Free Will [Archive]

Drace

16th October 2008, 04:57

The only thing behind the free will argument is Jesus, God, and the soul.
If you respect that everything is of material, determinism is correct.

There is nothing of which is done out of logical order.
One cannot make a decision that is not based on material conditions. All choices are that of which are influenced by previous thoughts. Every thought is a formation of older ones.
When you are born, you are determined to something, and nothing can change that. There are simply to many factors to count for so we cant physically determine the future existence of a human being. Yet, we are able to on the short scale.
I say hi, I'm going to respect a 'hello' back. Determinism is the root of which physiology is able to function. This is because, the brain works in the same respective manner in a logical way.

You don't control where your born, or what happens when you are being born. You may be born with deficiencies or not. Now, because the brain must work logically, all nature is going to do is form thoughts and allow the mind to receive them. Any choice interpretation made by the brain and acted out seems as if you had ultimate control over it. Your reasoning of thoughts too, is controlled by material premises. Small/big brain, and of course, the current situation, and previous thoughts.

So it is to say, if you can copy the same EXACT life experience, you can get the same EXACT result.

Making a decision itself, is material.

This is ultimate pwnage for the "Its your choice to be rich" crap. Although we can see a gangster quitting shooting people because its his choice or whether he will or not, he will continue doing so because thats how is brain interprets things.

This also explains why low income families have the deranged children so to speak. We would need a society with no problems to create happiness for everyone and through happy experiences will people then be all intellects (or close).

"if there's no free will, should we still punish criminals since they didn't have a choice in the matter?"
Yes they should still be punished. I tried to make it clear that there is no meaning in life and mortality does not exist. "The joy of living is getting to feel the experiences" was suppose to be sarcastic >_> So we might as well just kill ourselves and get over it, but thats not what were aiming for. We go for survival. And since humans survive fairly well, you can consider happiness a luxury, and thats what were going for. Leaving criminals on the streets causes problems. The key to eliminating criminals is removing the material conditions that set humans on such path.

You can conclude that if we are able to change the lives of others, people will be different. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Btw, I like to use my altered form of David Hume's theory of perception to state how we form impressions over that of the previous ones.

Heres a slacky writing of mine on it:

David Humes Theory

"The power of his thought stems from a remarkably compact and incisive analysis of the human mind. Hume asks the reader to reflect on the contents of your own mind. You will find there many types of mental activity that you can group in various ways: perceptions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, emotions, expectations, doubts, and so on. Hume argued that all of these -- indeed everything that can be contained in the mind -- are reducible to two types of perceptions (any content of the mind of which we are conscious). These are impressions and ideas.

An impression is a perception which involves actual sensation, such as seeing, feeling, tasting. hearing.

An idea is a mental perception which arises by thinking of something, rather than by experiencing it."

He said that ideas comes from impressions, or by mental perceptions by combining simpler ideas and forming more complex ones.
Now I take this theory and came up with 3 of my own.

1. Life experience affects just about everything.

1. Life experience affects just about everything.

You are not born born with a personality or just about anything else that takes place in the mind you can think of, such as stupidity, but rather comes through life experience.
Humor is a great example. Practice makes perfect. In anything you do...
The more ideas you have, the easier it should be to form new ones.
You are only funny because you practice it. I don't mean you talk to yourself but whenever your out hanging out with friends and making jokes up. So once you make up a joke, that idea stays in your head. The next time it will be easier to combine ideas.
This also explains why people have different personalities. People continuously use the ideas already in their head to form new ones. Those ideas formed are still quite similar. Thats what personality is.
Also explains the style of humor.
Now see I came up with these theories of my own because I had David theory always on my mind, so I formed ideas from that.
More of such impression you consume, the smarter/funnier/cooler you will be.

Now I had someone tell me David Hume was only talking about material objects, but I see no harm in extending the statement.

Decolonize The Left

16th October 2008, 06:14

As far as I understand, the entire "free will vs. determinism" debate is irrelevant as "free will" is fairly meaningless as a term (what is an unfree will?).

- August

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th October 2008, 08:37

Drace, as I predicted, you seem quite happy to anthropomorphise nature.:(

apathy maybe

16th October 2008, 09:56

So . . . recently I've been thinking about the whole Free Will V.s Determinism issue and I've become more convinced than ever that free will doesn't exist. I probably would have reached this conclusion earlier if I had not been so "disturbed" by the issue when I first encountered it.

Anyway, I began wondering what the good citizens of RevLeft thought of it all. What is your position on the free will debate?
You missed an option, neither free will (because mind is not separate from matter), nor determinism. Instead, randomness. If you take the universe, and start it over again, there are two possibilities. The first is that the universe will end up in the same position it is now (determinism), the second is that it would be different (due to randomness).

My understanding of the scientific consensus is that randomness is more likely then not.*

(Compatibilism is bullshit, either free will exists, in which case mind is separate from matter, which no materialist can believe, or it doesn't. Compatibilism uses word play and sophistry to redefine the debate to make people feel better.)

Anyway, I've discussed free will before:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-why-discussions-t50219/index.html
The thread got rather long.

Drace, as I predicted, you seem quite happy to anthropomorphise nature.
Is it too early to ask for that essay you promised me last year?

* Go down to your local library, find the section where they keep the New Scientist magazine, look for the magazines from about a year ago. More precisely, find the New Scientist from 6/10/2007. Flip to page 14 and read the article. Alternativily, goto http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/quantum-world/mg19626243.500-universe-explained-by-quantum-randomness.html and buy a web subscription thingy.

