Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aka-Pulc0 t1_j1yskma wrote

Reply to comment by Aka-Pulc0 in An Argument in Favour of Unpredictable, Hard Determinism by CryptoTrader1024

Replying to myself as a true beginner haha. I've just watched two well-made videos on the subject from Monsieur Phi (It's in French, but the English dubs are decent Link 1 & Link 2). I agree with the content but I am just paraphrasing here.

There is a philosophical confusion about freedom and free will. Freedom can be defined as (1) being able to make different choices in the same situation and (2) making that decision without being influenced by any external factors. Therefore, being free means being able to determine yourself in a deterministic world, and that sounds like a godly power. This definition seems to be the classical, enlightenment, view of freedom, not mine. But that definition is a philosophical definition of Freedom and not how it is perceived intuitively by common folks (including philosophers) and it s not the definition of Free will.

Free will is simpler than Freedom. Free will is based on (1) I can exert some control over my decision (2) I can deliberate and choose between different options (and not be forced to pick one ie: at gunpoint).

These 2 definitions seem close but the devil is in the details.

Scenario 1 : I wake up extremely sick on Monday and can't go to work. Not going to work is a decision that was determined by external causes, with no control nor different options to choose from. There was no freedom nor free will in this scenario.

Scenario 2 : I wake up on Monday feeling fine, debate whether or not I should go to work, and decide to stay. I had several real options to choose from, deliberated, and freely choose not to go. We can debate on the Freedom part but there was free will here.

Scenario 3 : I wake up, and debate wether or not I should go, remembered that my boss warned me that I ll get fired if I don't show up again. I had several real options and deliberate but the decision was forced on me. Hence no free will.

Scenario 4 : I wake up, debate whether I should go or not, and decide to stay, but, unknown to me, my car is actually broken and I would not have been able to go even if I wanted to. I had no freedom to choose because either way, I would have had to stay, but still used my free will to decide to stay. This is a Franckfurt case where you believe you can choose even if you really cant.

All 4 scenarios illustrate the grey area between Freedom and free will. In a deterministic universe, true Freedom (in the metaphysical definition as stated above) seems impossible, yet Free will is possible. There is a compatibility between the two (hence, compatibilism). Because there is a place for Free will, there is a use for our moral system and justice overall. We are responsible for our own actions as long as we had some control over them and as long as we deliberate and we can choose between them.

I am no expert on the subject, feel free (lol) to poke holes in my block of text =)

9

CryptoTrader1024 OP t1_j1z87om wrote

yes, you are referring to a colloquial definition of free will, or perhaps a compatibilist one. That is, you think that free will is compatible with a deterministic universe. This is a totally valid position to hold. The question is whether we think that this "freedom" is indeed "enough". And that's where I would say that it just isn't. Yes, it serves it's purpose in every-day life, and in normal conversation we all talk about choices, etc.

But if we think about what is fundamentally true in the world, I think this compatibilist version of free will is just weaksauce. No "choices" really exist, except in our imagination. If possessing a mental image of imagined options is "free will" then free will means very little I think. And, furthermore, the imagined list of choices in your mind's eye would also have been determined by prior causes, such that you can only imagine those choices that you are determined to imagine.

I think neuroscience throws another wrench into your common sense reasoning. Namely, the entity that you call "yourself", the "you" is much less of a concrete thing than it appears subjectively. So when you talk about "you" making a choice, this fact further complicates it. Really, there exists a brain that has various inputs and outputs, and it acts perfectly deterministically in connection to the unique evolution of the universe and it's initial conditions, and that's it. The "you" and "choices" are all abstract concepts that we "recognize" but which are not fixed ontological objects or real things.

5

XiphosAletheria t1_j1zpvyd wrote

> No "choices" really exist, except in our imagination. If possessing a mental image of imagined options is "free will" then free will means very little I think.

What makes you think they don't really exist? I mean, the universe as a whole is an non-living system, yet some objects in it have the emergent property of being alive. The universe as a whole is a non-conscious system, yet some objects in it have the emergent property of being conscious. The universe as a whole is a deterministic (non-choosing) system, yet some objects in it have the emergent property of being free-willed (making choices). And that is, after all, how we experience ourselves, as living, conscious, free-willed beings. Mostly the arguments in favor of determinism seem to be arguments from ignorance - I can't explain how free will could exist, so it must not be real! But I think this is just the prejudice of a society that overvalues science, which has little interest in the subjective experiences of people because they are not something science is well-equipped to handle.

3

CryptoTrader1024 OP t1_j1zscfc wrote

I'm not sure you quite understand the argument, or you're arguing for a kind of dualism where the mind is not part of the world. Or you're arguing for magic, such that the laws of causation that govern everything else in the universe, somehow don't govern the electro-chemical reactions in your head? Which one is it?

You seem fine with the idea that the universe is deterministic. But then you say that some parts of the universe (humans, for example) are non-deterministic. How can you claim this, without invoking magic?

