Whats your arguement for Free Will?

2

Comments

  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    Wings/beers it is. So how does determinism explain this one? If I choose to let someone else tell me what I should do for any given period of time, especially a random person who I don't know... how could that whole scenario pre-determined? Or am I excersizing my free will by choosing to have someone else make a decision for me? Hell, what if I just make all my decisions from now on my flipping a coin? How in the world could determinism explain the outcome of the rest of my life's decisions?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    My general beef with psychological determinism, is that I think that the causation here isn't necessarily clarified. OK, you can identify the stuffs that move around the brain in stringent narrow circumstances. Describing is not explaining. What makes up mind and conscience is not nearly good enough described to amount to any sort of explanation. At best we know what general area of the brain seems to light up when people think. We also know some crude ways of altering thinking patterns by essentially carpet bombing the system with a given substance.

    So generally, I think psychologists should take a little step of their high horse when claiming determinism. The knowledge we have is nowhere close to a conclusion on the matter. Thinking scientifically and experimentally, you can't help but find determinism, since otherwise you wouldn't find anything. In other words, stuff that aren't deterministic will forever avoid being found by deterministic science. (and science is by default deterministic looking for laws and iron rules in all things. And you can only find that which you look for.)

    Determinism in some cases borders on arrogance, since those claiming it also usually implies that there are rules, and they know what they are. I am not denying that psychology is a field in development where new exciting stuff is uncovered all the time, but the field also suffer from the hubris suffered by any field of science in a current good flow. "Since new things seem to be explained all the time, it's just a matter of time until we have it all figured out." Somewhere along the line, it usually (I'd wager to say always) hits a wall that eventually lessens the hubris.

    Do I believe in free will? Well I think for the most part we follow "the programming" so to speak, but it is very hard to determine whether we always do, which is the bold claim of determinism. Practically, knowing how differently human societies may choose to live and think, I find that a possible argument against the strong determinism. If we're so determined, we should always tend to the same culture and organizations. We really don't apart from the very basic level where things tend to be similar but not even here identical.

    I'm not necessarily in favour of "strong free will", but I am definitely opposed to strong determinism. I might go along with a soft determinism that allows room for variety and some sort of influence. It may be small, but I think it significant enough to matter.

    That's my 5 cents anyway. :)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    he still stands wrote:
    Wings/beers it is. So how does determinism explain this one? If I choose to let someone else tell me what I should do for any given period of time, especially a random person who I don't know... how could that whole scenario pre-determined? Or am I excersizing my free will by choosing to have someone else make a decision for me? Hell, what if I just make all my decisions from now on my flipping a coin? How in the world could determinism explain the outcome of the rest of my life's decisions?
    Sounds like you need to do a little more research into what determinism is... our reactions to things come from brain stimuli and chemical reacitons, all of these which are genetic to the individual. All of this genetic programming that our brain does already determines how you will react in given situations. What you think is free will is your brain already mapping out what you will do base on your genetic make up and how it is effected by internal and external enviroments.
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Sounds like you need to do a little more research into what determinism is... our reactions to things come from brain stimuli and chemical reacitons, all of these which are genetic to the individual. All of this genetic programming that our brain does already determines how you will react in given situations. What you think is free will is your brain already mapping out what you will do base on your genetic make up and how it is effected by internal and external enviroments.
    ...
    So... genetically speaking, if your parents are prone to, as an example, cowardice... because of genetics and/or past experiences... then, you are pretty much going to also show cowardice in a situation where heroism or cowardice are the options, correct?
    Determinism sounds like a means to excuse yourself of any responsibilities or accountability for your actions. "I choose not to jump in the lake to save that child because my genetics passed down from my parents determined my selection of safety on land, rather then risk in water."
    And just to be fair, the heroism scenario can be replaced in this example... where the parent's genetic hand me downs were responsible for your heroic act, not you, yourself.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Cosmo wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Sounds like you need to do a little more research into what determinism is... our reactions to things come from brain stimuli and chemical reacitons, all of these which are genetic to the individual. All of this genetic programming that our brain does already determines how you will react in given situations. What you think is free will is your brain already mapping out what you will do base on your genetic make up and how it is effected by internal and external enviroments.
    ...
    So... genetically speaking, if your parents are prone to, as an example, cowardice... because of genetics and/or past experiences... then, you are pretty much going to also show cowardice in a situation where heroism or cowardice are the options, correct?
    Determinism sounds like a means to excuse yourself of any responsibilities or accountability for your actions. "I choose not to jump in the lake to save that child because my genetics passed down from my parents determined my selection of safety on land, rather then risk in water."
    And just to be fair, the heroism scenario can be replaced in this example... where the parent's genetic hand me downs were responsible for your heroic act, not you, yourself.

