My problem with Free Will


Hazard

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

PDS, Hm... I think maybe more this is a discussion on what exactly "free will" is. Can you define what free will is?

There can be many problems that one can discover with a defintion. It may be self contradictory, nonsense (not even a defenition), or may have an unresolved prerequisite for the learner, or maybe one of the premises are contradictory with the learner's worldview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There can be many problems that one can discover with a defintion.

Correct, Dean.

Defintions of terms is one of the key rules of rational argumentation, or, debate.

At times, we can discover that their is no dispute once all sides define the key terms.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that definitions can do is make sure all the participants in the discussion are on the same page.

Definitions cannot make untenable positions tenable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitions cannot make untenable positions tenable.

Of course they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm not sure it is that constructive of an argument to pit determinism against free will or vice versa because of course we always have to explain why some things seem to be determinable, and on the other hand why we (or at least I'm guessing most conscious humans) feel like they have choices to some degree. Maybe we are programmed to think we have choice, but we don't-- still pure determinism. Or maybe there it some level of "choice" in any "multifunctional" being down the evolutionary ladder (see my description of "cholce" in post #73)? Or maybe there are clear divisions between things that can choose and those that can't? I think most "Objectivists" think choice (at least how we experience it) begins with consciousness. I still use the term choice in this way.

But I've grown to the conclusion that any multifunctional entity must have some level of what we experience as "choice" for such emergent properties to form in the first place-- and here is an example to try to clarify:

We obviously have basic natural impulses, e.g. for food, to breathe, all the time-- things that we have to eventually cater to or we will die. But we can simultaneously have an impulse e.g. to eat, and then also to not eat-- something that challenges that notion like-- I'll eat too much if I eat more, and/or I'll get fat and out of shape, and/or I need to save that food for later, and/or I don't have time right now-- all these decisions and values can come into our minds in what seems like an instant to motivate us to take one action or another.

Now, what can we say determines the eventual outcome here? Evolutionarily, genetic (and even "learned") programming (like genetic predispositions towards food and how we learned to eat) in combination with environmental factors (the current situation-- like I have to get to work and thus I can't eat) , have often been presented as the predominant factors determining what has to cause the outcome. But then how do things, actions, behaviors ever change? Is it possible that besides such internal/external programming,there is some ability of an entity if it has contained within it, many preprogrammed functions, that it can direct energy as a whole towards one or more of those functions-- and when it combines those functions in such a way that the outcome is different to some certain degree, it can creatively push itself forward. For example, with the environmental influence of "I have to get to work" one may automatically make the conclusion " so I can't eat" but perhaps one has had an experience of taking the bus to work, so referencing that information, one knows that if that option is taken, one can eat food on the way. It comes back to seeing the larger framework of oneself and ones multiple capabilities to take creative pathways.

So I think that even if you believe in determinism, you can't deny that creative processes have to be there for new changes to come up-- that is some kind of "freedom" that perhaps we have (and perhaps many more things than us have). And perhaps this freedom can be held internally by us, (and perhaps other multifunctional entities down the evolutionary chain). Prhaps this creative freedom drives through our conscious processes as "choice." Otherwise aren't we left with some kind of external "randomness" as a casual force for change? And isn't "random" just the scientists equivalent of giving up, or putting all things/actions that don't make sense in a neater miscellaneous drawer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make some things clear for you from my worldview:

1. Our reality is completely deterministic/causal. Reality has a current state, but it continually changes through its process of change... and the next state that it becomes is fully dependent/determined by its previous state and the process by which it changes.

2. One problem people have with this determinism issue is that they look at at metal machine and they think "That system is just a mechanical system that doesn't change its behavior or think or anything... humans aren't like that SO REALITY MUST NOT BE DETERMINISTIC". See #3 in my post over here. The later part of that quote is an invalid conclusion. Give extra properties to humans, such as: (1. That they can change themselves and be changed by their environment. 2. That they have sensors, information processing systems, and actuators) And walla, we now have a deterministic system that is like that.

3. One other property that humans have that I failed to mention in #2 above is that we have information that comes in from sources that are unpredictable. This gives humans the ability to generate new ideas that hadn't yet existed before within their information networks (brains). On the topic of "random", I would assert that there is actually no thing/event that happens that is non-causal/non-determined... see #1. So "random" is just a short form of saying "Practically non-predictable due to the vast number of causes and/or lack of information/information-processing ability to fully predict."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something I wrote in the past...

