Free Will vs Determinism

[Dave Mangnall]

Of course I forgive you; Immanuel. How could I not do? Even if you had offended me, which you certainly have not done, you would not have done so of your own free will! Of course, I’m pretty hard to offend, because of determinism.
Now, about this doublespeak. One drawback about being a determinist is that the free will model is so embedded in ordinary language that it’s hard to avoid doublespeak. You can take it as read that if I use certain ordinary words like “choose”, there is no implication that I could have “chosen” differently. If it helps avoid confusion, I’ll avoid the word in future. So instead of saying, for example, “I choose to write to you now, rather than doing something else” I’ll say, “I find myself writing to you now, rather than doing something else.”
Take away the negative implications of Max Weber’s phrase “iron cage” and I agree with what you said in that paragraph. “Determinism itself is the "iron cage." It admits of no possibility of "choice" being genuine, or "will" as a causal agency. Thus the illusion of "choice" by individuals is never more than exactly that -- an illusion, not a reality.”
Regarding your comment on drones (Such a pejorative term, which doesn’t chime at all with how determinism feels to me.) I think we must linger on the word “volitional”. I’m not denying the existence of “will”. I’m just saying it’s not a free one. So, for example, I’m trying to express myself clearly, to be articulate. (I’ll allow you to judge my success!) This is an act of will, which affects the way I write. But it’s not free will. Always, I am doing what I must do, following my personal script as dictated by the Causal Nexus.
On the Actor / Spectator mode of living, the difference between inner and outer doesn’t matter to me. That’s my point. As I am writing to you now, I could not do otherwise (because of inner constraints) any more than if there was someone here with a gun at my head saying “Keep typing!” (External constraints.)
On “changing your mind” let me explain how this appears within the determinism model. I’ll avoid, as promised above, language which is implicitly derived from the free will model, like “changing your mind”.
The future is determined, but unpredictable. It may, for all I know, involve a moment where the following thoughts pop into your thought stream. “I see it all clearly now! Dave’s right! There is no free will!” Alternatively, for all I know, the future may involve no such moment. And I know where the bulk of the probability lies; for some reason I don’t seem to have been very persuasive in the past. Either way, the process requires no free will. I try to persuade, as I must, and I fail to persuade (or, less probably, succeed in persuading) as I must.
Incidentally, when you use the phrase “I thought”, I’m struck by the idea that Descartes went too far with his cogito. Instead of saying “I think, therefore I am” he should have contented himself with “Thoughts occur”. So if the thought occurs in your thought stream “What an obstinately obtuse muddle-headed fool this Dave is!”, there’s nothing “you” could have done to prevent that thought from occurring.
I have to conclude in response to your last paragraph, and here it’s I who hope that you will forgive me, that it is you, not I, who do not understand the implications of determinism. This comment implies no disrespect for your intellect. But I’m looking at determinism from the inside, and have done for many decades, whereas you are looking at it from the outside, trying to imagine what it would be like on the inside. And that isn't easy.

[Dave Mangnall]

[quote]But after enough viewings there isn't much to get out of a movie,[quote]

Hi, Doc.

Have you ever watched, and re-watched, "Memento".

It has a very determinist feel to it because (and this is not a spoiler) you know how the story ends right at the beginning. You just have to watch the whole film to see how the story starts!

[Dave Mangnall]

[

Free will advocates never tackle head on the question of whether free will actually exists or whether determinism is true. In this they are very wise.

I was imagining that that is what we are doing right now, actually. I don't think we're shying away from anything...do you? [/quote]

Sorry, Immanuel, I forgot this bit.

I think your approach typifies the ad hominem, reduction ad absurdum (If you'll pardon all the Latin) approach of the Free Willies, which is to argue that determinists are confused in their thinking because they could not live, or think of other matters, in a manner which is consistent with determinism. But, as I've said, we could all be confused and inconsistent without that fact proving determinism false.

But no, I don't think we're shying away from anything that's actually there to shy away from. If anyone, anywhere, has tried to give a detailed account of free will, I'd be hugely grateful if you'd point me at it. For at least one detailed account of Determinism, see "How Free Are You?" by Ted Honderich. I don't think the account is complete, and I disagree with his view of the consequences, which he seems to struggle to avoid finding depressing.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:


Doc replied:

Your attributions above are incorrect. It's Dave and Me, not thedoc.

The positive response to determinism is not to free oneself from necessity which is impossible but to give oneself more choices as response to any event.

There is, by definition, no "choice" in Determinism. "Choice" is merely an illusion, so you can't get "more" of it.

Morality of love is to extend the variety of choices to others.

Partly. But "choice" isn't an unrestricted good, unless the persons in question are capable of actualizing good choices. For instance, no loving parent would ever give his/her children the "choice" to play on the street or to drink floor cleaner. The child might want that choice: but love doesn't abandon the good of the other in order to see itself as "generous."

Sorry to all three concerned about my incorrect attribution.

