialism and of scientifically determined general laws of the motion of matter, including especially dialectical dynamics.


My understanding is that the parameters of an event can be determined up to the degree of Heisenberg uncertainty. That is, if position is completely known, then momentum is completely unknown. Or, if timing is known, the energy becomes unknown.

From what I understand, if you know the position of a particle you can get in the neighborhood of its speed - just not its precise speed. And vice versa of course.

[Hatshepsut]

If we toss the die we don’t know which side will come up. Which hardly sounds deterministic to me, but we’re splitting hairs on consequences without agreeing on definitions; i.e. we’re probably not talking about the same thing when using the word determinism. Most people understand a causal statement like “A determines B” to mean that the occurrence of event A guarantees that event B will occur. Whether to accept a weakening of this statement to something like “the occurrence of A increases the probability that B will occur” is an arbitrary matter of definition; debate participants agree on which definitions to use before they begin. Or, if they’re good Bolsheviks, shoot their opponents. :grin:

The relationship between philosophers and hard scientists isn’t too friendly if I understand correctly; they don’t often talk to each other today. Some philosophers, such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, or David Chalmers, have kept up with scientific literature. But experimental scientists rarely read Kuhn, who did not receive a warm welcome in physics and biology departments. At issue is the simple fact that the natural sciences have been productive when it comes to solving problems while philosophy has not. Chalmers has spent 30 years at the postdoctoral level only to tell us that explaining first-person viewpoint and qualia is difficult—we have no idea why feelings and sensations attend the function of human brains. It may finally come down to “that’s the way it is.” While the original 17th- and 18th-century scientific revolutions owe a debt to philosophical inquiry, science has matured and moved on, no longer dependent on connections with humanism to propel it.

Quantum nonlocality (coupling of photon spins at arbitrary distance) is real enough; however it can’t be used to transmit information; therefore isn’t relevant to the problem of consciousness.

Probability and QM have few, if any, known connections to the problem of free will, which concerns only whether the acts of human beings come from personal choice by conscious moral agents. This business is circular, as “conscious” and “moral” end up being defined in terms of possessing free will. I’m not sure what Marx’s take on the issue was; since he predated modern probability theory and QM, he did not use either for drawing his conclusions.

[Tim Redd]

Quantum nonlocality (coupling of photon spins at arbitrary distance) is real enough; however it can’t be used to transmit information; therefore isn’t relevant to the problem of consciousness.

Not sure why the inability of non-locality processes to transmit information shows why non-locality is irrelevant to issues (not sure what the problem is)
of consciousness.

The fact that certain outcomes in the realm of quantum mechanics (QM) are due to random probabilistic (stochastic) outcomes may in fact affect the operation and behavior of various macro (above atomic) events and phenomena. If a QM event affects the macro world, which they can, then that very well may affect the events that influence free will. So QM may affect the determinism vs free will dynamic.

[Tim Redd]

The relationship between philosophers and hard scientists isn’t too friendly if I understand correctly; they don’t often talk to each other today. Some philosophers, such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, or David Chalmers, have kept up with scientific literature. But experimental scientists rarely read Kuhn, who did not receive a warm welcome in physics and biology departments. At issue is the simple fact that the natural sciences have been productive when it comes to solving problems while philosophy has not.

You are setting philosophy against the special sciences (e.g. biology, metallurgy, chemistry and other sciences built upon physics) in an invalid way. You are analyzing both areas and their inter-connection from a bourgeois perspective. Off the bat, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, or David Chalmers are not scientific or fully scientific philosophers.

Philosophy is a science. It is science that addresses issues that cut across issues relevant to the domains of physics and the various special sciences. So contrary to what you claim in the above quote from you, true philosophy is itself a science.

So real scientific philosophy (namely Marxist philosophy) has made gains by coming to valid conclusions for most of the issues which it has addressed over the past most recent decades and centuries. Things change and new knowledge comes in every day so Marxist philosophy is updated every day. But overall Marxist philosophy is the best in giving all issues their underlying framework of understanding.

[Hatshepsut]

If QM is so influential in macroscopic affairs, then why don’t we inhabit the city of George Gamow’s Mr. Tomkins in Wonderland? You know, where the car jerks along as it steps up the ladder of discrete, quantized energy levels? I suspect that consciousness depends on information processing without need for quantum phenomena—a hand abacus can do it in principle. Nonetheless I should concede lack of expertise on either QM or cognitive psychology. I can’t really “denounce” someone for having different guesses.

As for apparent hostility among the intellectual camps, I’m reporting what seems to be the attitude of scientists, not trying to “set them up” in any way, valid or not, bourgeois or not. What do hard scientific questions have to do with politics anyway? Politics enters only if one’s world view demands a certain answer, as we saw when the blank slate theory of the newborn mind was invented. Mother Nature will rarely conform to our wishes. To think otherwise is childish, the stuff of postmoderns who believe we create our own reality as individual souls.

Or Plato, who brought us a lovely political system of philosopher-guardians educated from birth in the way he prescribed, taking advantage of his blank-slate mind theory, then going on to rule justly, or at least in accordance with his standards of virtue. Problem is, his system doesn’t work. It’s the philosophical dream of a guy at the apex of a slave-holding society, Plato himself remaining quite aware that the slaves didn’t like the deal—Capitalism, with its elaborate superstructure of “inherent” property rights and “meritocracy,” is actually much harder to defend philosophically than socialism is!

I’m sorry, but philosophy doesn’t become science by invocation of reasoning, no matter how sophisticated the philosophers may be, and regardless of philosophy’s contributions toward enlarging human intellectual horizons in general. Science requires empirical testing of almost everything it asserts while philosophy does not.