=== Random, Improbable, & The Origin of the Universe ===
What is the meaning of "random"? "Random" is a descriptive word. "Random" is always said in reference to a particular Reality Simulating Systems (RSSs) (whether explicit or implied). A collection of random observations are those in which an RSS's collection of outputs are inconsistent: the RSS failed to predict the observations.
Improbable is just a further constraint of "random" descriptive word. An improbable observation is one in which an RSS's output was inconsistent, and furthermore the time between each occurrence of the RSS producing such an output is large. The larger the time between each occurrence of the output, the more improbable the output is. (Time is a measure of how much reality has changed, one can measure time by the position of the Earth relative to the Sun and the stars, by how many times a digital RSS's clock cycles, or how many times a collection of neurons fire).
Improbable events don't explain why anything exists, nor why something couldn't exist. Improbable events are just the recognition that reality is complex, and that its constituent parts are so vast that all of its possible states that it potentially could change through are infinite (given our reality's parts don't repeat through time in their state (state = relative position/velocity of parts). Even if reality did go through a forever looping cycle of exact repetition of states, I'm sure we can agree that all of the states it continually goes through are still ridiculously vast.
Someone might say: "Given all of the potential states a reality could be, isn't it just amazing that we exist? Ya know, just too improbable, like one out of 10^10000000000000... different states I could imagine! How ever many zeros I want to stack on to think of all the different ways reality could be, and yet here we are!"
And I would reply: No, its not amazing. Because here we are, so I'm not amazed. Its clear, we are here, its not impossible, it is true. We are part of a self consistent system. I imagine all such systems exist, in fact, there are an infinite number of such systems. So it doesn't matter how many zeros you raise that 10 to, there is truth system which exists for each of those possibilities too.
I would just point out that the O2 needs a container, and furthermore without a massively complex system of energy/matter external to the container influencing the vectors of movement of the contained O2, someone with a supercomputer could probably predict exactly how such a system would behave... unfortunately it wouldn't be possible to observe the position and vectors of all the O2 and N2 due to observation altering position and/or velocity. But yea, its totally conceivable to me that given such a system, once in a while the system would be all sorts of things. Like once in a while O2 and N2 separate w/ all O2 on the top, as you suggest.
And in the coin flipping, if it was performed in a vacuum, or performed in air who's flow was known, and the force vectors applied to the coin were known, and the coin's initial position & orientation relative to the floor were known, then it would be quite easy to predict which side the coin would land on. It becomes harder to predict as the system that applies the force to the coin applies force that is of such a high magnitude that the period of coin rotation is smaller than force application measurement noise floor (you would need better instrumentation), or that you would have to include air drag in the calculations too (more calculations). Or the frequency of rotation is so high that when the coin collides with the floor it will collide with so much energy that it wouldn't just fall on that side, it would then result in a mix of inelastic and elastic collisions, of which you would need to compute all sorts of physical details from the deformation of the coin and the floor to all of the surface imperfections maybe down to the atomic level and in order to correctly predict the 3D position, rotational velocity, and linear velocity after the collision is complete. But eventually as we continue to increase the force that we'd apply to the coin, in practical, its not possible to predict which side the coin would land on because little things like the position and speed vectors of all of the air molecules become important factors that need to be included in the prediction calculation system in order to get the prediction up over the "noise" floor.
This is my understanding of random events: random events are just events that are determined by such great complexity of deterministic causes that its impossible for an observation & prediction entity to correctly know all of the initial state and perform all of the detailed physics simulation in order to come up with a prediction that has any expectation of being better than using some other part of reality as a practically random outcome generator. Random events, from the perspective of us prediction capable entities, are only “random” because we are unable to make a prediction of the outcome that is any more likely to be correct than a prediction coming from any other source. You must have enough information about the system's initial state and know how the system changes and have the computational ability to apply the change formulas to the initial state... in order to be able to predict the outcome of a coin flip better than using ANY other source of heads/tails information, then the outcome is no longer considered random. Yet, from the perspective of reality, which is all of its initial state, and does do its process of change, the future result is inevitable. Inevitable, and yet not yet extant until reality becomes. The ridiculously complex truth system that is our reality is consistent with becoming with such a state, it does become it at one moment in its continual flow of state change. It is its combination of current state and continual process of change.
=== Determinism, Free Will ===
And then for those who would like to jump in now and say: “But reality isn't deterministic, because I have free will!” I ask you to think about what you are saying. Are you saying that what you think about is completely arbitrary, uncaused by yourself nor anything at all? That neurons in your brain just fire, uncaused, not having any reason for happening, that the electromagnetic event breaks conservation of energy and momentum? Or do you claim that your thoughts have reason for being as they are? I would agree, if you are a well functioning human, then most of your thoughts are there because you've re-iterated over them over and over, and via the design of your brain, you increase the number of copies of information that is repeatedly thought, and you overwrite information that you infrequently think... that this is the reason why your memories are as they are. Furthermore, reasons to keep thinking of an idea is because you have identified it as both valid and useful. You can't control ALL of your thoughts, because you can't control your sensory information. Nor can you by will change what you are at this moment, you can only change to become what you will be in the next moment.
What is intelligence? To a vast extent you, your design and your memories, you take what information you have and perform the following process: You bring into active memory a subset of your memories of associations of actions with sensory state changes (ones related to your current observations), inducting the effect of the actions, and then using this information combined with your current observations, processing various sequences of actions and using the inducted effects of the actions to deduce (predict) what the future state of reality would be given these premises... and then comparing these predictions against your goals to determine the predicted goal attainment that would result from each plan, then compare the predicted goal attainments to find the one that has the greatest goal attainment, then selecting that plan and sequentially sending the commands for each action to your actuators (such as muscles) in order to actualize your plan and attempt to actualize your predicted goal. You perform the plan. You mark all of the used action->effect associations within the plan as “used again! (make another copy of the association)”. You observe the results of your actions, and you take big note of actions which produced results different than you expected (delete one action->effect association, make a new action->effect association). You identify actions that produced results consistent with what you expected, and you remember “It worked one more time (make a copy of the association of action->effect)!”. If the goal wasn't attained, but the goal is really important to you, then you take tons of time thinking about those action->effect associations which didn't go as predicted, and you try to come up with a new action->effect association that works more in more contexts. This process, intelligence, is the underlying process of the human mind, and our ability to store more memories, perform more induction, and more of all of the above, all with making fewer mistakes (yea there are tons of places where information could be corrupted or comparisons could be calculated incorrectly)... humans have more ability in each of those aspects of design than any other species on earth.
Furthermore, isn't this compatible with a deterministic reality? To the extent that a system is controlled, it must be due to a causal deterministic process. To the extent that we are objective, it is because we use observation, induction, and deduction, all of which are deterministic processes.
"Free will" is the recognition that every man has his own unique hierarchy of goals, and furthermore that every man observes and predict his actions, and then selects his own actions based on the reasoning of his own predictions. Free will of man recognizes that men have such a great intellectual ability that they can identify harmful patterns of action that arise in one's mind instinctively due to unexpected events that trigger passionate desires and instead come up with detailed plans of sequences of minute precision actions which vastly improve his self/friends situation beyond the simple plans (like gouge, clobber, bite, grab, tear, thrust) that less capable living things can conclude to actualize.
Cheers,
Dean
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean--