It's true that "choice" isn't an unrestricted good. Some people for instance slaves have almost no choices. Others who lack education or training have restricted choices. Our choices are larger and more free when we are taught to bring to our choices reason, judgement and knowledge.

Choosing is something we do . We don't originate our choices. The child in your story was not freed as she was too young to understand what she was doing. If she had been older she could have been instructed about how to handle floor cleaner correctly and this knowledge would make her more free and empowered than if she had not been instructed.

[Belinda]

I agree with Dave Mangnall about his recommendation of 'How Free Are You?' by Ted Honderich. I especially like T.H.'s analysis of causes: causal chains, causal circumstances, nomic connections. I was surprised that he didn't speculate like Spinoza that all is eventually nomic connection, one big absolute nomic connection i.e. necessity, cause of itself.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Partly. But "choice" isn't an unrestricted good, unless the persons in question are capable of actualizing good choices. For instance, no loving parent would ever give his/her children the "choice" to play on the street or to drink floor cleaner. The child might want that choice: but love doesn't abandon the good of the other in order to see itself as "generous."

Yes, that is because where ever you are in your life, you can only make the choices that you are determined to make at that moment.

[thedoc]

The debate on free will vs. determinism is all dependent on where you draw the line. A hard determinist will claim that all influences mean that life is deterministic. However there may be some influences that are not deterministic, certainly all choices are determined by influences both external and internal, but some internal influences may allow free will, and it only takes a few choices, freely made, to demonstrate free will. Most of our actions are indeed determined and we are left with no choice in the matter, but there are a few actions that could go either way, and there is where the question is.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The debate on free will vs. determinism is all dependent on where you draw the line. A hard determinist will claim that all influences mean that life is deterministic. However there may be some influences that are not deterministic, certainly all choices are determined by influences both external and internal, but some internal influences may allow free will, and it only takes a few choices, freely made, to demonstrate free will. Most of our actions are indeed determined and we are left with no choice in the matter, but there are a few actions that could go either way, and there is where the question is.

Some influences MAY allow free will - is a self defeating statement. They either have influence or not. Influences determine outcomes- how else could it possibly be?
When you make a choice, you have to base it on something - that something determines the choice. There is no wriggle room.

[thedoc]

The debate on free will vs. determinism is all dependent on where you draw the line. A hard determinist will claim that all influences mean that life is deterministic. However there may be some influences that are not deterministic, certainly all choices are determined by influences both external and internal, but some internal influences may allow free will, and it only takes a few choices, freely made, to demonstrate free will. Most of our actions are indeed determined and we are left with no choice in the matter, but there are a few actions that could go either way, and there is where the question is.

Some influences MAY allow free will - is a self defeating statement. They either have influence or not. Influences determine outcomes- how else could it possibly be?
When you make a choice, you have to base it on something - that something determines the choice. There is no wriggle room.

Some conditions MAY influence a decision, but it does not determine that action. The action may be counter to the influence, that is free will. Not all influences contradict free will.

[thedoc]

Every action is influenced either by external or internal factors, or both, but because the action is influenced does not prove that it was not the result of free will. Determinism is not proved by demonstrating that every action is influenced by something, some influences are consistent with free will.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The debate on free will vs. determinism is all dependent on where you draw the line. A hard determinist will claim that all influences mean that life is deterministic. However there may be some influences that are not deterministic, certainly all choices are determined by influences both external and internal, but some internal influences may allow free will, and it only takes a few choices, freely made, to demonstrate free will. Most of our actions are indeed determined and we are left with no choice in the matter, but there are a few actions that could go either way, and there is where the question is.

Some influences MAY allow free will - is a self defeating statement. They either have influence or not. Influences determine outcomes- how else could it possibly be?
When you make a choice, you have to base it on something - that something determines the choice. There is no wriggle room.

Some conditions MAY influence a decision, but it does not determine that action. The action may be counter to the influence, that is free will. Not all influences contradict free will.

Tell with what you make a choice, and I'll show you what determinism means.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Every action is influenced either by external or internal factors, or both, but because the action is influenced does not prove that it was not the result of free will. Determinism is not proved by demonstrating that every action is influenced by something, some influences are consistent with free will.

Backwards nonsense.

[thedoc]

Tell with what you make a choice, and I'll show you what determinism means.

I make my choices based on the influences, internal or external.

Now you will claim that any action that is the result of an influence is determined, that is nonsense. Some actions are the result of influences that are freely chosen as to how much weight is applied to each influence. Just because there is an influence, does not negate free will, some actions are freely chosen based on the influences.

[thedoc]

If a person makes one choice in their lifetime, that is made freely, that is enough to prove that they have free will. A person might have free will and just not exercise it, but that does not prove that that person does not have free will.

[Belinda]

If a person makes one choice in their lifetime, that is made freely, that is enough to prove that they have free will. A person might have free will and just not exercise it, but that does not prove that that person does not have free will.

But, Doc, just how free is your will at any given time? Are you not caused to make certain choices by your moral code, your state of health, your friends influencing you, how much money you have, the season of the year, the day of the week, the state of your memory etc etc?