"Because the patch was exponentially smaller than today's universe, it contained exponentially less information"

"... where did all that information today come from?"

... it comes from quantum randomness.

This is not the only article that basically says the same thing, and I've been looking at this issue for more then a couple of years and I've read a number of articles that reject "determinism".

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th October 2008, 13:29

Apathy, I'd like to see you explain how randomness can account for the stability of the human mind.

This is quite apart from the fact that we do not yet know whether the processes you speak of are genuinely random or whether their apparent randomness is a function of our imperfect knowledge.

And both of these are of course independent of the fact that I see once again that you are still trapped in a traditional way of interpreting this problem, as I have pointed out to you several times before.

There can be no scientific solution to a pseudo-problem that was originally created by a crass misuse of language.

Wakizashi the Bolshevik

16th October 2008, 15:16

Free will exist, and is compatible some determinist elements. There are some things in life which we humans can't affect.

Rosa Provokateur

16th October 2008, 15:24

Free will exists. 'Nuff said.

Rosa Lichtenstein

16th October 2008, 16:59

Hit The North

16th October 2008, 18:01

Understanding the interplay between socially determined and wilfully creative behaviour in human affairs is a worthwhile exploit and at the centre of historical materialism.

But AugustWest and Rosa are correct when they point out in their own ways how the whole "free will - determinism" debate is made nonsensical by its own terms of reference.

apathy maybe

16th October 2008, 23:14

Apathy, I'd like to see you explain how randomness can account for the stability of the human mind.
I don't need to account for it. That's the job of scientists, I'm just pointing you (and others) to an article that explains that randomness is what accounts for the way the universe is today.

This is quite apart from the fact that we do not yet know whether the processes you speak of are genuinely random or whether their apparent randomness is a function of our imperfect knowledge.
The article I quote says that information has expanded since the big bang, and that a deterministic system could not account for this. Indeed, the only way to get from the original level of "information" to the present is "randomness" (I suggest hunting down the article, and then following the author around to see if what he says is still valid).

And both of these are of course independent of the fact that I see once again that you are still trapped in a traditional way of interpreting this problem, as I have pointed out to you several times before.
Yes you have, I don't mind though. You still haven't provided me that essay your promised, and I've encountered nothing that would push me out of my "traditional" way of thinking.

There can be no scientific solution to a pseudo-problem that was originally created by a crass misuse of language.
There is no problem. But there is a scientific solution, just like there is a scientific solution to the "problem" of creationism. The solution in that case is evolution. The solution in this case is a description of how the world works.

C0YS

16th October 2008, 23:28

free will, fundementaly exists. Only we are not allowed to be free in this sociaty. However having said that "free will" is in the eye of the beholder. One can be free yet be in prison. Free is a state of mind.

Drace

16th October 2008, 23:42

Drace, as I predicted, you seem quite happy to anthropomorphise nature.

o.O?

Decolonize The Left

17th October 2008, 00:59

For those who selected options 1 and 3 (9 of you so far), could you please explain:
1) What is a "free will?"
2) Where is this "free will?"
3) What is an un-free will?

If not, I'm not inclined to believe your claims...

- August

Trystan

17th October 2008, 02:43

1) What is a "free will?"

I remember Sam Harris in "The End of Faith" (in the notes) arguing that it had never actually been conceptualised. Like substance dualists and their "non-physical substance" they tell us what it is not (determined) but never tell us what it is. But we still have will, and freedom to will.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th October 2008, 03:21

AM:

I don't need to account for it. That's the job of scientists, I'm just pointing you (and others) to an article that explains that randomness is what accounts for the way the universe is today.

Then you have no right to assert that randomness is connected to to the 'free wil' debate in the way you have.

The article I quote says that information has expanded since the big bang, and that a deterministic system could not account for this. Indeed, the only way to get from the original level of "information" to the present is "randomness" (I suggest hunting down the article, and then following the author around to see if what he says is still valid).

This is of course an hypothesis, which does not alter the validity of what I alleged: that we do not know if 'randomness' is a function of our ignorance, or is an objective feature of reality (whatever tha means). In fact, we have as yet no idea what 'randomness' actually implies

Yes you have, I don't mind though. You still haven't provided me that essay your promised, and I've encountered nothing that would push me out of my "traditional" way of thinking.

Which Essay was that?

However, you need to show where the arguments I have presented here (in the threads I linked to above) are in error. So far you have failed to do that.

Moreover: you are indeed welcome to remain superglued to a traditional approach to this question, which, since it was originally motivated by an egregious misuse of language (itself motivated by the belief that nature was indeed Mind), is in fact a pseudo-problem. There is no 'problem' of the 'freedom of the will', any more than there is a 'god'.

There is no problem. But there is a scientific solution, just like there is a scientific solution to the "problem" of creationism. The solution in that case is evolution. The solution in this case is a description of how the world works.

Well, there can be no solution if there is no problem.

And your analogy with creationsim is inapt since there is a problem over origins.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th October 2008, 03:23

Trystan:

But we still have will, and freedom to will.

This is, of course, no more effective a response than stamping your feet is.

Unless you can say in what this 'free will' consists, your claims are empty.

Trystan

17th October 2008, 03:31

That's what I said.

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th October 2008, 03:43

Trystan:

That's what I said.

Well, what you actually said was this:

But we still have will, and freedom to will.

Which is about as clear as a believer telling us that 'God is a spirit' when asked what 'god' is, who then retiorts that he/she had in fact answered the question.

