Free will versus determinism

[Dexter Sinister]

You have failed this test.

You're testing me? Get over yourself. It's not that I don't understand Lessans, I just think he's wrong. Understanding doesn't imply agreement.

I just finished listening the lecture Dexter posted. It certainly is a thoughtful one. But I think the whole dilemma is very well summarized in the last question answered by the lecturer.

I agree, Dennett hasn't made the case, but at least he's clear and well informed. I'm still withholding judgment on this one. I've never seen a convincing argument either way, though I do find it hard to credit the ultimate deterministic position, that if we could rewind the universe back 13.7 billion years and start over again that everything would turn out again exactly the same way, or more immediately, if we could rewind the evolution of life back 3.5 billion years we'd be having this conversation again.

 

[s_lone]

I feel like I'm getting nowhere fast.

Where do you want this to go?

I agree, Dennett hasn't made the case, but at least he's clear and well informed. I'm still withholding judgment on this one. I've never seen a convincing argument either way, though I do find it hard to credit the ultimate deterministic position, that if we could rewind the universe back 13.7 billion years and start over again that everything would turn out again exactly the same way, or more immediately, if we could rewind the evolution of life back 3.5 billion years we'd be having this conversation again.

While I was a bit frustrated at the end, I really enjoyed his lecture. The fact that early on, he talked about this idea that free will could be possible in scientific terms if you accept that it could have something to do with quantum indeterminacy instantly hooked me to what he had to say. From what I understood he clearly didn't think that free will had anything to do with quantum indeterminacy, but at least he mentioned the idea and that showed me he was able to look at the issue from a very broad point of view.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Where do you want this to go?

Think that really matters? It was all determined from the moment she made the OP.


edited to add a p.s. I AM still thinking about that post you made in the "So what does happen when you die" thread, just haven't had time to think in detail about a response. That thread seems to have dropped off the popular list, so maybe I'll just PM you my thoughts when I get them organized rather than dredge it up again.

 

[s_lone]

Think that really matters? It was all determined from the moment she made the OP.


edited to add a p.s. I AM still thinking about that post you made in the "So what does happen when you die" thread, just haven't had time to think in detail about a response. That thread seems to have dropped off the popular list, so maybe I'll just PM you my thoughts when I get them organized rather than dredge it up again.

I'm a patient man. There's no pressure at all though. We usually end up exchanging in the threads that have something to do with philosophy in general and somehow everything we end up discussing is all related. So if your thoughts about what I posted end up in another thread or discussion that's more than fine. Good night Dex...

 

[peacegirl]

You're testing me? Get over yourself. It's not that I don't understand Lessans, I just think he's wrong. Understanding doesn't imply agreement.

Just thinking he's wrong isn't good enough. There are many discoveries that people thought at one time were wrong, but it was proven later that they were right.

I agree, Dennett hasn't made the case, but at least he's clear and well informed. I'm still withholding judgment on this one. I've never seen a convincing argument either way, though I do find it hard to credit the ultimate deterministic position, that if we could rewind the universe back 13.7 billion years and start over again that everything would turn out again exactly the same way, or more immediately, if we could rewind the evolution of life back 3.5 billion years we'd be having this conversation again.

I don't know about having this conversation again if we were to rewind evolution back 3.5 billion years but I do agree that if we could rewind the universe back and start over again everything would turn out the same way. But that does not mean we have no say in how the future will turn out. That's where the conventional definition and Lessans' proposed definition part ways.

 

[JLM]

Just thinking he's wrong isn't good enough. There are many discoveries that people thought at one time were wrong, but it was proven later that they were right.



I don't know about having this conversation again if we were to rewind evolution back 3.5 billion years but I do agree that if we could rewind the universe back and start over again everything would turn out the same way. But that does not mean we have no say in how the future will turn out. That's where the conventional definition and Lessans' proposed definition part ways.

Do you ever stop for a breath? :lol:

 

[peacegirl]

Where do you want this to go?

I don't really know where I want the conversation to go, but I hope people are less defensive and more trusting as far as my motives. Otherwise, there will be more and more pages of condemnation with no real substance.