Marx’s use of the term scientific is meant to contrast his ideas with those of the bourgeois German romantics and their idealism. Nonetheless he made an empirical claim: that the emergence of social classes, and the governing relationships between them, are determined by the means of production in a society. This hypothesis does omit details, but for the most part, observation of long-term historical trends bears it out. We take the slaveholding-imperial to monarchical-feudal to industrial capitalist progression as a model approximating how civilization has developed. The labor theory of value likewise holds that natural resources cannot be rendered useful without human labor, so that labor time serves as an objective measure of economic worth. Marx’s entire purpose is to minimize the importance of moral psychology’s value propositions in settling political questions.

[cyu]

I remember a thread in r/psychology discussing the observation that the more classes in psychology that a student takes, the more they seem to stop believing in free will.

I guess it makes sense - psychology is about predicting human behavior, and the more you can predict human behavior, the less free will comes into the picture.

[N. Senada]

free will as the chance to do completely undetermined decisions is a meaningless abstraction.
the dicotomy freewill-determinism it's quite annoying, still pretty crucial, as it seems that you cannot escape one of the two corner without assume the other.
surely we live in determinated condition, "it is not the consciousness of man that determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness" but a full-deterministic theory is simply incompatible with marxism, 'cause it will end in a theleological theory. Marxism is the doctrine of the liberation of the proletariat (and so of all the classes, destroying 'em) not the assumption that everything, in the end, will be fine.
Assuming the dialectical being of materialism, i left willingly any kind of "socialism, sooner or later, will come" to stalinist and socialdemocrats.

[Tim Redd]

Assuming the dialectical being of materialism, i left willingly any kind of "socialism, sooner or later, will come" to stalinist and socialdemocrats.

I agree with your basic view that fundamentally determinism has an upper hand because the basic position of materialism is that being ultimately determines consciousness. And I agree with you that it's not an absolute determinism in the sense that long term future outcomes can not be unequivocally predicted. I also wrote something similar to these views in an earlier thread post.

I have a question for you - please elaborate on the sentence I quoted from you. Thanks.

[N. Senada]

I agree with your basic view that fundamentally determinism has an upper hand because the basic position of materialism is that being ultimately determines consciousness. And I agree with you that it's not an absolute determinism in the sense that long term future outcomes can not be unequivocally predicted. I also wrote something similar to these views in an earlier thread post.

I have a question for you - please elaborate on the sentence I quoted from you. Thanks.

For marxists, as said, :"it is not the consciousness of man that determine their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness"

This quote cannot in any way suggest that there is no human will or the human will being nothing but the illusion of freedom that we would have whenever we make a decision.

Of course there's a will, of course there's ah human thought.
But it's dialectical in a multitude of way. (for.ex. my individual thought does not exhaust the meaning of "human though", despite me being not solved into a "collective thougth")
We thought and will in a really hardcore framework of determined conditions.
The only way in which human thought could be able to quasi-free from the framework of conditions would be the full knowledge of the universe as it is, but assuming the infinite being of the universe as i do (agreeing, at least, with Engels), the human kind must last REALLY long to do such a thing.
And, sayin'it with those beautiful words of Fred (forgive me for the long quote, but i really love this one):

Originally Posted by Engels
"It is an eternal cycle in which matter moves, a cycle that certainly only completes its orbit in periods of time for which our terrestrial year is no adequate measure, a cycle in which the time of highest development, the time of organic life and still more that of the life of beings conscious of nature and of themselves, is just as narrowly restricted as the space in which life and self-consciousness come into operation; a cycle in which every finite mode of existence of matter, whether it be sun or nebular vapour, single animal or genus of animals, chemical combination or dissociation, is equally transient, and wherein nothing is eternal but eternally changing, eternally moving matter and the laws according to which it moves and changes. But however often, and however relentlessly, this cycle is completed in time and space, however many millions of suns and earths may arise and pass away, however long it may last before the conditions for organic life develop, however innumerable the organic beings that have to arise and to pass away before animals with a brain capable of thought are developed from their midst, and for a short span of time find conditions suitable for life, only to be exterminated later without mercy, we have the certainty that matter remains eternally the same in all its transformations, that none of its attributes can ever be lost, and therefore, also, that with the same iron necessity that it will exterminate on the earth its highest creation, the thinking mind, it must somewhere else and at another time again produce it."

Now, returning to your original quote and your question:
Internationale, the second, first and stalinism later had massively distorcerd marxism in a revisionist way.
In the late XIX century, the socialdemocrats party, began to adapt to the contingent situation in whic you had a capitalism still developing and the bourgeois democracy still expanding.
Socialsm and the revolution were postponed to an unspecified and nebulous future.
This adaption found his immediate reflex in marxism domesticated by the positivism and the dialectic were reduced to a mere naturalistic sociologic evolutionism
"Revolution? Socialism? They will come when the natural evolution of the progressing capitalism will make the transition mature"
A marxism crippled by positivism were the best philosophical clothe and theorical justification for a treachery whom formally did not disown the end goal, but in facts it adopted to the present reality.
The positivist and full deterministic treachery was nothing but the political treachery.
The secondinteriationale socialdemocracy were progressively adapting to the bourgeois society and slowly becoming a beurocracy. And so the start to assume the bourgeois winning thought.
In the same way, with different words and conditions, stalinist fished from positivism and socialdemocracy to justify their bunch of errors and treachery, errors and treachery that are fully the main points of the stalinist policy (popular fronts, theory of cohabitation, governism, revolution stage by stage and so on)