But we are no clearer about what 'a spirit' is than we were about 'god'; and in this case we are no clearer about what 'freedom' is than we were about 'free will'.

Drace

17th October 2008, 19:13

Randomness does not exist. Every event is initiated by cause and effect. Any scientist should agree with this.

We can say the chances of a coin being flipped and landing on heads is 50%, but it does not mean it is random. This percentage only calculates the likeliness of the pre existing conditions that will favor that result.

That is, the material conditions that will lead to that.
These factors could be...the force and angle used, or rather the conditions of the brain that will determine the force and angle at which you throw. Objects around, size of hand......

Its the same with the Big Bang. When it happened, whatever the big bang allowed to come out, it followed a logical order to create things. You can say it is random in the sense that it was not planned by a conscious mind, but it still followed the laws of nature.

apathy maybe

17th October 2008, 20:40

Randomness does not exist. Every event is initiated by cause and effect. Any scientist should agree with this.
Prove it. Or at least provide more then just an opinion. For example, I linked to a New Scientist article about a fellow who discusses the amount of "information" in the universe, and how "determinism" couldn't account for that.

Now, you give me an article that says otherwise.

Then you have no right to assert that randomness is connected to to the 'free wil' debate in the way you have.
Sorry, I was just providing another option to "determinism".

Which Essay was that?

However, you need to show where the arguments I have presented here (in the threads I linked to above) are in error. So far you have failed to do that.
I couldn't find it when I said it, but you said last year that you were working on something related to this topic.

And yes, I have failed to show that you are in error. Mainly because I can't exactly see what it is you are arguing for (nothing as I understand it). Well, actually, it's also because I'm too lazy to take you on. I'm not interested in an Internet debate (though if we ever got into a pub together, I would love to chat about the issue further) on the topic.

Trystan

17th October 2008, 20:50

Trystan:

Well, what you actually said was this:

Which is about as clear as a believer telling us that 'God is a spirit' when asked what 'god' is, who then retiorts that he/she had in fact answered the question.

But we are no clearer about what 'a spirit' is than we were about 'god'; and in this case we are no clearer about what 'freedom' is than we were about 'free will'.

I meant that you still have will, a predetermined will that can still be free. Does that make sense?

Drace

17th October 2008, 21:21

Prove it. Or at least provide more then just an opinion. For example, I linked to a New Scientist article about a fellow who discusses the amount of "information" in the universe, and how "determinism" couldn't account for that.

Now, you give me an article that says otherwise.

An opinion...?
Lol I don't need an article. How do you believe something does not happen for a reason?

It would be useless to even look for clues on the Big Bang since it was just bunch of random things without of logical order.
I'm not sure what the hell your saying now.

What do you think determinism is? And free will...?

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th October 2008, 23:48

Trystan:

I meant that you still have will, a predetermined will that can still be free. Does that make sense?

Well, you may note that I claimed that this whole pseudo-problem was the result of the use of sloppy language by philosophers over the last 2000+ years, and that there is no way forward if we continue to insist on using the traditional language in which it has been framed.

The problem is that theorists insist on using language in odd ways. So, the remedy is to see how the words used to frame this question are normally used when we are not trying to 'philosophise'; that is, to see how these words appear in everyday language.

In that case, the word 'determine' is used when we refer to the sorts of things that we do: we determine the time of a train from a time-table; we determine to get a job done; we determine to win a strike, and so on. Human beings determine things; they are not determined by events or circumstances (that is, this is how things are framed in ordinary, everyday language) -- plainly, since events and circumstances are not human beings.

And that is why I said that 'determinism' can only be made to seem to work if we anthropomorphise nature, and attribute to it a will, and thus deny that we have a will.

So -- no, your response makes no sense, for it suggests that we do not actually have a will but that nature does. I know you did not intend this, but your use of language suggests you do.

Now, I have worked this out in more detail in the threads I listed in my first post above; I suggest you consult those if you want to know more.

This way of looking at this pseudo-problem has the merit that for the first time in 2000+ years it can be dissolved (and not solved, since it is not possible to 'solve' a pseudo-problem).

Now, the vast majority of people do not like this approach, but that is because, like so many others, their thought is dominated by ruling-class ways of thinking, as Marx noted: the ruling-ideas are always those of the ruling class.

They thus like to think that there is a hidden world out there beyond the reach of 'appearances', which is accessible by thought alone, and thus accessible only if we use language in rather odd ways (and that is because ordinary language is based on our common life in the material world we all share, meaning that philosophical 'problems' can only take off if we ignore ordinary language) -- ways that suggest that nature is mind, or run by a hidden mind. In religious thought, this surfaces as a belief in 'god'; in philosophy, it surfaces as idealism and in a belief in fate, or in 'determinism', compounded by a belief that we can solve the pseudo-problems of traditional theory by thought alone, and by an odd use of language divorced from everyday material reality.

Exactly why this is so is not pertinent to this thread, but if you click on this link, and use the 'quick links' to go to sections 5) and 11), you will see why I argue this way.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

Nevertheless, this is why there has been no progress toward a 'solution' to this 'problem' in over 2000 years -- practically everyone is trapped in the traditional way of viewing this and other 'philosophical' pseudo-problems.

I take no credit for this radically-new way of viewing this and other 'problems'; it is based on the work of Wittgenstein (although I take credit for applying his method in a totally new way to this particular conundrum).

