NationStates Jolt Archive

Since I killed two other threads with this question, I thought it deserved its own thread. If anyone can answer, please do so intelligently.

Why do we do things?

Good and evil implies that we had a choice of doing one or the other. If we had no choice, if we had no alternative there can no other.
Determinism effectivelly negates ethics, there is no "good" or "evil" just a single string of events that effects the next.
Most of us believe in cause and effect. Yet no-one ever sees the consequences of this belief:

If everything has a cause and effect, how can there be free-will? How do you have a choice of doing either good or evil if some prior event caused you to act the way you do?

Even if the universe is indeterminant, as modern physics views it with the "uncertainty principle" it does not imply free-will.

From the scientific view, everything in the universe is made up of atoms, quarks, waves, whatever. In this view, all particle movement is determined by scientific laws. We are composed of such material. If atomic and molecular motion on a small scale determines how we act on a large scale, I ask again, how can you have free will? Are you really in control of every neuron in your brain?

If that doesn't make sense, I'll ask a different way. The moon is made up of atoms, like we are. It does not have free-will (unless someone wants to debate that, go ahead) How then are we different? Our biological functions are more complex than the moon's orbit, but in the end both are "governed" by the same physical laws.

And no cartesian "ghost in the machine," please.

Dude, that one is a little too deep for me.
The best I can do is: we have free will, because even though prior events may have a bearing on the choices we make, it is still our choice to have these events effect us in this way.
It's like how you can have a set of completely identical twins, who were raised the same and had the same experiences throughout their lives, with completely different personalities.
I personally know two sets of twins, both sets are rarely seen with only one twin present. Basically, each brother lives the same life as his twin, but their personalities are very different.
Set 1 (Rob and John): Rob is a destructive guy, you can't leave the house with him without someone's mailbox being smashed or something of the like. John is relaxed and relatively law abiding.
Set 2 (Mark and John): Mark is an outgoing, pot-smoking club kid, while John is a somewhat reclusive, pot-smoking nerd.

Well that's my take. If it doesn't make sense or my logic is flawed, just ignore me.

We do things because we want to, stuff happens because it's there, do things before you die or you'll end up with a barrel of unanswered questions and a pocketfull of depressed poems about existance.

You for got the "I don't know" option.

In reality, noone has any grounds to claim there is a deterministic or an indeterministic universe, a god in heaven or a god in yourself, or anything that can possibly bring this matter to a successful conclusion. I don't know, you don't know, and anyone who claims to is full of it.

The only way to believe in free will is to believe in the existence of the supernatural. Without acknowledging the supernatural this, and every other discussion, is meaningless because the outcome is predetermined. From a purely naturalist standpoint, free will is impossible due to the law of cause and effect. However if you bring in the supernatural you don't have to always obey the laws of nature. I believe in God and I believe that humans were made in his image. God is clearly 100% supernatural. Since we are not God, but only made similar to Him, we are not totally supernatural. We can still bleed, get tired and die. If we walk off a building, the laws of gravity would cause us to fall. However since we do have a supernatural aspect to us (a soul), we can override the absolute law of cause and effect and make decisions. So there still can be good and evil without throwing away the laws of nature.

I don't know any way to prove or disprove your assertion that the things we do are determined by forces acting on us. People in the same enviroments and in the same circumstances do react differently though so that suggests to me people do have free will.

You for got the "I don't know" option.

Damn, I always forget that one, sorry. Hell, that's what I would've put

I see most people have taken the first option.
To which I say this:
If everyone chooses what they are, who they become, how the act, and how they speak, it is a nearly impossible coincidence that everyone in a certain region chooses to speak the same language.

I have no recollection of learning English, but I'm pretty sure it was not a choice. If that's not good enough, how about eating when you were an infant. A human yes? Were you choosing to do so? I think it was instinct, and you had no choice.

We do things because we want to, stuff happens because it's there, do things before you die or you'll end up with a barrel of unanswered questions and a pocketfull of depressed poems about existance.

I wouldn't mind dieing with just those two things.