That was an extensive extrapolation-- wow-- yeah, I agree that things have to be at least in some way, deterministic, and perhaps you are right, in all essential ways, that things are ultimately "determined." I agree with you that randomness is a sort of dead end concept except in terms of probabilities and/or what we do or don't already know.

I guess I would ask, if total determinism is the case, do you see any difference in the ideas of "predetermination" vs. "determination?" And if so, could you define that for me? Also, could you explain how you see causality and change working in a fundamental scientific sense-- what do you think ifs the primary causal mechanism that turns one thing to another, e.g. is it all about balance, conservation of energy and mass, for example? Is there ultimately any internal or external cause/control over actions-- do you see "internal" and "external" as valid ideas of containment-- e.g. is it always a balance between internal and external that provides the boundaries for things?

Also, then, how would you, if you believe cause and change to be contexts of or within the entirely determinable, define a state of "freedom?" Is this a mental illusion, some evolutionary mechanism designed to motivate us perhaps? Could/would freedom be a function simply of probabilities? As to "will," can we as human exist as an "I," or as a mental whole, to the extent that we ever have some control over things that happen, meaning as a conscious whole, act on our own as a determinate factor within our environments-i.e. still determinable, just as a source for actions within the wider "other"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think free-will is exactly that, the freedom of will to think - or not - and what to think about.

(NOT to "will" something into existence).

Secondary to this is the choice of actions necessary to bring about a desired end, which is a whole other thing.