Finally, I do not expect to convince many that this is the right way to proceed because far too many of us are happy to look at this 'problem' through traditional lenses, since that is the way we have all been socialised to think (you can see this by the way that the vast majority of comrades argue in this section: whatever the question, they are all trapped in a traditional approach to it, which is rather odd, since they are all supposed to be radicals!) -- which is why the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling-class...:(

Rosa Lichtenstein

17th October 2008, 23:53

AM:

I couldn't find it when I said it, but you said last year that you were working on something related to this topic.

Ah, I see; yes I am still working on that Essay. It won't be published until 2010, or thereabouts.

And yes, I have failed to show that you are in error. Mainly because I can't exactly see what it is you are arguing for (nothing as I understand it). Well, actually, it's also because I'm too lazy to take you on. I'm not interested in an Internet debate (though if we ever got into a pub together, I would love to chat about the issue further) on the topic.

I have re-stated my position in my reply to Trystan, above.

And you are right, I am not arguing for anything, since I reject all philosophical theory as an expression of ruling class ideology.

My case therefore is entirely negative here: I aim to dissolve this pseudo-problem, not solve it (since pseudo-problems have no solution).

apathy maybe

19th October 2008, 18:49

Ah, I see; yes I am still working on that Essay. It won't be published until 2010, or thereabouts.
No worries.

I have re-stated my position in my reply to Trystan, above.

And you are right, I am not arguing for anything, since I reject all philosophical theory as an expression of ruling class ideology.

My case therefore is entirely negative here: I aim to dissolve this pseudo-problem, not solve it (since pseudo-problems have no solution).

I agree, there is no problem, because we should all be materialists here, and thus reject any notion of "free will" what so ever.

The question (and I would suggest that it isn't a philosophical, but rather scientific question), then is: "why is the universe how it is, instead of some other way?".

My understanding is that "randomness" is something that exists at the quantum level, I linked to one reason why previously in this thread.

Where I depart from you on the treatment of this "non-problem", is to reject your wordplay. I (finally) understand your position in a clear manner (I believe that I "understood" it before, but I have a much better grasp now).

I will attempt now to explain "determinism" without using the word "determine" (or similar). I've tried to do it once before, and you rejected my attempt (I used Conway's Game of Life for those of you who are interested).

The universe started at the big bang (or so most scientists in the field accept). Since then, energy and matter has interacted in the way that energy and matter interact. Whether this method of interaction changes over time, or remains the same is, at present, unknown.

At any rate, some people claim that given a starting point (the big bang for example), and knowledge of how matter interacts with other matter and energy over time, you could (given a calculator big enough (which maybe bigger then the universe, making the entire exercise pointless)), workout what the end point would be, without having to run the entire process.

To sum it up, determinism says that the end result of the universe is predictable (assuming you know how matter interacts with energy and itself, and the starting point of the universe, and have a big enough calculator).
-----

And now for a bonus, randomness. Some people say that you couldn't calculate the end point, because each run through the process would result in a different end point. This is because certain interactions do not always result in the same result (err). Because of randomness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness).

ÑóẊîöŉ

19th October 2008, 22:02

Free will is an illusion created by the human mind's inability to identify the causes of it's decisions.

I can (seemingly) choose, at this very moment in time, to lift my right foot off the ground. In fact, I just did so to prove to myself that I could. I can do it again. Up it goes. Isn't that fascinating? No other species apart from humans appears to display this kind of behaviour. I very much appear to have free will - that is to say, I can make choices that appear to me to have no bearing on any kind of immediate utility. Instinct tells me to eat, but I appear to use my free will to decide what to eat.

But here's the rub; If free will does not exist, then how can anybody be culpable for their actions? A society that bans reasonable choices, like the choice to eat potato salad instead of coleslaw, is generally considered worse than a society which doesn't. In all societies, it seems, free will is considered to exist or at the very least recognised as a "useful illusion".

What gets me is the absurd lengths some people will go to try and prove that free will exists, rather than just accepting it as a useful illusion and moving on. They will point at the random behaviour of quantum phenomena in an attempt to find a source of free will, but that it ludicrous. If I made my choices by flipping a coin or rolling a dice, how on Earth is that free will? In fact, it is simply the replacement of electrochemical interactions (in a classical mechanical view of the human brain) with quantum interactions which have just as limited a set of rules and outcomes, except they are probabilistic (sp?).

Whether this method of interaction changes over time, or remains the same is, at present, unknown.

Most scientific theories are predicated on the laws of the universe being the same at all places and at all times (with the exception being the Big Bang singularity and black hole singularities, which many physicists instensely dislike and are working on attempts to eliminate them), and some of these theories have been very well tested, like Relativity and Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th October 2008, 02:54

AM:

My understanding is that "randomness" is something that exists at the quantum level, I linked to one reason why previously in this thread.

Well, we have no idea what 'randomness' is, nor yet any idea whether or not what certain scientists call 'randomness' is a function of our ignorance, or something else.

This is quite apart from the fact that scientists change their minds every 50 years or so (oscillating between 'determinism' and 'in-determinism').

To sum it up, determinism says that the end result of the universe is predictable (assuming you know how matter interacts with energy and itself, and the starting point of the universe, and have a big enough calculator).

Depends what you mean by 'predictable'; and random events are also 'predictable' if enough of them are included in the data set.

Of course, even if you were right, and such events were 'predictable', there is nothing to suggest that events may turn out other than as expected. The only way that 'determinists' can avoid this is by appealing to 'natural necessity', and as soon as they do that, they are guilty of anthropomorphising nature in the way I suggested.

If this is so, then 'determinism' lacks any sense, and if that is so, its denial does too: randomness.