While I was a bit frustrated at the end, I really enjoyed his lecture. The fact that early on, he talked about this idea that free will could be possible in scientific terms if you accept that it could have something to do with quantum indeterminacy instantly hooked me to what he had to say. From what I understood he clearly didn't think that free will had anything to do with quantum indeterminacy, but at least he mentioned the idea and that showed me he was able to look at the issue from a very broad point of view.

I would like to say one thing about indeterminacy. When throwing dice into the air, the outcome is unpredictable because we don't yet know how the the dice will fall. Nevertheless, how it will fall is completely determined by physical laws. It is assumed that if man's will is not free, we could predict behavior in the same way, if we could only know all the variables. But this is unnecessary. The problem with the conventional definition that Lessans was trying to correct is that nothing 'causes' a person to act a certain way. Therefore, you can't blame his actions on genetics, environment, or God. This would imply that something other than himself caused the action. Dennett is correct in the sense that man has the ability to move out of the way of a falling brick, whereas a pool ball doesn't have this ability. What everyone is so worried about if we followed the reasoning of determinism is that people could then say, "I couldn't help killing this person because I was caused to do this by something beyond my control." That's one of the things about determinism that have turned philosophers off, since it would remove all responsibility. Until people understand Lessans' definition, which increases responsiblity, they will reject the explanation as to why man has no free will.

Do you ever stop for a breath? :lol:

Yes, in my sleep. I feel fresh and ready to go again. Kind of like the energizer bunny. ;-) Actually, I have chronic fatigue syndrome. I don't know if you've heard of this illness, but it's not fun. It takes all your energy away. I actually should be conserving my energy, but I can't help myself. This knowledge is just too important.

 

[JLM]

I don't envy anyone with C.F.S. (being a bit of an insomniac myself). You've gotten yourself attached to some theory which if examined methodically using one's own past experiences just doesn't stand up. While there may be a series of events that are repetitive in my day, the order of events can change at a moment's notice, by something as simple as being greeted by the unexpected presence of a friend who wants to go for coffee. So to put it succinctly "determinism" is BULL****. :lol:

 

[s_lone]

I don't really know where I want the conversation to go, but I hope people are less defensive and more trusting as far as my motives. Otherwise, there will be more and more pages of condemnation with no real substance.

If your motive is to make us new disciples of Lessans vision of humanity, I think it's safe to say you should save your energy and stop now.

I would like to say one thing about indeterminacy. When throwing dice into the air, the outcome is unpredictable because we don't yet know how the the dice will fall. Nevertheless, how it will fall is completely determined by physical laws. It is assumed that if man's will is not free, we could predict behavior in the same way, if we could only know all the variables.

That is indeed what classical determinism states. That everything is predictable in theory. The problem is that quantum physics seem to offer a certain level of indeterminacy, which puts a wild card into the mix. Once indeterminacy comes into the mix, classical determinism falls apart. At least the way I understand it.

But this is unnecessary. The problem with the conventional definition that Lessans was trying to correct is that nothing 'causes' a person to act a certain way.

But Lessans does insist that when faced with many possibilities, we always necessarily go in the direction that offers us the most satisfaction. In other words, it is in our nature to choose what brings us the most satisfaction. Natural selection has programmed us that way. So ultimately, what causes us to act a certain way is the natural laws that ended up making humans that have a capacity to choose, but only what brings most satisfaction.

If Lessans states that nothing causes us to act a certain way, he has to demonstrate it. He has to back it up. Because in a purely deterministic world, events are caused. If he's going in the direction of determinism to the point of saying we do not have free will, then there's no reason for the human mind to escape causal connections with the rest of the fabric of reality. There's no reason for the human mind to be out of the equation. Or to be outside the pool table where all balls interact.

Lessans is trying to have it both ways. He states we don't have free will but that because nobody or nothing can force us to do anything, we are 100% responsible for our actions. But there's no free will right? We are forced to do what we do according to the way our minds have been programmed by natural selection.

I'm trying to follow his view but I find it incoherent. One of the reasons none of us are buying Lessans view is that you both failed to demonstrate its coherence.

Now I guess you must explain to me what I don't understand!