If the two stages are allowed to be conflated in debate, volitionists will always have a hard time refuting determinism, and paint themselves into a corner - so to speak.

The choice when to think, what one selects to think about and how concentrated the thinking, is so self-evident(introspectively)a process, as to be just short of axiomatic. The evidence "out there" of what IS, of all that did not 'have to be', is more overwhelming evidence of free-will.

Without it, man cannot possibly be "end in himself". He can't develop virtue, conviction and character, or hold values. Being pre-determined, he may as well be amoral since without alternatives morality is null and void. So bang goes all of Objectivism.;)

(Acceptance of determinism appears sometimes to be a variety of a secular mysticism, in the sense of placing oneself in the hands of a higher power - and lacking any responsibility, subjectively hoping for a 'good' result. Except no religious person I've known has been so determinist as that!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan Lewis,

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to when you say "predetermined"... but here is the feeling of what I get when I hear someone say that:
Determined: the next moment of reality's continual state change is determined by its current state and the process by which reality changes.
Predetermined: The idea that somehow reality's future state is pre-known... known by what? Reality's future state is not pre-computable by anything within reality. We cannot know what it a portion of it will become until it becomes and we observe. Our reality itself of course doesn't "know" its future... it just is what it is and becomes what it becomes by its nature. But conceivably our reality is a subset of another reality, just like y=3*x+1 with corresponding data sets is a subset of our reality. For an observer in such an encapsolating reality, its conceivable that such an observer could know both the current and a future state of our reality.

dlewis: "what do you think ifs the primary causal mechanism that turns one thing to another, e.g. is it all about balance, conservation of energy and mass, for example?"

I do think that conservation of mass/energy and conservation of momentum are fundamental properties of our reality. I'm not sure what you mean by "balance". As for internal vs external control... I think that our reality is kind of like a giant continual state manchine... and our reality exists as an equation (the laws that determine how it changes) and the inreadibly vast dataset that is its current state. To change the data by any means other than the equation would violate the equations, and hence "external" control would be a contradiction. Entities that exist within the dataset can only behave through the processes of the equation, their "actions" are fully consistent with the equation's determination of next state.

------------------------------

dlewis: "As to "will," can we as human exist as an "I," or as a mental whole, to the extent that we ever have some control over things that happen, meaning as a conscious whole, act on our own as a determinate factor within our environments-i.e. still determinable, just as a source for actions within the wider "other"?"

You can either look at our reality as being one giant continual state machine, or as billions of interacting continual state machines that follow the same laws but have different parts, different emergent properties, and exchange parts all the time through their interactions. The later is the perspective you must use, with a particular human in reference, when you say that such a human is controling himself and/or his externals.

One's consciousness is a information processing network that simulates its external reality within itself. Consciousnesses not "merging" between two humans is a slippary slope... communication between the two "merges" them, increase the communication bandwidth enough, particularly between sensor and motor, and other parts of the brain, and then the two humans can sense from both bodies and control their muscles together and think together. Then two I's become "we" or rather maybe one "I" that is more, but clearly the two merged minds thinking is highly interactive, thoughts are much less independent.

But currently our neural networks are highly seperated in bandwidth from eachother. This may always be the case due to the problem of information locality and that so much other stuff (power supplies, resource gathering equipment, cooling, waste management, etc) must be tightly integrated with our information processing systems, and the problem of the speed of light and its latency... and the supiriourity of distributed systems over centralized wholistic systems in the game of life. For example, I don't think the borg in star trek would be as shown (individuals would not be so integrated into the collective thinking)... information locality prevents complete control by external information processing systems over local information processing systems. Also, problems like false flags, man in the middle attacks, and communication failures prevent complete trust and compliance in distributed intellgience systems.

------------------------------


dlewis: "Also, then, how would you, if you believe cause and change to be contexts of or within the entirely determinable, define a state of "freedom?" Is this a mental illusion, some evolutionary mechanism designed to motivate us perhaps? Could/would freedom be a function simply of probabilities?"

My response may not completely satisfy you... but here it goes... First let me describe some conclusions I'd like to call "nirvana".

Nirvana of intelligence: If a person were to think "My actions are inevitable, hence I might as well stop thinking (thinking = information processing such as learning and planning)" then you stop learning and planning. Without actually performing the learning and planning, you fail to accomplish many goals that you otherwise could have... because you didn't do the actions that were necessary in order to accomplish them. In real we have competition, and the competition will achieve the goals instead of you, and resultingly your genes will be less likely to survive.

