Philosophy Now Forum

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

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
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.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:24 pm 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.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:41 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:24 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:24 pm 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.

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:03 amDeterminism (I can think of at least four different kinds) does not imply predictability.

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 1:56 am Yes it does, that's whole point of Determinism!

Noax wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 4:26 amPerhaps 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.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:01 am When will this dimwit just go read a book?