Determinism vs. Freewill

geko · 12-20-2004

Laplaces' demon is yada yada - there's no difference between that intellect and god.

But ok, i suppose that intelligence has choice, but to assume that choice isnt influenced in _some way_ by preceeding events is to deny the cause and effect nature of the universe.

But does this equal determinism?

I ask the question because it's too complex to work out every single casual relation in our lives to see if it would be true to begin with (unless we can ask the intellect of course). "I just dont see that a choice in the past WILL lead to another PARTICULAR choice, rather it may do".

Determinism would be true if we knew - or even knew how to know. To me it seems that to argue for determinism is to argue that we have knowledge that we dont. This is why we think we have choice/free will.

Im free because i'm not aware of the _existence_ of all the effecting factors. No-one is. It's not 'possible' to know. It's not even possible to know if it's possible (by our understanding at the moment). This equals freedom (and claims that acceptance of determinism is unsound reasoning).

Determinism = .... events are fully limited by preceeding events.

Influence = effect of one thing on another

Just so no-one asks again for a contradiction of determinism, ill state what i believe is one again:

Im free because i'm not aware of the _existence_ of all the effecting factors. No-one is. It's not 'possible' to know. It's not even possible to know if it's possible (by our understanding at the moment). This equals freedom.

This contradicts determinism (the demon not-withstanding), or do we know that it's possible to know? Yes? How? Can you imagine how fast the calculation would have to be made? How do you make a computer that could compute this, and what would it be like? Is this not science-fiction?

....

ps. maybe my reasoning is unsound, is so please point it out for me.

geko · 12-20-2004

i think i might be arguing with the wording actually:

"Determinism is often erroneously equated with fatalism, which is the true opposite of freewill. Under fatalism the will is ineffectual, no matter how much it struggles. Under determinism there is no limit to how effectual the will can be. Causality determines the nature of will, but does not prevent any action which is not in violation of physical law. A will is not unfree by virtue of the causal roots of its origin and existence (heredity and environment). Causality creates a will, but does not subject the will to ongoing compulsion. To justify a causeless will on the grounds that a person can choose what he or she does not really wish to choose (wills what is not really willed) is self-contradictory."

TINNY · 12-20-2004

I find it really difficult to understand what you say, Geko. Not just this, but posts before this too. I'm not sure whether it is because you don't think clearly or your thinking is too sophisticated for me.

Anyway, your reasoning seems to follow this cue:

1. In order for our actions to be totally determined, we have to know everything that can influence us.
2. We don't know everything that influences us.
3.. We act based on what we know.
4. Therefore, we don't take into consideration everything that can influence us.
5. Because we act based on what we know, and we don't know everything there is to know, therefore, our actions are not determined.
6. Because our actions are not determined, that 'uncaused' causes our actions to take place. And that is what you call free will.

Is this what you mean? Did I get it right?

So your definition of free will is an action that is influenced by an uncaused. Is this 'uncaused' called inner speech?

TINNY · 12-20-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by geko

"Determinism is often erroneously equated with fatalism, which is the true opposite of freewill. Under fatalism the will is ineffectual, no matter how much it struggles. Under determinism there is no limit to how effectual the will can be. Causality determines the nature of will, but does not prevent any action which is not in violation of physical law. A will is not unfree by virtue of the causal roots of its origin and existence (heredity and environment). Causality creates a will, but does not subject the will to ongoing compulsion. To justify a causeless will on the grounds that a person can choose what he or she does not really wish to choose (wills what is not really willed) is self-contradictory."

so a will is caused. and is determined (according to your definition of it). but is not fated. so where does that other thing comes from? the part that is uncaused?

Freethinker · 12-20-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by TINNY

I didn't have the courage because of my track record

. Nobody would take the thread seriously and give a fair evaluation on both sides. Your's is still clean - so don't worry about it.

Awe Tinny, we have not picked on you that badly. Don't feel too abused. But yes the very intent is to throw things out and see if it holds up. Yes/ No is less important that an open willingness to allow examination and acceptance of the results.

Perhaps your concern is more that you feel compelled to remain comitted to things that have not survived the open evaluation rather than your attempts being excessively attacked.

TINNY · 12-20-2004

that's all you can say?

Freethinker · 12-20-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by geko

Because these are my thoughts on it, ive taken this from my post in the 'natural it is' thread::

Stating human action as completely determined denies the complexity i feel. Sure, human will is influenced constantly, but the choices are our own because who are we if not what we've been influenced toward? This, as an identity, equals freewill.

You contradict yourself.

But first, using "I feel" does not provide any validity to an assertion.
Now:

1) the choices are our own

contradicts

2) the choices are... because ... we've been influenced toward (them)

If they are our own, they are our own. Outside influence stops them from being "our own" and makes them group think.

More on this when I get further into the existing psots.

Freethinker · 12-20-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

This discussion has been thoroughly visited and there is a hypography on the topic.

There's no point in going over the same material. If you have an example of the "null hypothesis", then what iis it? Othewise you are just speculating and expressing unfounded opinions. This is a science forum, remember.

:-)

I love it! But Linda, we will cover these (and probably every other) grounds over and over. New members. Old members not willing to adjust their "beliefs" based on factual exposures....

It's just pratice for you and I.

Do what I do. Save a text file of the details to such repetitive issues and then just cut and paste the answers rather generating new all the time.