 

[peacegirl]

If your motive is to make us new disciples of Lessans vision of humanity, I think it's safe to say you should save your energy and stop now.



That is indeed what classical determinism states. That everything is predictable in theory. The problem is that quantum physics seem to offer a certain level of indeterminacy, which puts a wild card into the mix. Once indeterminacy comes into the mix, classical determinism falls apart. At least the way I understand it.



But Lessans does insist that when faced with many possibilities, we always necessarily go in the direction that offers us the most satisfaction. In other words, it is in our nature to choose what brings us the most satisfaction. Natural selection has programmed us that way. So ultimately, what causes us to act a certain way is the natural laws that ended up making humans that have a capacity to choose, but only what brings most satisfaction.

If Lessans states that nothing causes us to act a certain way, he has to demonstrate it. He has to back it up. Because in a purely deterministic world, events are caused. If he's going in the direction of determinism to the point of saying we do not have free will, then there's no reason for the human mind to escape causal connections with the rest of the fabric of reality. There's no reason for the human mind to be out of the equation. Or to be outside the pool table where all balls interact.

Lessans is trying to have it both ways. He states we don't have free will but that because nobody or nothing can force us to do anything, we are 100% responsible for our actions. But there's no free will right? We are forced to do what we do according to the way our minds have been programmed by natural selection.

I'm trying to follow his view but I find it incoherent. One of the reasons none of us are buying Lessans view is that you both failed to demonstrate its coherence.

Now I guess you must explain to me what I don't understand!

I'm not trying to make you disciples of anyone. I'm just trying to share knowledge. In my next post (I have something to do right now) I will try to help you understand. In order for you to get the most out of the book, it is key that you understand the difference in the definition Lessans is proposing and the old definition, which has caused a false dichotomy between these two opposing ideologies.

I don't envy anyone with C.F.S. (being a bit of an insomniac myself). You've gotten yourself attached to some theory which if examined methodically using one's own past experiences just doesn't stand up. While there may be a series of events that are repetitive in my day, the order of events can change at a moment's notice, by something as simple as being greeted by the unexpected presence of a friend who wants to go for coffee. So to put it succinctly "determinism" is BULL****. :lol:

That's because you don't understand anything I have shared thus far. You are basing your entire refutation on the standard definition, which I told people not to. Were you not listening? You really need to open your mind and listen carefully to the explanation or you will continue to argue against determinism. I don't mean to be harsh, but it really bothers me that people keep coming back to the old definition when I said early on that this knowledge has nothing to do with the old definition.

 

[JLM]

I believe in simplicity, any philosophy I would buy into can be explained in one short paragraph, and if it can't, it just won't "fly". (I was able to tell you in a few short sentences why it doesn't "fly") :smile:

 

[peacegirl]

I believe in simplicity, any philosophy I would buy into can be explained in one short paragraph, and if it can't, it just won't "fly". (I was able to tell you in a few short sentences why it doesn't "fly") :smile:

And you were wrong. Yes, I could say to you in one sentence why man's will is not free. I've said it before. Man's will is not free because he is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. And guess what everybody would say? It's too simplified. So go figure.

If your motive is to make us new disciples of Lessans vision of humanity, I think it's safe to say you should save your energy and stop now.
That is indeed what classical determinism states. That everything is predictable in theory. The problem is that quantum physics seem to offer a certain level of indeterminacy, which puts a wild card into the mix. Once indeterminacy comes into the mix, classical determinism falls apart. At least the way I understand it.

Nothing in the physical world is indetermined. We might predict something that did not encompass all of the factors as to why something occurred the way it did, but nothing happens without a cause. The problem when it comes to determinism is that the accurate definition does not negate choice. But, once again, the word choice is misleading for it indicates that we can choose one thing just as equally as another. This is false. What makes will not free is that there is only one choice that can be made each and every moment of time and it cannot be the one that offers the least satisfaction among available alternatives. It must be (this is not negotiable) the one that gives every indication of being the best possible choice (or the one gives us the greatest satisfaction) under our particular circumstances.

But Lessans does insist that when faced with many possibilities, we always necessarily go in the direction that offers us the most satisfaction. In other words, it is in our nature to choose what brings us the most satisfaction. Natural selection has programmed us that way. So ultimately, what causes us to act a certain way is the natural laws that ended up making humans that have a capacity to choose, but only what brings most satisfaction.