The only way to believe in free will is to believe in the existence of the supernatural. Without acknowledging the supernatural this, and every other discussion, is meaningless because the outcome is predetermined. From a purely naturalist standpoint, free will is impossible due to the law of cause and effect. However if you bring in the supernatural you don't have to always obey the laws of nature. I believe in God and I believe that humans were made in his image. God is clearly 100% supernatural. Since we are not God, but only made similar to Him, we are not totally supernatural. We can still bleed, get tired and die. If we walk off a building, the laws of gravity would cause us to fall. However since we do have a supernatural aspect to us (a soul), we can override the absolute law of cause and effect and make decisions. So there still can be good and evil without throwing away the laws of nature.

God is a much bigger problem for free will than a materialistic universe is, the two combined(as in almost all christian belief) make free will completely impossible.

And concerning the "law of cause and effect" what happens when I decide to break it?

Nothing suggests that events are caused or than an event will effect another, it is merely a construction of the human mind which makes us believe such things.

And concerning the "law of cause and effect" what happens when I decide to break it?

You'd go down the empiricists' road, leading to the almost nihilist view of David Hume.

The only way to believe in free will is to believe in the existence of the supernatural. Without acknowledging the supernatural this, and every other discussion, is meaningless because the outcome is predetermined. From a purely naturalist standpoint, free will is impossible due to the law of cause and effect. However if you bring in the supernatural you don't have to always obey the laws of nature. I believe in God and I believe that humans were made in his image. God is clearly 100% supernatural. Since we are not God, but only made similar to Him, we are not totally supernatural. We can still bleed, get tired and die. If we walk off a building, the laws of gravity would cause us to fall. However since we do have a supernatural aspect to us (a soul), we can override the absolute law of cause and effect and make decisions. So there still can be good and evil without throwing away the laws of nature.

This is ghost in the machine.

A third alternative is that free will and determinism are aspects of the same entity.

Take random numbers for instance. There is nothing that will cause the value of one number to dictate what the next number will be, but when you plot enough numbers statistically, you wind up with a bell curve. Here is a case where you have free will creating determinism. Not only are the ideas not exclusive, but cannot exist apart.

A third alternative is that free will and determinism are aspects of the same entity.

Take random numbers for instance. There is nothing that will cause the value of one number to dictate what the next number will be, but when you plot enough numbers statistically, you wind up with a bell curve. Here is a case where you have free will creating determinism. Not only are the ideas not exclusive, but cannot exist apart.

But if an event is random, by definition you do not control the outcome.
This is a case of indeterminism wo/ free-will

The question goes around in circles unless and untill you define free-will. Sometimes I think people believe that free will means that we are free to be/do whatever we 'will'.
Unless free will simply means that it is possible for us to involve our 'will' as a cause in who we are, then there is not free-will.
If it is only a possibility then it must be remembered that there is inequality in the factors that facilitate or prohibit the possibility becoming an actuality. Not everyone can utilise free-will to the same degree, just as not everyone can run as far and fast as every other person. Like any other skills humans are capable, free-will is variable, some of us are more skilled at utilising free-will and some of us less skilled. The happy news is that like many skills, free-will can be exercised in such a way that one actually improves in their performance of it.

The question goes around in circles unless and untill you define free-will. Sometimes I think people believe that free will means that we are free to be/do whatever we 'will'.
Unless free will simply means that it is possible for us to involve our 'will' as a cause in who we are, then there is not free-will.
If it is only a possibility then it must be remembered that there is inequality in the factors that facilitate or prohibit the possibility becoming an actuality. Not everyone can utilise free-will to the same degree, just as not everyone can run as far and fast as every other person. Like any other skills humans are capable, free-will is variable, some of us are more skilled at utilising free-will and some of us less skilled. The happy news is that like many skills, free-will can be exercised in such a way that one actually improves in their performance of it.

OK, this is my rough definition:
Free-will: the ablity to determine by oneself the course of one's actions.

Which as you stated seems very much impossible.

I'm curious to what you mean by free-will as a "possibility" please extend.

I have exercised my Free Will and decided that Bjornoya is responsible for all my actions.

But if an event is random, by definition you do not control the outcome.
This is a case of indeterminism wo/ free-will

We never can control outcomes. All we can control is the choices we make. Chaos Theory works to explain this very well. Any slight change in initial conditions can lead to drastically different results. It is possible to understand the mechanics of two bodies bouncing off of each other, but that in no way means that one is able to predict the results of sending a steel ball through a pachinko machine.