Nirvana of action: If a person were to think "Reality/nature overall has no goal, no care, no pasion. There's no way to deduce that I should chose to do one thing over another. Hence I might as well stop doing anything." Then you stop doing stuff, and you fail to accomplish many goals that you otherwise could have... because you didn't do the actions that were necessary in order to accomplish them. In real we have competition, and the competition will achieve the goals instead of you, and resultingly your genes will be less likely to survive.

So yes, there is strong natural selection pressure fighting against following through on the above emphasized conclusions (nirvana). One might come to such a conclusion, then later change it. Here's a different conclusion: "I might as well plan to take over the world". I think we are kind of made to come up with challenges for ourselves, the greater the challenges we set for ourselves, and the harder we strive for them, the greater ambition we have. If we do come to a nirvana conclusion, most of us soon after change our minds (conclusion), and begin working for some new goal.

Depression is the recognition that your plans did not achieve the goals you had set for yourself, or the recognition that you are running out of energy/resources in trying to create a plan that you could possibly perform to attain your goals. Sometimes we change our goals to something more accomplishable, and attain happiness in that way. Nirvana is one option, but generally those who live on do not chose it.

------------------------------

Here let me point out that the foundation of Ayn Rand's ethics is circular reasoning. First she defines what man is (primarily as a Caricature of man vs animals), and then asserts that man should live like a man. And she then asserts that you are a man. I do agree that this is pretty successful in achieving happiness (where happiness is the identification of goal attainment). But I would not agree that each individual necessarily has the same features/strategies as her caricature. We are different, but so far as you accept that you should do like Rand's caricature does... you do not come to the nirvana conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I answered the natural selection aspect, but didn't fully answer your question on "freedom". The rest of my answer to "freedom" is that what "freedom" really is... is a recognition of onself having control over oneself and one's influence on the world. Ones own thoughts being independent from other people's thoughts. I'd rather call it "self determination". "Random"ness is not really control... but randomness is the underlying process of imagination, and then more structured/designed/reasoning aspects of our information processing systems use this imagined information (such as various imagined plans, imagined hypothesis of how reality works...) to predict plans, compare their results, and perform the best plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hummmm,

whYNOT--

I basically agree that humans possess volitional capabilities, but I wouldn't call volition "axiomatic" per se-- I don't even think consciousness is really-- e.g. humans sometimes are in subconsicous or unconscious states, states where we normally would say we don't "choose" what we are doing. But I do think we can direct ourselves somehow on these different levels, even if by different means, or even if we don't direct all of our actions-- for example, I could be in the line of a tornado and I may choose to turn and run, but the tornado nonetheless in this scenario, ultimately determines that I end up as bird fodder on some other side of the landscape. So I think it is sane to say probably something determined, structured, permanent, etc. outside (and inside) ourselves likely exists (in whatever form) that has caused and contiues to cause things to be, and try to reconcile how we possess "volition," which does seem engrained in our conscious or at least self-conscious awareness from those set factors. I don't think I'm necessarily painting myself into a corner by thinking this, or diving down some slippery slope-- I mainly was trying to see where Dean was coming from, because my brothers tend to share his views, and I was curious how he would structure the ideas of freedom and will and predetermination and such, under a an umbrella of "complete determinism," in which he offered some interesting answers (responses below). Although perceptive, I wouldn't go so far to reduce Dean's determinism, the way he seems to be describing it, under the same umbrella as a "secular mysticism" that removes us as a casual "self-determining" force within that "total determinsm," and thus removes us from individual responsibility (though I do think this does happen with some extreme determinists)-- his post #88 seems to clear that up a little bit. I'm not sure I agree with it, but at least it is a discussion about how we how we have developed our "freedoms" from something "determined." I would argue though, that the only "determinable" fundamental thing/idea we can completely, axiomatically know is "existence" itself... as anything and everything, infinite in scope and possibility.

Dean--

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm taking, based on your descriptions, that you do not really believe in the "predetermined" because you see reality in a constant state of flux? Maybe only in terms of more basic vs more complex realities? Is this accurate? How would you reconcile this with the idea of existence as "anything and/or everything in any/every time frame." Isn't it possible to have a concept like this, in your view, that engulfs all other things? And if so, then isn't existence, in a way, predetermined-- a constant and permanent source for everything else?