8

XiphosAletheria t1_j1ztqek wrote

>You seem fine with the idea that the universe is deterministic. But then you say that some parts of the universe (humans, for example) are non-deterministic. How can you claim this, without invoking magic?

The same way I am fine both with the idea that the universe is non-living and that some parts of it are living. Or that it is non-conscious yet some parts of it are conscious. That you (or I) cannot currently explain a given phenomenon doesn't mean that the answer has to be magic, or that the phenomenon somehow isn't real. That's just an argument from ignorance.

0

CryptoTrader1024 OP t1_j209z8a wrote

I've described a mechanism that suggests that everything follows a deterministic path, including our choices. This mechanism seems to conform to everything we know about how the world works (let's just assume this is so).

You are making a claim about how the universe works that differs from mine, yet you do not support this in any way. You don't propose a mechanism or principle, or reason for why it works the way you say. The only thing you present is a sort of allegory about how parts of something must not share the same qualities as the whole. But how does this preserve free will, or indeterminacy?

4

XiphosAletheria t1_j20jizx wrote

No, I am saying that the universe is deterministic. Its basic particles don't have choices. A ball bearing pushed rolling down a forking path at a particular angle must go left. A person starting on the same path will see that it forks, will recognize that there is a choice, and may shift right instead. You argue that the "choice" is an illusion, because you can't explain how a non-choosing system gave rise to choosing beings. That's fine. I've seen people say the same of consciousness, and even (more rarely) of life. But the truth is that that in all cases amounts to no more than an argument from ignorance, a sort of fit of pique because science not only doesn't explain any of these things very well but probably can't.

0

CryptoTrader1024 OP t1_j20ps5e wrote

again, you seem to fundamentally not understand the problem. What are your choices? They are comprised of some set of neurons firing in one way or the other. Why do those neurons fire the way they do? well, their reactions are electrochemical, based on the strength of the stimulus in and out, and the relative amplification, or damping of the signal within the neuron. This all follows physical laws.

Now tell me... where, in this web of firing neurons is the "choice" exactly? everything just reacts to a prior cause, including all the parts of your brain. Unless, as I've stated before, you are willing to argue that the brain is magic, and is not beholden to these laws.

This is the opposite of an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying "I have no idea how free will could work", I'm saying that based on everything we know about how the brain works, and how physics works, the illusion of choice does not translate to actual choice.

7

XiphosAletheria t1_j20x5uk wrote

>Now tell me... where, in this web of firing neurons is the "choice" exactly?

No idea! Nevertheless I am aware of having choices. I still don't see why your inability to explain why should cause me to doubt the reality of my experience.

>This is the opposite of an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying "I have no idea how free will could work", I'm saying that based on everything we know about how the brain works, and how physics works, the illusion of choice does not translate to actual choice.

Yes, physics can't explain it, any more than it can explain life or consciousness, because those things are all emergent properties of complex systems, not direct consequences of simple actions.

−1

Aka-Pulc0 t1_j1zvqki wrote

agree. the difference is between freedom and free will. we can have free will as long as we have the illusion of choice because we cant perceived that there was no other choice possible (deterministic) Or, perhaps more correct, we perceived choices that were never possible.

In the videos I mentioned, they are using a series of thought experiment, including one about repeating the same day over and over again or even the same universe over and over again. And I trully believe that, if everything starts the same, then they should end the same and all choices, all decisions, everything will turned out exactly as it already has been. But still, as we perceived our choices as our own, we can believe in free will, even if it could perfectly be some coping mechanism.

On the last note, about me, myself and I. I also agree on the several "me" inside of me. I believe in an non conscious part of my brain making or influecing way more than I wish to admit (I dont think about breathing or I dont "think" most of the decision I make in a day). I think there is a more conscious me and also that when I say "I think" there is a thinking me and the "I" that observe the one thinking. Well it s complicated

2

VitriolicViolet t1_j21w3qt wrote

>No "choices" really exist, except in our imagination. If possessing a mental image of imagined options is "free will" then free will means very little I think

why?

why do you dismiss yourself? i have literally no idea how it can possibly make sense to think that due our choices are constrained by ourselves we have no choice?

that is what you are saying, that due to the fact 'you' are made up of genes, neurons, culture, memories, environment, preferences, trauma and due to these parts of 'you' limiting choice that somehow magically 'you' make no choices at all.

its an entirely nonsensical position to hold in the first place (if we deleted your memories, culture, preferences and trauma then 'you' would not be able to even hold the opinion you do, those things are the very foundation of the person who is claiming to not have free will).

emergent behavior and properties may not be fun or special but they sure as shit make more sense then Determinism trying to pretend it doesnt require souls (or the free will believers thinking we do)

2

pokoponcho t1_j21fpvv wrote

Thanks for the comment. I learned new things.

Your examples are presented as events separated from the past. If we isolate the situation from all prior events, then free will exists because you can consciously choose between a few options. Hence, compatibilism seems logical.

But if you try to track and connect all prior events, you'll see that you have been led to that situation and your decision.

In this thread, you can check my comment about inescapability from a trio of genetics, life experiences, and external circumstances.

1