I guess what I'm saying here is that we do have free will. It just doesn't matter as much as one would think.

I have exercised my Free Will and decided that Bjornoya is responsible for all my actions.

Sweet, I order you to give me money.

OK, this is my rough definition:
Free-will: the ablity to determine by oneself the course of one's actions.

Which as you stated seems very much impossible.

I'm curious to what you mean by free-will as a "possibility" please extend.
Climbing Mount Everest is a possibility for human beings, but not all human beings can and will climb Mount Everest. It's the same with free-will. The capacity to learn to utilise free-will to an extensive degree is not always realised, just as the capacity to learn the skills necessary, gather the appropriate equipment and execute a climb of Mount Everest is not always realised, nor is the capacity equally dispersed throughout the population, and the same is true of the factors that facilitate or prohibit free-will development/utilisation.

Sweet, I order you to give me money.

Damn you! I knew I should have went with someone less materialistic. *grumble*

I guess what I'm saying here is that we do have free will. It just doesn't matter as much as one would think.

So, we have the freedom to make the choice, but can't be held responsible for the outcome since we can't control it?
That fits with the scientific world view.

The problem still remains this: your choices, what you've though occurs within your brain. Brain is made up of atoms. Atoms have no free-will, just indeterminism. How then can you derive free-will, or the ability to control your choices from a being that is made of of particles that do not have this ability?

Damn you! I knew I should have went with someone less materialistic. *grumble*

LOL, philosophy humor, man its been a while.

BTW send checks to CLU mailbox 781

Even if the universe is indeterminant, as modern physics views it with the "uncertainty principle" it does not imply free-will.

no, but since it was the idea that the universe is deterministic that motivated the anti-free will position in the first place, it does put the game back in play - even if we take an incompatibilist approach.

no, but since it was the idea that the universe is deterministic that motivated the anti-free will position in the first place, it does put the game back in play - even if we take an incompatibilist approach.

Yes, let us try to work this through. I still see problems however.

Ok, try this.

Freedom to choose. Let us assume that a choice does not occur as a process, but in an instant.

If an event happens in an instant, it can also be spontanious. By definition, if something is spontaneous it need no previous action to force a reaction.

Maybe this destroys cause-and-effect as well?

But we'd still lack the control of this "spontaneous" event to call it free-will.

Freedom to choose. Let us assume that a choice does not occur as a process, but in an instant.


Well here's my actual perspective on it ...

I am Muslim. Five time a day praying, beard wearing Muslim. What many people would call a "fundamentalist" Muslim.

Yet, sometimes, I still drink a couple of beers. Why? Free Will.

Allah has already told me that intoxicants are "bad", but then again, if I am Muslim, that means I've given up my will to Allah. What that means is: If Allah truly doesn't want me to drink those beers, then I'd throw them up as soon as I sipped them because this mouth and stomach belongs to Allah!

In essence, Free Will is a myth, but also a necessity.

It's a quandry, ain't it? We've acheived conundrum! Set phasers on stun.

So, we have the freedom to make the choice, but can't be held responsible for the outcome since we can't control it?
That fits with the scientific world view.

The problem still remains this: your choices, what you've though occurs within your brain. Brain is made up of atoms. Atoms have no free-will, just indeterminism. How then can you derive free-will, or the ability to control your choices from a being that is made of of particles that do not have this ability?

Yes, brains have atoms in them, but it's not just any atoms in just any order. If anything, what constitutes a brain is the relation between the atoms, which is beyond the concepts of existence and non-existence.

If thoughts occur in one's brain, they're pretty much beyond the scope of existence and non-existence as well. So as for the question of free will and determinism? Yes, both....and neither.

In essence, Free Will is a myth, but also a necessity.

This is the way I view it as well. A societal judiciary sytem could hardly be effective without assuming people are responsible for their own actions. Perhaps we were forced to create free-will?

Yes, brains have atoms in them, but it's not just any atoms in just any order. If anything, what constitutes a brain is the relation between the atoms, which is beyond the concepts of existence and non-existence.