As I indicated earlier, you are still trapped in a traditional, ruling-class view of nature -- that is, you seem to think that this problem can be 'solved' when it is in fact a pseudo-problem.

jake williams

20th October 2008, 09:14

I will say this, without directly answering the question.

I think any notion of "free will" would have to be intimately related to a notion of "consciousness", and specifically I think it likely one would have to at least make a serious attempt to address what's been called the "hard problem" in consciousness research - which you could consider trying to determine precisely what the hell it is - in order to even take a try at free will, for for that matter even defining the free will question.

Rosa Provokateur

20th October 2008, 15:21

^^Both of the above: then you must both believe in the 'soul'. Or, do you have some other explanation for the origin of spontaneity?

I see that, in the case of Green Apostle, it is likely you do believe in the 'soul'. That will explain why you do not argue for the truth of your claim.
Well nothing makes my decisions for me, I choose for I and thats all there is to it. Everyones decision is influenced by something, granted, but that person has to choose whether or not to succumb to the influence.

Rosa Lichtenstein

20th October 2008, 17:23

GA:

Well nothing makes my decisions for me, I choose for I and thats all there is to it. Everyones decision is influenced by something, granted, but that person has to choose whether or not to succumb to the influence.

In some respects, I guess so. But, if that 'influence' has already affected you, then that choice will already have been baised.

Drace

21st October 2008, 01:36

Well nothing makes my decisions for me, I choose for I and thats all there is to it. Everyones decision is influenced by something, granted, but that person has to choose whether or not to succumb to the influence.

Every decision is completely influenced of something. HOW do you choose to act on your ideas?

Connolly

21st October 2008, 01:51

I see what your saying there Rosa about using the word determine.

But is there an alternative word you might suggest to replace the word determine when we are speaking about, essentially the same thing (since we dont intentionally mean to give 'will' to nature using the word determine).

And also, what exactly is your view on it. Do we have free will in your view?

Hit The North

21st October 2008, 02:16

Surely 'free' will means will that determines itself alone. Or action which is the source of its own volition.

It is a metaphysical phantom.

Rosa Lichtenstein

21st October 2008, 04:06

BTB, insted of laying down the law here, it might be better to see how we use the word 'free' in such contexts. That having been done, I think you will find that your use of this word is not the only way we use it. Indeed, I gave a few examples myself in the threads I linked to earlier.

-----------------------------

Connolly (Red Banner?): The problem is that when we try to construct 'philosophical' theories of the universe (etc.) we are forced to either 1) use ordinary words in odd ways, or 2) construct a specialised set of words of obscure meaning. These two account for the nonsensical nature of such theories.

[Note: I am here speaking of philosophical theories, not scientific ones. But, scientists are no more experts in the use of ordinary language than the rest of us are.]

Language is Ok as a medium of communication but it begins to falter when we try to use it to represent the world. We have to use figurative language to do this, and when we do, we tend to interpet it literally, or we become trapped in a picture (to paraphrase Wittgenstein).

So, there are no words we can use to try to represent nature to ourselves other than these inappropriate metaphors.

Having said that, ordinary language is replete with words that depict change in far more sophisticated ways than any philosophy yet invented. Indeed, scientists have to use these words to make sense of their own work too.

Here is a greatly shortened list of such (I have posted this here several times before):

Vary, alter, adjust, amend, make, produce, revise, improve, deteriorate, edit, bend, straighten, weave, twist, turn, tighten, loosen, relax, slacken, bind, wrap, pluck, tear, mend, repair, damage, mutate, metamorphose, transmute, sharpen, modify, develop, expand, contract, constrict, constrain, widen, lock, unlock, swell, flow, differentiate, divide, partition, unite, amalgamate, connect, fast, slow, swift, rapid, hasty, heat up, melt, harden, cool down, drip, cascade, drop, pick up, fade, darken, wind, unwind, meander, peel, scrape, graze, file, scour, dislodge, is, was, will be, will have been, had, will have had, went, go, going, gone, return, lost, age, flood, crumble, disintegrate, erode, corrode, rust, flake, shatter, percolate, seep, tumble, mix, separate, cut, chop, crush, grind, shred, slice, dice, saw, spread, fall, climb, rise, ascend, descend, slide, slip, roll, spin, revolve, oscillate, undulate, rotate, wave, conjure, quickly, slowly, instantaneously, suddenly, gradually, rapidly, hastily, inadvertently, accidentally, snap, join, resign, part, sell, buy, lose, find, search, explore, cover, uncover, stretch, compress, lift, put down, win, ripen, germinate, conceive, gestate, abort, die, rot, perish, grow, decay, fold, many, more, less, fewer, steady, steadily, jerkily, smoothly, quickly, very, extremely, exceedingly, intermittent, continuous, continual, push, pull, slide, jump, run, walk, swim, drown, immerse, break, charge, retreat, assault, dismantle, pulverise, disintegrate, dismember, replace, undo, reverse, repeal, enact, quash, throw, catch, hour, minute, second, instant, invent, innovate, rescind, destroy, annihilate, boil, freeze, thaw, cook, liquefy, solidify, congeal, neutralise, flatten, crimple, evaporate, condense, dissolve, mollify, pacify, calm down, terminate, initiate, instigate, enrage, inflame, protest, challenge, expel, eject, remove, overthrow, expropriate, scatter, gather, assemble, defeat, strike, revolt, riot, march, demonstrate, rebel, campaign, agitate, organise…

Dystisis

21st October 2008, 23:30

As far as I understand, the entire "free will vs. determinism" debate is irrelevant as "free will" is fairly meaningless as a term (what is an unfree will?).
True. I voted compatibilism because the whole way of thinking is clearly wrong on this issue. We have to radically reform how we think philosophy.

