Determinism & Free Will: A Discussion

[Fanman]

Regarding the apparent conflict between determinism and free will:

1. Epistemically, there are reasons to take both seriously.
2. Phenomenologically, we experience agency.
3. Observationally, some aspects of reality appear to be determined — such as synchronicities.

Based on these factors, one possible explanation is that we live in a system that is capable of accommodating all three. The apparent conflict may only arise when we attempt to dichotomise the system into mutually exclusive categories: determinism or free will.

Carl Jung described synchronicity as: the simultaneous occurrence of inner psychological states and outer physical events that appear meaningfully related, yet have no discoverable causal connection.

Update to the OP: Expanding on Jung's definition, I would add that there is a causal connection: orientation. Orientation does not cause the external event to occur; it creates the disposition through which the event can become a synchronicity.

[promethean75]

One way to demonstrate that there's no freewill is like this. You split mental events into two types. One type is goal oriented and intentional, and you can't accidentally think arbitrarily when you are goal oriented. The other type is random unintentional thinking or 'on the spot' thinking. It's this type that proves there's no freewill.

Here's a Sam Harris drill. Think of a city! Quickly, don't think about it... just name a city! Okay. You didn't say Albuquerque, i noticed. So, i aks you: were you free to choose that which didn't occur to you? You are aware of Albuquerque and physically capable of choosing it, but you dit'int.

Okay, so you actually aren't free to think whatever you want. And when you are thinking intentionally, you can't think arbitrarily... which means you are not free to think something you are not free to think!

[promethean75]

An example of the arbitrariness thing for ya. You run out of gas and begin goal-oriented thinking. You then stop thinking about how to get some gas and, just to be random, start thinking about the fight between the Hulk and Spiderman instead. But not even this is random. Your intentional goal-oriented thinking has merely changed to the objective 'think of something random and unrelated' instead of how to get gas. Moreover, among those random options of thought, there were an almost infinite number of random unrelated thoughts you didn't have but logically could have. You could have thought about your aunt's apple pie or the DC Cooper robbery... but you didn't, and you didn't choose not to, either.

Freewill is the experience of being pushed around and about by determined thoughts.

[Lacewing]

Regarding the apparent conflict between determinism and free will:

1. Epistemically, there are reasons to take both seriously.
2. Phenomenologically, we experience agency.
3. Observationally, some aspects of reality appear to be determined — such as synchronicities.

Based on these factors, one possible explanation is that we live in a system that is capable of accommodating all three. The apparent conflict may only arise when we attempt to dichotomise the system into mutually exclusive categories: determinism or free will.

Carl Jung described synchronicity as: the simultaneous occurrence of inner psychological states and outer physical events that appear meaningfully related, yet have no discoverable causal connection.

Everything within our entire world and existence has the ability to cause ripples that intersect with other ripples, in an unfathomably vast display of ever-shifting possibility.

Perhaps what appears as determined is actually due to the naturally occurring organized patterns that make up our entire world and existence -- however, these patterns don't represent a 'rigid or pre-destined container' for us, but rather a language that speaks through all.

[Immanuel Can]

We cannot "discuss" Determinism.

If Determinism is true, then the state of our minds at any minute is not set by out choices, but rather by a prior physical-causal chain. In other words, you answer to why you're a Determinist, and mine as to why I'm not, are exactly the same: "because I was forced to be in that mental state, at this particular time, by prior physical forces."

These "forces" have nothing to do with rationality or truth; they have only to do with physical causality. So the reason you think X and I think Y is purely impersonal, purely non-cognitive, purely accidental. The physical-causal factors aligned; that's the total explanation for why anybody thinks anything.

And there's nothing that can be "discussed." "Discussion," not being a physical-causal force itself, cannot have any role at all in what state our minds end up having. Nor can "rationality," or "truth," which are concepts, not physical-causal entities.

The conclusion is obvious: if anybody supposes we can "discuss" Determinism, and that "discussion" will have any significance at all, or can change anything, then he is not assuming that Determinism is true. He is assuming the potency of human cognition, of minds, and of will, and the potency of appealing to rationality and truth.

So no real Determinist will ever do anything so futile as trying to "discuss." Only those who deny Determinism even can.

[Fanman]

promethean75,

Are you claiming that your personal thoughts, feelings, and experience of life are universal truths here?

[Fanman]

Lacewing,

You seem certain; why?

[promethean75]

You're under the impression that you've chosen to discuss anything in the first place, though. It was just determined that you discuss how discussion would be impossible for a determinist, that's all. No man can weasel his way around causally sufficient antecedent conditions, lad.

