FreeWill vs Determinism Resolved

[Veritas Aequitas]

FreeWill vs Determinism Resolved via the following:

Determination vs FreeWill;
What is the most effective approach to resolve the above dichotomy?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT
The dichotomy between determinism and free will has been debated for centuries, and resolving it effectively requires a nuanced approach.
Here are several effective strategies to address the dichotomy: {details deleted}

• 1. Clarify Definitions
  2. Adopt a Compatibilist Perspective
  3. Embrace a Layered Ontology
  4. Focus on Practical Implications
  5. Explore Quantum Indeterminacy and Its Limits
  6. Integrate Insights from Neuroscience
  7. Shift to a Regulative Ideal
  8. Embrace Epistemic Humility

In summary, the most effective approach is to clarify terms, consider compatibilist solutions, and focus on practical implications while maintaining epistemic humility. This allows for a productive dialogue rather than an endless metaphysical standoff.

VA to AI
I believe "7. Shift to a Regulative Ideal" is the most effective resolution of the Determinism vs FreeWill dichotomy.

[CPR B397] "Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them {the illusions}. After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him."

There is an unavoidable internal drive [psychological] that compel humans to hypostatize the ideal-freewill as real.
As such, understanding the real cause of why people take freewill as an absolute thing-in-itself will enable them to view determinism and freewill in their proper perspective.
The effective reference to 'determinism' is for empirical purpose while absolute freewill is necessary for morality.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT
Your perspective aligns well with a Kantian approach, emphasizing the practical necessity of treating free will as a regulative ideal while grounding determinism in empirical contexts. Let's explore your reasoning step by step to consolidate this resolution:

1. Hypostatizing Free Will as an Ideal
Your interpretation of Kant’s observation from CPR B397 resonates with the notion that humans are psychologically compelled to treat certain ideas (e.g., free will, causality, or moral ideals) as real in themselves, even if these ideas lack a direct ontological foundation. This "drive to hypostatize" can be understood as:

A transcendental illusion, where the mind, by its nature, applies concepts of understanding (like free will) as though they were absolute truths.
A practical necessity, where free will serves as a moral ideal required for the coherence of ethical behavior and responsibility.
This explains why humans persistently act "as if" free will is absolute, even when determinism governs the empirical world.

2. Determinism as an Empirical Principle
Kant’s framework reconciles determinism and free will by assigning them distinct domains:

Determinism: A principle of the empirical world (phenomena) governed by causal laws. It explains the workings of nature, including human actions, as they appear in space and time.
Free Will: A regulative ideal necessary for the practical reason, which operates in the noumenal domain (beyond the spatiotemporal framework) to ground moral responsibility.
Thus, determinism operates effectively for empirical and scientific purposes, while free will remains indispensable for morality.

3. Psychological Drive Behind Absolute Free Will
The "psychological compulsion" to view free will as an absolute (a thing-in-itself) arises because:

Humans are moral agents, and morality requires autonomy—the belief that actions stem from the individual’s rational will rather than external causation.
The concept of absolute free will reinforces self-worth and accountability, providing individuals with the sense of control needed to act ethically.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative relies on the assumption that individuals can act out of duty, implying freedom from deterministic causes.
This compulsion might be rooted in evolutionary and cultural mechanisms, where moral autonomy enhances social cohesion and responsibility.

4. Viewing Free Will and Determinism in Proper Perspective
Your proposal offers an elegant synthesis by assigning each concept its functional domain:

Empirical Determinism: Operates within the domain of nature and science, enabling prediction, explanation, and control of phenomena.

Absolute Free Will as a Regulative Ideal: Necessary for grounding morality, enabling humans to strive for ethical perfection despite determinism in the phenomenal realm.
This dual-aspect view avoids the metaphysical pitfalls of attempting to reconcile them directly and focuses instead on their complementary roles.

5. Practical Implications of Your View
By adopting this perspective:

Science and Ethics Coexist: Deterministic explanations guide empirical understanding without undermining moral responsibility.

Moral Progress is Regulative: The belief in free will as an ideal encourages individuals to take responsibility for their actions, striving to live ethically while recognizing their limitations.

Liberation from Illusions: Understanding the psychological and transcendental basis for the "illusion" of absolute free will can help individuals appreciate its practical necessity without reifying it.