On one hand, everything we do is a result of outside influences (that is not controlled by the Self). On the other hand, we have free will and I can decide wether or not I choose to wear a red sweater.

Or can I? Etc.

Drace

22nd October 2008, 00:20

On one hand, everything we do is a result of outside influences (that is not controlled by the Self). On the other hand, we have free will and I can decide wether or not I choose to wear a red sweater.

Or can I? Etc.

You don't choose but it seems as if you do.

Who are YOU anyway?

JimFar

22nd October 2008, 01:45

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd October 2008, 06:03

In so far as Honderich uses ordinary language I have no quarrel with him. But, the problem with traditional theorists like Honderich is that they want to go further, and thus soon become trapped in the same old cycle of confusion I outlined above.

Moreover, since this is a pseudo-problem (it was an invention of theologians and philosophers), Honderich is endeavouring to solve a problem that does not exist.

If you can get hold of it, the best article I have read on this was written nearly 50 years ago -- apart from Wittgenstein's work, this is the single biggest influence on my ideas in this area:

DAVID GALLOP 'ON BEING DETERMINED' Mind 1962 LXXI: pp.181-196.

http://mind.oxfordjournals.org/content/volLXXI/issue282/index.dtl

Rosa Provokateur

22nd October 2008, 15:17

Every decision is completely influenced of something. HOW do you choose to act on your ideas?
By deciding which one is better... process of elimination I guess.

Volderbeek

25th October 2008, 07:40

I, for one, favor compatibilism. It's really a question of causation. Do we cause our own actions or do external forces alone cause them? Framed this way, anyone could agree that it's actually both. The problem arises from the blurring of the boundaries of the respective abstractions.

Rosa Lichtenstein

25th October 2008, 19:08

Ah, the V-man is back, and happy to confirm that he too has fallen into the trap I outlined above.

No surprise there then.:lol:

Dystisis

2nd November 2008, 23:38

You don't choose but it seems as if you do.
Do you realize that that position means everything is predetermined as well? Now, why should I care about anything if everything is predetermined? Why am I limited by this illusion of freedom? Why would I, or you, even be on this site?

I do not think you are entirely incorrect. I believe the world is an awesomely splended unfolding of geometry, yet it is at the same time one which is not predetermined.

Who are YOU anyway?
Stardust?

Tatarin

3rd November 2008, 01:30

Hmm, I tend to see everything as pre-determined, so to say. One of the reasons is that a person can only do one choice in the timeline of his or her life. For example, I can move a chair, but that event can only happen one time. The next time I move the same chair in the same way, I will be changed - I will be older (even if it is only seconds).

In other words, whatever choices we make, we can only make them once. After all, every person only has one life - one timeline from where the person was born to the moment the person died.

Or? :)

Drace

4th November 2008, 05:43

Marxists, are we forgetting about materialism? Really, how the fuck do we make choices out of no where?
Every choice is a result of pre existing conditions, be it previous choices, enviormental conditions, biological....All in all, the current state of things.

The brain makes every decision on a behalf of these things.

By deciding which one is better... process of elimination I guess.

And how do you reason which one is better? :laugh:

Rosa Lichtenstein

4th November 2008, 11:03

Drace:

The brain makes every decision on a behalf of these things.

Human beings make decisions; the brain decides nothing since it is not a human being.

Dystisis

4th November 2008, 17:43

Marxists, are we forgetting about materialism? Really, how the fuck do we make choices out of no where?
Every choice is a result of pre existing conditions, be it previous choices, enviormental conditions, biological....All in all, the current state of things.

The brain makes every decision on a behalf of these things.
Okay, then why are you here? If what you say is true, everything is predetermined. Nothing can be affected in any way because no one is in control of anything.

Does not sound very materialistic to me.

Decolonize The Left

5th November 2008, 00:41

Okay, then why are you here? If what you say is true, everything is predetermined. Nothing can be affected in any way because no one is in control of anything.

Does not sound very materialistic to me.

I am 'here' due to a multitude of causes, perhaps a multitude so great that I cannot comprehend all the factors which have led to my sitting here typing this sentence. It could even be that there are no causes what-so-ever, it is merely our brains which seek the security of cause and effect...

This doesn't mean anything is "predetermined" in any way. Things can be casually determined without being predetermined for predetermined implies a being which determined all things and yet is outside of those things as well - implies a God...

The point is that "determinism vs. free will" is a pointless debate.

- August

Le Libérer

5th November 2008, 03:13

I've only ever heard of the thought process of "free will" when used in religious terms. Free will implies that some higher being, bigger than yourself makes decisions for you and is now benevolent enough to allow you to make your own decisions If you don't have a religious view then doesn't the idea of free will become non-relevant?

Any want, desire, or attempted action to want to be free from a determined environment was determined by the same environment. Its a catch 22.

Dystisis

5th November 2008, 16:56

This doesn't mean anything is "predetermined" in any way. Things can be casually determined without being predetermined for predetermined implies a being which determined all things and yet is outside of those things as well - implies a God...
How so?

Pre means on before hand, determined means... well, I think you know. What the heck do you mean by "casually determined"? There is no difference. No matter which words you use, the concept of not having free will leads to all the things in the universe happening as a process directly from the first energy involved. If you don't realize this now you need to think about it some more. The concept of God as a being has to do with constitutionalized religion and thus has no meaning in philosophy.