That is true. It is only after our choice is made that we could not have done otherwise. Until we make a choice, we are able to contemplate in order to know which choice will give us the most satisfaction. I'm not sure if it's natural selection that has programmed us this way, but it is definitely an invariable law of our nature.

If Lessans states that nothing causes us to act a certain way, he has to demonstrate it. He has to back it up. Because in a purely deterministic world, events are caused. If he's going in the direction of determinism to the point of saying we do not have free will, then there's no reason for the human mind to escape causal connections with the rest of the fabric of reality. There's no reason for the human mind to be out of the equation. Or to be outside the pool table where all balls interact.

Who is saying we're out of the equation? Lessans was just clarifying the term in a way that gives us choice, even though the choice was not free. s_lone, in one sense you are understanding greater satisfaction, and then you are telling me that events are caused. Of course events are caused. But they are caused of our own volition, not because something external to us is making us do certain things against our will.

Lessans is trying to have it both ways. He states we don't have free will but that because nobody or nothing can force us to do anything, we are 100% responsible for our actions. But there's no free will right? We are forced to do what we do according to the way our minds have been programmed by natural selection.

No, you are missing the whole two-sided equation. He is not trying to have it both ways. He is trying to reconcile these two opposing ideologies in a way that satisfies both sides. Boy, this is going to be harder than I thought. Read this again and maybe you'll get it.

If someone was to say — "I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances," which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he admits he was not free to act otherwise, that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control."

"It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free."

Another friend commented, "You may be satisfied but I’m not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do — just as you mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in can make me do it because over this I have mathematical control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?"

"How about that, he brought out something I never would have thought of."

"All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable, however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend pointed out, that man has mathematical control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

I'm trying to follow his view but I find it incoherent. One of the reasons none of us are buying Lessans view is that you both failed to demonstrate its coherence.

Now I guess you must explain to me what I don't understand!

I'm trying my best. Try to follow what he's saying here instead of thinking in terms of the classical definition. You will never understand it otherwise.

The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word ‘cause’, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law which makes the motion of all life just as harmonious as the solar system — because we are these laws.

 

[s_lone]

I'm trying my best. Try to follow what he's saying here instead of thinking in terms of the classical definition. You will never understand it otherwise.

The problem is I don't agree with his version. At least the classical version of determinism, while debilitating to humans, is consistent with itself. I understand he's trying to go beyond the classical definition of determinism... A new definition. But I fail to see how he succeeds.

Is he saying we have control over what we want and don't want? Control over what we desire for ourselves? If yes, than this is a sort of free will and this goes against his statement that we have none. And if we don't have control over what we desire than this goes against his statement that man is ultimately fully responsible for his actions.

 

[peacegirl]

The problem is I don't agree with his version. At least the classical version of determinism, while debilitating to humans, is consistent with itself. I understand he's trying to go beyond the classical definition of determinism... A new definition. But I fail to see how he succeeds.

I believe that's because you don't see the relation yet. It's like an 'aha' moment that hasn't come. I'll keep trying to help you as long as you keep trying.

Is he saying we have control over what we want and don't want? Control over what we desire for ourselves? If yes, than this is a sort of free will and this goes against his statement that we have none. And if we don't have control over what we desire than this goes against his statement that man is ultimately fully responsible for his actions.

Yes, he is saying we have control over not doing what we don't want to do. In other words, nothing, not heredity, environment or anything else you care to throw in, can make us do something against our will, and in this sense he uses the term 'free will'. Throughout the book he writes, "He did it of his own free will", which only means he did it because he wanted to do it; he did it of his own desire. But this does not mean his will is free because his desire not to do it was in the direction of greater satisfaction. Therefore, he has control over the former, but none over the latter.

This in no way goes against his statement. The two-sided equation brings both sides together. That's what leads to this major discovery, for he knows the world is compelled to excuse him because his will is not free, but before he does something to hurt another, he knows he is responsible since nothing can make him do to another what he makes up his mind not to do, and when it fully dawns on him that no one in the world will ever blame him for this hurt to another, not even the person who is the one to be hurt, it is impossible for him to derive greater satisfaction as the preferable choice. If will was free, this could not be accomplished because he could choose what is worse for himself when a better choice is available, which is impossible.