    I agree w/ Cosmo. Using genetics to determine outcomes doesn't prove anything to the individual who completely changes who he/she is or how they think as they evolve. It gives excuses to those who choose not to grow.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Sounds like you need to do a little more research into what determinism is... our reactions to things come from brain stimuli and chemical reacitons, all of these which are genetic to the individual. All of this genetic programming that our brain does already determines how you will react in given situations. What you think is free will is your brain already mapping out what you will do base on your genetic make up and how it is effected by internal and external enviroments.
    I'd nuance that statement by saying that our reactions to things involves brain stimuli and chemical reactions. To lump it all into the genetics is grossly oversimplifying matters, although noone will deny that it is a factor, and most likely a big one. As for the causation, something is telling the body to release the stuffs. It's not like the stuffs just wander along and thus makes you feel/do this or that. Psychology currently does a good job of describing where the stuffs go, what they seem to do, and replicate some effects medically. None of this description says anything of free will/determinism. Science is formulated in determinisms, which makes it an attractive position for a scientist. And the research methods we have on the brain, although developing quickly is frankly very crude. Experiments have to set up very narrowly to be certain to elicit the emotion/thinking one is looking for. It is a far way from that and to understanding what naturally goes on simultaneously and most likely ambigously in the brain. So far we know most about the brain when it isn't working properly (pathology), less how it works when it does properly. And even if we can manipulate thinking medically, doesn't mean we've understood how it really happens and what it really is. Breeders of livestock doesn't necessarily know what life fundamentally is and how it works, even if they know how to breed bigger chickens...

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    OutOfBreath wrote:
    I'd nuance that statement by saying that our reactions to things involves brain stimuli and chemical reactions. To lump it all into the genetics is grossly oversimplifying matters, although noone will deny that it is a factor, and most likely a big one. As for the causation, something is telling the body to release the stuffs. It's not like the stuffs just wander along and thus makes you feel/do this or that. Psychology currently does a good job of describing where the stuffs go, what they seem to do, and replicate some effects medically. None of this description says anything of free will/determinism. Science is formulated in determinisms, which makes it an attractive position for a scientist. And the research methods we have on the brain, although developing quickly is frankly very crude. Experiments have to set up very narrowly to be certain to elicit the emotion/thinking one is looking for. It is a far way from that and to understanding what naturally goes on simultaneously and most likely ambigously in the brain. So far we know most about the brain when it isn't working properly (pathology), less how it works when it does properly. And even if we can manipulate thinking medically, doesn't mean we've understood how it really happens and what it really is. Breeders of livestock doesn't necessarily know what life fundamentally is and how it works, even if they know how to breed bigger chickens...

    Peace
    Dan
    ...
    I agree with this one.
    If you are afraid of dogs today... beacuse a dog bit you when you were 6, has nothing to do with anything other than a dog bit you when you were 6. You will either grow to fear all dogs as hostile animals to be feared... or that one dog bit you when you were 6 and sometimes, dogs will bite. From that time the dog bit you at age 6, did NOT determine your reactions to dogs for the rest of your life... or pass on that fear genetically, to your kids. Yeah, you can pass on your fear of dogs (or cats or snakes or black people or Gays or monsters) to your kids through verbal warnings... but, that is your choice... which is subject to your Free Will.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    Cosmo wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Sounds like you need to do a little more research into what determinism is... our reactions to things come from brain stimuli and chemical reacitons, all of these which are genetic to the individual. All of this genetic programming that our brain does already determines how you will react in given situations. What you think is free will is your brain already mapping out what you will do base on your genetic make up and how it is effected by internal and external enviroments.
    ...
    So... genetically speaking, if your parents are prone to, as an example, cowardice... because of genetics and/or past experiences... then, you are pretty much going to also show cowardice in a situation where heroism or cowardice are the options, correct?
    Determinism sounds like a means to excuse yourself of any responsibilities or accountability for your actions. "I choose not to jump in the lake to save that child because my genetics passed down from my parents determined my selection of safety on land, rather then risk in water."
    And just to be fair, the heroism scenario can be replaced in this example... where the parent's genetic hand me downs were responsible for your heroic act, not you, yourself.
    The basic idea behind theories of determinism is that the law of causality applies to everything, and that includes our choices. So, yes, these choices can be determined by the factors you described above. If we act contrary to those factors, then all that suggests is that there are other factors that had more causal efficacy (in that instance) than the ones we just mentioned.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Sounds like you need to do a little more research into what determinism is... our reactions to things come from brain stimuli and chemical reacitons, all of these which are genetic to the individual. All of this genetic programming that our brain does already determines how you will react in given situations. What you think is free will is your brain already mapping out what you will do base on your genetic make up and how it is effected by internal and external enviroments.
    ...
    So... genetically speaking, if your parents are prone to, as an example, cowardice... because of genetics and/or past experiences... then, you are pretty much going to also show cowardice in a situation where heroism or cowardice are the options, correct?
    Determinism sounds like a means to excuse yourself of any responsibilities or accountability for your actions. "I choose not to jump in the lake to save that child because my genetics passed down from my parents determined my selection of safety on land, rather then risk in water."
    And just to be fair, the heroism scenario can be replaced in this example... where the parent's genetic hand me downs were responsible for your heroic act, not you, yourself.