I agree with your second thought, predeterminism versus free will is a pointless debate, which means we are approaching philosophy (possibly our understanding of time) wrong.

Decolonize The Left

8th November 2008, 04:51

How so?

Ex: I decide right now to pick up a marble and walk to the top of the hill nearest my house. I drop the marble down the hill and watch it roll to the bottom.

Now, I was not "pre-determined" to pick up that marble. But, that marble could not have rolled down the hill if I didn't carry it to the top and drop it. Hence the marble rolling down the hill was determined by my choosing to do so. My choosing to do so was casually determined by my entire past history and the history of the entire universe.

Pre means on before hand, determined means... well, I think you know. What the heck do you mean by "casually determined"? There is no difference.

Of course there is. The phrase "casually determined" allows for more possibilities than hard determinism. It allows for the possibility that not all things may be determined. It also allows for the possibility that things are determined to different degrees, etc...

No matter which words you use, the concept of not having free will leads to all the things in the universe happening as a process directly from the first energy involved. If you don't realize this now you need to think about it some more.

Of course I 'realize' this, I just don't see your point...

The concept of God as a being has to do with constitutionalized religion and thus has no meaning in philosophy.

I agree that religion is not philosophy, but the concept of "predetermined" implies a God.

I agree with your second thought, predeterminism versus free will is a pointless debate, which means we are approaching philosophy (possibly our understanding of time) wrong.

Determinism vs. Free Will is a pointless debate. Predeterminism is even more absurd.

- August

ZakeD

10th December 2008, 23:45

Found an interesting quote by Marx..

"Is it not a delusion to substitute for the individual with his real motives, with multifarious social circumstances pressing upon him, the abstraction of “free-will” — one among the many qualities of man for man himself!"

Sorry for necroposting. Didn't want to make a new thread for just that.

Le People

12th December 2008, 02:53

I don't see how one can prove the validitiy of either free will or determinisim. Our only knowlege of the supposed laws of nature are through our perception. Everyone's sense of perception is uniquely different, for if it weren't we'd be the same. The two swallow each other up by the following:
1. Determinism is only determinism due to how we percieve our existence (free will triumphs)
2. Our perception is deteremined by socologoical and biological factors. (determinism triumphs)
I'm of the thought that we are dealt a hand, as in our historical situation, and we can do what we will with it. Now that doesn't mean we can do whatever the hell we want; we can only do what our historical situation allows us. But the desicion is not determined by my conditions alone, otherwise what would be the point of counciousness? Perhaps its all just Nihilism!

h0lmes

12th December 2008, 03:14

There is also 'Agent Causation' which is the view that people or more specifically 'agents' can be the cause of events. Not necessarily my view, just throwing it out there.

alpharowe3

12th December 2008, 06:26

No free will, simple as that... people who claim it exists just cant handle the truth... its just a sad fact. I have never made a decision that wasn't influenced by the current situation & by past exp.

Decolonize The Left

15th December 2008, 21:08

I'm of the thought that we are dealt a hand, as in our historical situation, and we can do what we will with it. Now that doesn't mean we can do whatever the hell we want; we can only do what our historical situation allows us. But the desicion is not determined by my conditions alone, otherwise what would be the point of counciousness? Perhaps its all just Nihilism!

This isn't coherent.

You are correct that an individual human being gains self-awareness and constructs an identity within a historical situation. You are also correct that that human being has a will.

You are incorrect in that the 'decision' (which no one has been able to define) is "not determined by my conditions alone." For in the first place, you have assumed hard determinism in searching for conditions. In the second place, if a decision is not determined by conditions, it cannot be determined. And in the third place, you cannot justify decision making by "what would be the point of consciousness."

There is no "point" of consciousness other than it being evolutionarily beneficial.

- August

Diagoras

20th December 2008, 08:27

Not purposefully trying to keep the thread from dying here, just putting in my two labor vouchers... also, I read only the first page of this thread, so if it has already been covered, ignore me...

Definitions are very important here. I consider myself quite firmly a determinist, because I am an atheist (and thus a materialist), and view life as just as beholden to the laws of the universe as anything else. The neurons firing in my brain that lead to my actions, my self-perception and my ideas are not being willed by any sort of ghost in a machine, but rather are simply responding to stimuli (albeit in a matrix of interaction that is more complex than one billiard ball bumping another billiard ball and causing it to move). This does not exclude randomness, a la quantum theory, however. It simply means that there are no "active agents" of causation in the universe, working independently of the mechanics of the physical universe. Our faulty perception of our consciousness as some "thing" independent of even our brains, let alone the universe, is the root of the problem (co-dependent with religion) behind "free will" propositions (aside from, you know, the lack of meaningful, comprehensible definitions).

I enjoyed this article discussing how with even just a simple action like moving your finger, your brain actually commands the action before your conscious mind is aware of it. Science is nifty :thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1::
[edit: I can't post links yet, so just google- "wired free will" and select the one titled 'Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them']

Le People

27th December 2008, 04:08

This isn't coherent.

You are correct that an individual human being gains self-awareness and constructs an identity within a historical situation. You are also correct that that human being has a will.

You are incorrect in that the 'decision' (which no one has been able to define) is "not determined by my conditions alone." For in the first place, you have assumed hard determinism in searching for conditions. In the second place, if a decision is not determined by conditions, it cannot be determined. And in the third place, you cannot justify decision making by "what would be the point of consciousness."