If thoughts occur in one's brain, they're pretty much beyond the scope of existence and non-existence as well. So as for the question of free will and determinism? Yes, both....and neither.

This is very interesting, an empirical argument maybe? But if you do this, what are the logical conclusions of this assumption? The way I interpret what you're saying is:

1) Our brains are where (if there is a where) a choice might take place.
2) Since I cannot see or otherwise interpret my brain, I do not know if it is subject to the laws which the rest of the observable world is accustommed to.

Is this what you mean, or am I way off? You are right in saying a brain consists of many atoms, and therefore their relationship to one another is of importance. A single atom cannot be called a "brain" atom unless it is part of the brain. I do not see how you reached the conclusion that thoughts in the brain are outside the realm of existence. If a though occurs as a series of neurons and synapse firings (?), then it should be in the realm of existence along with the rest of the atoms.

This is the way I view it as well. A societal judiciary sytem could hardly be effective without assuming people are responsible for their own actions. Perhaps we were forced to create free-will?

True ... imagine if it were the other way ... a viable argument in court would be "God made me do it!" or "Satan made me do it!"

That would suck most painfully.

True ... imagine if it were the other way ... a viable argument in court would be "God made me do it!" or "Satan made me do it!"

That would suck most painfully.

Man, those two would be really akward cell-mates.

The parameters of 'a thought' are then in question.

Is a thought an effect? The fact that we can attempt to describe a thought does not mean adequate description. If free will means the ability to bias the direction of thought, where does this 'will' come from? Clearly, definition and empiricism are not ways to go when considering free will.

But we can then dispose of some simple myths.

1. An omnipotent and omniscient God of whatever moral and cultural consistency does not obviate free will. Such an entity can't be said to have any impact on something we can't define.

2. We do not know about cause and effect (or 'observable cause and effect') simply because we never know what we are observing (are observers causing effects or are 'effects' creating observers, for example). We do not even know whether an effect, requiring a cause, therefore retroactively creates a chain of causality back to Event One.

Conclusions (missing out on many other points I might have made):

1) It is up to you to decide what to think about free will, and if you think that's not free will, that's your business too, or it is nobody's business since all of us lack free will.

2) What does it mean for morality, ethics etc? It means that we have to function as if we have free will if we don't, and yet we can choose to function as if we don't even if we do, because neither position is subject to proof, falsification or any other kind of test.

The parameters of 'a thought' are then in question.

Is a thought an effect? The fact that we can attempt to describe a thought does not mean adequate description. If free will means the ability to bias the direction of thought, where does this 'will' come from? Clearly, definition and empiricism are not ways to go when considering free will.

But we can then dispose of some simple myths.

1. An omnipotent and omniscient God of whatever moral and cultural consistency does not obviate free will. Such an entity can't be said to have any impact on something we can't define.

2. We do not know about cause and effect (or 'observable cause and effect') simply because we never know what we are observing (are observers causing effects or are 'effects' creating observers, for example). We do not even know whether an effect, requiring a cause, therefore retroactively creates a chain of causality back to Event One.

Conclusions (missing out on many other points I might have made):

1) It is up to you to decide what to think about free will, and if you think that's not free will, that's your business too, or it is nobody's business since all of us lack free will.

2) What does it mean for morality, ethics etc? It means that we have to function as if we have free will if we don't, and yet we can choose to function as if we don't even if we do, because neither position is subject to proof, falsification or any other kind of test.

If we decide to eliminate our belief in cause and effect, I think it may also destroy logic.

If this: than that
Why this: Because of that
Logic I see as a process.
Processes happen over time
In order to evaluate events over time we must assume cause-and-effect

Perhaps I am horribly wrong here.

I would not say empiricism is not a way to go when describing the "free-will" phenomena. It leads to some very strange conclusions, but if we are not afraid as philosophers should be, all is well.

A pompous thought I came up with as a youth was this: God is free, and has free-will. There is no way in this mechanistic world I can have free-will. However I feel responsibility, I feel control, I have free-will. Therefore, I and the rest of humanity are God.

Your last bit reminds me of what someone said that was really important, but I can't remember who. If you knew for a fact that humans had free-will, or didn't have free-will, would you or could you act any differently?

But I still pursue it, just for fun.