    I agree w/ Cosmo. Using genetics to determine outcomes doesn't prove anything to the individual who completely changes who he/she is or how they think as they evolve. It gives excuses to those who choose not to grow.
    What else is there aside from that person's biology/neurology and personal life experiences (learning) that would determine their actions?

    Just because you don't like the way something looks from a value standpoint doesn't mean you get to decide it can't be that way.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    You either believe a person is their brain/body + environment, or you believe in the supernatural.

    Saying that the amazing things we accomplish can't be done with our brains alone is selling biology a little short.
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    This is all very nice disccussion about determinism and whether free will is a prerequiste for reason but the problem remains regardless what you consitute as a choice making component and that problem is;
    the first choice must be based on something that preceeds the first choice in order not to be random and that precedence can not be choosen because it must preceed the first choice, hence the first choice has to be determind

    Unless this logical impossibility is resolved the rest of the discussion is a moot point.
  • BinFrog
    BinFrog MA Posts: 7,314
    HeidiJam wrote:
    This is all very nice disccussion about determinism and whether free will is a prerequiste for reason but the problem remains regardless what you consitute as a choice making component and that problem is;
    the first choice must be based on something that preceeds the first choice in order not to be random and that precedence can not be choosen because it must preceed the first choice, hence the first choice has to be determind

    Unless this logical impossibility is resolved the rest of the discussion is a moot point.

    I don't buy that argument at all...sorry.
    Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
    Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    BinFrog wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    This is all very nice disccussion about determinism and whether free will is a prerequiste for reason but the problem remains regardless what you consitute as a choice making component and that problem is;
    the first choice must be based on something that preceeds the first choice in order not to be random and that precedence can not be choosen because it must preceed the first choice, hence the first choice has to be determind

    Unless this logical impossibility is resolved the rest of the discussion is a moot point.

    I don't buy that argument at all...sorry.
    so.... whats your rebutle, do you even have one?
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Just because you don't like the way something looks from a value standpoint doesn't mean you get to decide it can't be that way.

    I'm tempted to throw that right back at you. You are assuming that genetics and/or environment are all the possible causal factors there is. Which is pretty bold given all of our lack of knowledge how a lot of that stuff works. Further, it assumes clear-cut causalities in all cases A leads to B etc. This is also a bold assumption.

    I'd say the main reason not to poopoo free will, is that we know far too little to in any meaningful way ascertain determinism. As I outlined before, science in it's nature, ONLY looks for deterministic factors, and indeed can only prove deterministic laws. (If results vary under same circumstances, it is a non-find or design-flaw, even if the results are real enough in their inconsistency) Which makes determinism look like the only way for scientists, although it is essentially a tautology.

    Uncertainty and lack of knowledge should still at this point make keeping the argument open the far more sensible option than pre-concluding out of scientific and psychological hubris. That's my main point.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • he still stands
    he still stands Posts: 2,835
    "The word that allows yes, the word that makes no possible.
    The word that puts the free in freedom and takes the obligation out of love.
    The word that throws a window open after the final door is closed.
    The word upon which all adventure, all exhilaration, all meaning, all honor depends.
    The word that fires evolution's motor of mud.
    The word that the cocoon whispers to the caterpillar.
    The word that molecules recite before bonding.
    The word that separates that which is dead from that which is living.
    The word no mirror can turn around.
    In the beginning was the word and that word was...