 

[s_lone]

Yes, he is saying we have control over not doing what we don't want to do.

That's not the question I asked. Do we have control over what we desire? Yes or no?

Your ''answer'' ''we have control over not doing what we don't want to do'' contradicts the notion that we can't choose what brings us less satisfaction. Having control over not doing what we don't want to do implies that we do have the possibility to do what we don't to do... and there lies the contradiction.

 

[JLM]

And you were wrong. Yes, I could say to you in one sentence why man's will is not free. I've said it before. Man's will is not free because he is always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. And guess what everybody would say? It's too simplified. So go figure.

So what? That is what I've been saying for years, but more succinctly - "man is a greedy S.O.B."
And no I wasn't wrong. And you'd be wise to pay attention to J.LM.'s law = the amount of bullsh*t in a theory is directly proportional to the time it takes to explain it. :lol::lol: Have a nice day.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

There are many discoveries that people thought at one time were wrong, but it was proven later that they were right.

Far more common is the case where people who were initially thought to be cranks did indeed turn out to be cranks. Lessans is one of those.

 

[Curiosity]

S_Lone, JLM, DexterSinister, Karrie

Kudos to you and others' caring on this series of responses and proposals.

In other places, on other forums it could have become devastating.

You are good people as are the others I have missed naming.

 

[peacegirl]

That's not the question I asked. Do we have control over what we desire? Yes or no?

Yes!!!

Your ''answer'' ''we have control over not doing what we don't want to do'' contradicts the notion that we can't choose what brings us less satisfaction. Having control over not doing what we don't want to do implies that we do have the possibility to do what we don't to do... and there lies the contradiction.

No, you're incorrect. We have control to do or not to do something, because nothing can make us do anything we don't want. Of course we have the possibility of doing what we don't want when the alternative is worse. You're still not getting the concept of greater satisfaction. This was made very clear in the first chapter. We may not want to get up and go to work, but the option of not going and having to face our bills is still worse. There is no contradiction.

Far more common is the case where people who were initially thought to be cranks did indeed turn out to be cranks. Lessans is one of those.

Then leave Dexter. If you are so sure that Lessans is a crank, then find another thread that's more interesting. Why are you getting greater satisfaction being here? For entertainment purposes? This conversation is not for entertainment; it's for enlightenment. ;-)

So what? That is what I've been saying for years, but more succinctly - "man is a greedy S.O.B."
And no I wasn't wrong. And you'd be wise to pay attention to J.LM.'s law = the amount of bullsh*t in a theory is directly proportional to the time it takes to explain it. :lol::lol: Have a nice day.

JLM's law is not immutable, but I do understand your reasoning. A lot of people go on and on and beat around the bush, not really saying much of anything. But that's not me. :roll:

 

[s_lone]

Yes!!!



No, you're incorrect. We have control to do or not to do something, because nothing can make us do anything we don't want. Of course we have the possibility of doing what we don't want when the alternative is worse. You're still not getting the concept of greater satisfaction. This was made very clear in the first chapter. We may not want to get up and go to work, but the option of not going and having to face our bills is still worse. There is no contradiction.

All right. Thanks for the clear answer about desires. We are making some progress at least.

I understand very well the concept of greater satisfaction. That was made very clear. If we have to choose between 2 things that are not desirable, we will clearly choose the the one that is the least undesirable.

Let us come back to your claim that we have control over our desires.

Let's say I have to choose between eating a big fat greasy tasty meal and a healthier but not-so-tasty meal. Which will I choose?

The dilemma is that the tasty meal will bring instant satisfaction because it's so yummy. But the healthy meal will bring satisfaction on the long term because of health benefits.

Hmmm... that's a head scratcher. I really want that greasy meal. I'm craving for it. God it looks good!!!

But wait! I can control my desires right? I just need to convince myself that I don't desire the fatty food and voila! My problem is solved!

But is it that simple? Can we really choose not to desire something if we desire it in the first place?