There is no "point" of consciousness other than it being evolutionarily beneficial.

- August

How is consciousness evolutionary beneficial? I'm not saying this to be arguementive, but rather as a new subject we could perhaps philophise about in another thread.

casper

27th December 2008, 06:04

free will seems to me to be a nonsensical term.

if things follow a pattern, then they can be considered predictable, and determinism can be used as a model. if things are found to occur within a certain range of possibility, we can use statistics. if a thing is found to occur unpredictably and unrestricted, then we likely wouldn't notice it, but lets say we did, we'll just incorporated it into the model of our existence that something truly random and not following the patterns of experience can occur, which logically makes sense, noticing a trend or pattern is no guarantee that it will continue, we just hope it will.

freewill suggest that there is thing that is neither random, or determined, and that this thing takes in information and decides what to do based off that information... so freewill suggest that there is a non-random, non-determined thing that determines based off of some type of external input. If we test a person,( lets say we posses a memory machine that can put some one's mind back to their orginal state when tested) and that person behaves the same every time, determinism, if the person doesn't behave occording to a pattern, randomess. what else is there?

casper

27th December 2008, 06:42

By deciding which one is better... process of elimination I guess. how do you decide which one is better? keep following the thoughts, keep asking how, you'll stop believing in free will once you decide to actually ask the obvious... the process of elimination and deciding which is better involves stimuli from the "outside" world...

also i would like to point out that there is no you, no i, no it, there simply is.
(most of the distinctions and category we use are useful illusions)
there is no such thing as a thing in itself

How is consciousness evolutionary beneficial? I'm not saying this to be arguementive, but rather as a new subject we could perhaps philophise about in another thread.
what is consciousness? awareness of being aware of something? if so, then the realization that while you were aware of something, you were in a certain state, could lead to things beneficial to survival. like noticing well you were aware of the movements of the grass you became aware that there was a rather large cat moving in them, could lead to ideas concerning how the cat influenced the grass and how you became aware of the movements, leading to better self knowledge and knowledge of the situation, knowledge is power. in sort, perhaps self-awareness allows for better correlation. like correlating that when the grass moves like that, then you shouldn't go near it, due to the fact that a tiger might make you aware of pain. in such a situation you are aware that you will be aware of something undesirable if such or such occurs, thus you'll take actions to not allow such a thing to occur.

Le People

28th December 2008, 03:24

casper

28th December 2008, 03:52

But why are we aware of abstractions? After all, philosophy, religion, art, and the sort have nothing to do with hunting and gathering, which if we would of stayed with that, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. In your example with the tiger, why is it undesirable to be injured? Why do we avoid death?
maybe the ones with a tendency to avoid death for what ever reason lived longer and produced more offspring.(small mutations from dna copying errors occur everyday, if i remember my freshman biology class well, also environmental factors play roles as well) philosophy, religion, art; they may not have to do much with hunting and gathering, but they can help with surviving. injury decreases ones chance of survival, in some situations and environments, if you don't will to survive, you won't. so the will to not being injured comes from the will to survivial, the will to survivial could come from the fact that in some situations, those who willed to survive we're the only ones who had a chance.

should we keep this thread on topic, or should be just change the subject? anybody else have anything to say about free will?

Le People

28th December 2008, 03:54

Let's make a new thread.

Decolonize The Left

28th December 2008, 04:56

Let's make a new thread.

That would be a good idea - feel free to start it yourself.

- August

mattskramer

1st January 2009, 01:35

Wow. You guys are deep. I think that people have free will to the extent that they realize that they have choices. I think that I have free will. For, I can choose to have a veggie-burger, small salad, and water or a Burger King whopper, a king-size serving of French fries, and a soda. Yet, that is as far as my intellectualizing goes on this issue.

Mister X

1st January 2009, 09:19

Free will does not exist.
Everything we do is a response to the material world and directly dependent on the objective conditions.
That being said determinism is not correct either.

gilhyle

1st January 2009, 14:27

The will exists, a phenomenon of formulating intentions prior to acting. It does not universally apply. Often we act without a prior, distinguishable process of intent formulation.

The will is arbitrary where there is no self-interest or no commitments - thus 'free'. Such 'free' will is rare, since we are rarely in environments where we have no interest or prior commitments.

Where this is not the case the will is influenced, thus to some extent not 'free'. In those situations the process of formulating intent involves - even on the simplest rationalist models (ignoring the central influence of emotions on the development of intents) - recognising what is practical and within what is practical - where we have that luxury - what is preferable. Thus it involves the recognition of 'necessity', i.e. what is practical.

Separate from the actual phenomenon of the will, there is the religious mystifaction of consciousness, particularly - in the Christian tradition - in the work of St Augustine. This postulates a moral responsibility to 'God' arising from our responsibility to God for our actions. It exculpates 'God' from responsibility for events, notwithstanding 'God's' supposed providential role in history. This is a theological debate, thus entirely ideological.

That ideological debate has a secular form in which there is postulated to be a non-personal ethical standard to which we are obliged to comply, but not forced to comply. Vis a vis that supposed ethical standard, we are said to be 'free', just as we are said to be free vis a vis 'God'. In each case the purpose is the same - namely to exculpate the authority from responsibility for outcomes.

The concept of free will is therefore a concommitant of the division of one's view of reality into the 'good' that we are supposedly obliged to seek and the 'evil' that we are mired in. In other words, the concept of the free will is the medium through which our view of reality is sundered into ideals and reality, the basic framework of most ideologies.