    ...CHOICE"

    -Tom Robbins, Still Life with Woodpecker
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • BinFrog
    BinFrog MA Posts: 7,314
    HeidiJam wrote:
    BinFrog wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    This is all very nice disccussion about determinism and whether free will is a prerequiste for reason but the problem remains regardless what you consitute as a choice making component and that problem is;
    the first choice must be based on something that preceeds the first choice in order not to be random and that precedence can not be choosen because it must preceed the first choice, hence the first choice has to be determind

    Unless this logical impossibility is resolved the rest of the discussion is a moot point.

    I don't buy that argument at all...sorry.
    so.... whats your rebutle, do you even have one?

    Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just think that sounds like something you'd talk about at 2 in the morning with college buddies after a night of indulging. Choices will always be made based on every series of previous choices that lead up to that point. There are no vacuum choices, as that would be an impossibility. The fact that choices are made after other events have been determined has nothing to do with whether or not free will is real or not. It's not a logical impossibility...it's a quirky little play on words.
    Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
    Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,381
    HeidiJam wrote:
    You either believe a person is their brain/body + environment, or you believe in the supernatural.

    Saying that the amazing things we accomplish can't be done with our brains alone is selling biology a little short.
    I believe a person is brain/body + environment + free will. Decisions I make can vary throughout a typical day depending on my mood, energy level, daily tasks, etc. And of course, environment and external factors will also alter my decision making process. Adapt on the fly is my motto.

    Actually, that's a pretty bad motto. I'm going to work on that . . .
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Blockhead
    Blockhead Posts: 1,538
    BinFrog wrote:
    Sorry, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just think that sounds like something you'd talk about at 2 in the morning with college buddies after a night of indulging. Choices will always be made based on every series of previous choices that lead up to that point. There are no vacuum choices, as that would be an impossibility. The fact that choices are made after other events have been determined has nothing to do with whether or not free will is real or not. It's not a logical impossibility...it's a quirky little play on words.
    Its not a play on words... I think you need to do a little studying into what determinism is and also look in to neuroscience which suggests your consciousness is not free.
    First off lets clarify freewill;
    Freewill; The ability for an individual to consciously make a "free choice" regarding a course of action from a limited number of alternatives based on the preceding casual stimuli.
    For a choice to qualify as free it:
    1) must not be determined purely be preceding stimuli.
    2) must not be random unless a random result is a possible course of action that can be purposely chosen.
    a random choice does not favor free will since it is basically a roll of the dice.
  • OutOfBreath
    OutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    HeidiJam wrote:
    Its not a play on words... I think you need to do a little studying into what determinism is and also look in to neuroscience which suggests your consciousness is not free.
    First off lets clarify freewill;
    Freewill; The ability for an individual to consciously make a "free choice" regarding a course of action from a limited number of alternatives based on the preceding casual stimuli.
    For a choice to qualify as free it:
    1) must not be determined purely be preceding stimuli.
    2) must not be random unless a random result is a possible course of action that can be purposely chosen.
    a random choice does not favor free will since it is basically a roll of the dice.

    Condition 1 is pretty easy to meet and envision.(or rather very hard to prove that it is purely directly only caused by the stimuli) Most likely choices also involve a touch of randomness. (People act out of habit but may also act squarely and deliberately against it at some times)

    So rather than an impossibility I find both these conditions plausible to be met, even simultaneously.

    And neuroscience have nowhere proved general philosophical determinism. Neuroscience looks exclusively for determined connections between substances and activity in the brain. Ambiguous connections will be seen is disproved by definition. Thus fueling a support for determinism in neuroscientists. You only ever find what you look for...

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Ledbetterdays
    Ledbetterdays Round Rock, Texas Posts: 556
    I have not read all of this but my argument would be that HeidiJam's take only considers what the experience and DNA of the individual is--but the experience of other people come's into play when making choices. Do we not listen to the advice and experience of others and can/has it not changed our own opinions or decision-making process? Words like influence, persuasion, conflict would all be non-existent if I am understanding her point that we have pre-decided based on something that has already happened.
    Touring Fan since 1996

Categories