[promethean75]

"Are you claiming that your personal thoughts, feelings, and experience of life are universal truths here?"

Well, yes... i do believe i am, in fact. Although i would submit that while my truths are like eternal epic a priori, there are many small truths that i don't possess. This is perhaps why i do still enjoy the company of men. I like to lose myself in their small truths... to become momentarily unburdened of my own by learning of theirs. We find relief from ourselves in the company of ordinary men.

[Fanman]

You're under the impression that you've chosen to discuss anything in the first place, though. It was just determined that you discuss how discussion would be impossible for a determinist, that's all. No man can weasel his way around causally sufficient antecedent conditions, lad.

Well, that's my experience, yes. I don't see why I should doubt that without scientific evidence or input. So, I don't see a logical reason to inherently take what you're saying as facts. It is obvious that people do some things out of necessity, but I don't think you've justified how human behaviour scales up to universal determinism. That's going to take more than what you've stated in this topic.

[Fanman]

"Are you claiming that your personal thoughts, feelings, and experience of life are universal truths here?"

Well, yes... i do believe i am, in fact. Although i would submit that while my truths are like eternal epic a priori, there are many small truths that i don't possess. This is perhaps why i do still enjoy the company of men. I like to lose myself in their small truths... to become momentarily unburdened of my own by learning of theirs. We find relief from ourselves in the company of ordinary men.

Are you joking?

[Lacewing]

Lacewing,

You seem certain; why?

I'm only certain of my own experience to a certain extent. Anything beyond that is just guessing at what could be.

Are you certain of anything?

[promethean75]

"Are you joking?"

Only by half. Some things are so profound there are not yet wordz for them and any attempt to express them ends in buffoonery.

[Fanman]

Lacewing,

You seem certain; why?

I'm only certain of my own experience to a certain extent. Anything beyond that is just guessing at what could be.

Are you certain of anything?

I wouldn't say that I'm certain of anything, in the sense that what I believe is beyond revision, but I am pretty sure of what evidence, mathematics, and the scientific method can support.

Okay, regarding what you actually stated:

Everything within our entire world and existence has the ability to cause ripples that intersect with other ripples, in an unfathomably vast display of ever-shifting possibility.

How would you identify the "ripples"? What are they specifically? And if possibility is "ever-shifting," how do we arrive at the possibility that occurs?

Perhaps what appears as determined is actually due to the naturally occurring organized patterns that make up our entire world and existence -- however, these patterns don't represent a 'rigid or pre-destined container' for us, but rather a language that speaks through all.

What do you mean by "organized patterns"? Why are these patterns a language, and why are they not rigid or predetermined?

[Lacewing]

Everything within our entire world and existence has the ability to cause ripples that intersect with other ripples, in an unfathomably vast display of ever-shifting possibility.

How would you identify the "ripples"? What are they specifically?

Currents, waves, vibrations, movement... in all different forms (air, water, sound, energy, etc.). Flows and shifts that affect other things on the smallest scale to the largest.

I think these 'ripples' are observable.

I may not use scientific language, but I'm doing my best to describe the concepts I'm referring to.

And if possibility is "ever-shifting," how do we arrive at the possibility that occurs?

Well, we don't really 'arrive' anywhere or remain rigid... everything is continually in flux and motion.

Perhaps what appears as determined is actually due to the naturally occurring organized patterns that make up our entire world and existence -- however, these patterns don't represent a 'rigid or pre-destined container' for us, but rather a language that speaks through all.

What do you mean by "organized patterns"?

The repetitive shapes (like spirals), structures, forms, and mathematical properties throughout the Universe.

Why are these patterns a language, and why are they not rigid or predetermined?

Considering that everything is in motion, it seems more like music or language... rather than some sort of fixed and definitive structure. I think the latter is a human 'need' rather than what is observable.

Nothing in the Universe is rigid... so it doesn't make sense that humans or their potential would be either. (Humans might claim otherwise for the sake of some sense of stability or sureness... but it's not necessary.)

How can we look out at the cosmos and believe that all of it fits into some small little story or idea that revolves around humans and their limitations? We want things to 'stand still' until WE manipulate them or are ready for them to change, yes? We want to feel in control, so perhaps we ignore all that is in motion (and collaborating/cooperating) on much greater levels than we tend to operate or be aware of. But if we consider whatever we can beyond ourselves and small beliefs, we might be in awe of (and inspired by) the implications and possibilities.