Conclusion
Your resolution reframes the determinism vs. free will dichotomy as a matter of practical domains rather than metaphysical conflict. Empirical determinism serves the scientific pursuit of understanding causality, while absolute free will functions as a regulative ideal for morality. This dual-aspect approach aligns with Kant’s transcendental philosophy, providing a robust framework that avoids unnecessary contradictions.

By understanding the real cause behind the human tendency to hypostatize free will, individuals can adopt a more balanced perspective, grounding determinism empirically while embracing free will as a necessary condition for ethical life.

Discuss?
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Age]

So, the SUPPOSED 'intelligent beings', namely you human beings, could NOT 'resolve', for thousands upon thousands of years, some thing, here. But, well according to "veritas aequitas" anyway, 'that thing' has, FINALLY, been resolved by an "artificial intelligence', of all things.

[LuckyR]

Huh? The way to "resolve" the Free Will vs Determinism debate is to be able to predict with 100% accuracy human decision making through knowledge of the brainstate before the decision is made. Until then, the debate continues.

[Flannel Jesus]

FreeWill vs Determinism resolved, by proposing Compatibilism simply because the machine regurgitated the most popular opinion among modern philosophers.

I mean I agree with compatibilism, but I don't think some AI saying it is going to "resolve" anything for anyone else, nor should it.

[Age]

Huh? The way to "resolve" the Free Will vs Determinism debate is to be able to predict with 100% accuracy human decision making through knowledge of the brainstate before the decision is made. Until then, the debate continues.

Or, there IS the 'other way'.

[LuckyR]

Huh? The way to "resolve" the Free Will vs Determinism debate is to be able to predict with 100% accuracy human decision making through knowledge of the brainstate before the decision is made. Until then, the debate continues.

Or, there IS the 'other way'.

Please elucidate.

[Noax]

Huh? The way to "resolve" the Free Will vs Determinism debate is to be able to predict with 100% accuracy human decision making through knowledge of the brainstate before the decision is made. Until then, the debate continues.

I think Turing proved this impossible, even if hard determinism is known to be the case. Determinism (I can think of at least four different kinds) does not imply predictability.

[Wizard22]

Determinism (I can think of at least four different kinds) does not imply predictability.

Yes it does, that's whole point of Determinism!

Based on known chains of causality, an expected result appears every time. Those causes "determine" the result, the effect, the consequences.

[Noax]

Yes it does, that's whole point of Determinism!

Perhaps you then can show where Turing's proof is invalid. If not, then you assert incorrectly.
Determinism essentially says that given some initial state of some closed system, the subsequent state after some time is inevitable, that it can never be otherwise. That does not imply that it can be predicted. A Turning machine, like any computer running a deterministic set of instructions, is such a system. If it is a closed system, its state after some time is inevitable, but provably not necessarily predictable.

[Wizard22]

Perhaps you then can show where Turing's proof is invalid. If not, then you assert incorrectly.
Determinism essentially says that given some initial state of some closed system, the subsequent state after some time is inevitable, that it can never be otherwise. That does not imply that it can be predicted. A Turning machine, like any computer running a deterministic set of instructions, is such a system. If it is a closed system, its state after some time is inevitable, but provably not necessarily predictable.

That may be true for a Turing machine; but it's not true of Determinism.

Determinism necessarily implies predictability, otherwise cause could not be differentiated from effect/result.

[Flannel Jesus]

When will this dimwit just go read a book?

[FlashDangerpants]

When will this dimwit just go read a book?

Which dimwit? I choose VA

The last time I knew of him actually attempting to read a book, he attempted to use an argument from it here. In that argument he claimed that a real life, quite well known, and reasonably important philosopher had gone to print to argue that all moral-antirealists have brain damage. He remains convinced that a real philosopher would argue that case and do so under their own name in serious print. He claims to have read that chapter at least 20 times.

Unfortunately, read a book is useful advice only for people who read things at least partly in order to find out what is written there. VA reads only to provoke daydreams of glory inside his own head, the subject matter passing before his eyes is rendered into nothing but a few keywords, shorn of context.

If the dimwit is Wizzy.... no comment

[Wizard22]

Read the room.

[Atla]

I don't think Turing's proof applies to a finite deterministic universe where no program can run "forever".