To me the way you've described what controls things (e.g. internal vs. external) as,

"I think that our reality is kind of like a giant continual state manchine... and our reality exists as an equation (the laws that determine how it changes) and the inreadibly vast dataset that is its current state. To change the data by any means other than the equation would violate the equations, and hence "external" control would be a contradiction. Entities that exist within the dataset can only behave through the processes of the equation, their "actions" are fully consistent with the equation's determination of next state."

may be reductionistic, but how do you see determination-- I'm taking it is not an open-eded kind of "probability to actuality" idea-- like (A) I have so many possible roles of the dice, but not until the dice are rolled do things punctuate into a specific outcome, but instead, (B) more like what I think of when I think of "predetermination"-- that there is only one possible action for all things no matter if the time has come yet for that action to manifest, because there is a "data set" or "equation" already lined up for one specific result. If your idea is neither (A) nor (B), please describe the process if you can, more for me-- you may be on to something new!

On your last point, I disagree that "competition" (within natural selection) is the primary determining factor forcing us (especially as humans with the complexity of our consciousness) to make "choices," though I do think natural selection in some form is an essential factor, because we depend on natural and social resources to most basically survive. Although I too think of natural selection of resources hones our values or needs as human beings on some fundamental level, what you explain as "self-determination" seems more on track as some defining factor in how our "freedoms" or "choices" more directly come about-- I use the term "self-regulation" in a similar sense in my book to describe "cholce" (holistic choice). Could we say that that humans (and perhaps all "multi-functional" beings) posses the ability to some degree "self-regulate" or "self-determine" what happens to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also state, besides "existence" as a primal , that I personally think "knowledge, self, and identity" are self-proven/axiomatic concepts, inescapable both metaphysically and epistemologically, but I'm not convinced they are as "self-known" or "self-evident" like eixstence is. If existence is anything and/or everything, there seems no good way to rationalize around that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dlewis: Your "...we can direct ourselves somehow on these different levels..." is exactly as I see it too. Often it seems like a 'layering-on' of one recognition above another, with an increasing ability to navigate through those levels -at will.

Not any single process of cognition, more a stream of self-perpetuating processes. Not one-goal-oriented, but many, many minor orientations amounting to and supporting a larger choice. Not a 'perfect' (or ever-constant) self-determinism, either; arguing for this would deny all the other influential factors - painting oneself into a mutually exclusive corner.

Free will (perhaps, also true of determinism) feels like a self-fulfilling prophecy at times. It seems dependent on a growing confidence which in turn is dependent on practice - and, to paraphrase the golfer, "The more I practise, the more free-willed I become." Over all, the aggregate of it all is the inner awareness of "I did this."

Pardon me for any lack of clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dlewis: "How would you reconcile this with the idea of existence as "anything and/or everything in any/every time frame.""

I would agree that all possible data sets and time frames exist in fully independent/separate realities. But when referring to our reality, only the current state exists.

dlewis: ""probability to actuality" idea-- like (A)..."

In A it seems like you are saying that the dice might land on one side or another for no reason, and there would be no cause for it to land on one side or another? That the side it lands on would be different if you were to somehow restore reality in its entirety back to the state before the dice were thrown, and re-throw, that you could come up with a different outcome? I would reject this in favor of B. "probability" is a word that is used with the concept of "random", where basically you are saying that you are incapable of predicting, rather than that a future event or state is not fully determined by the previous state. Such things as "probability" and "random" come into play for us in simulations where we are incapable of fully predicting results due to lack of information or information processing ability (due to the vast nature of reality's state).

Re: natural selection and choice, determination... maybe what I said implied too strong of a control in that aspect. Rather, via evolution, our design, which causes us to have various instincts and feelings about things, is loosely constrained by whatever results in successful continuance and reproduction. But surely individuals can deviate and fail to reproduce, not just by genetic design that leads to critical health failures, but also by decisions "made by the brain" (not made by natural selection). We are now debating "nature vs nurture", or maybe "evolution vs environment vs self". They all influence/cause the outcomes of our decision making process to various degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a part of the North Namib Desert which could be reached off-road and then off -trail, in the right vehicle - and after leaving the vehicle, by trekking for a day or two into one of the remotest parts of Africa.

The hiker in this rocky, semi-desert might have a sudden fancy - to stop to look at just one, specific small rock from thousands all around. And think to himself: How did this rock come to be here, and how did it come into being? Which unimaginable forces and inestimable time eventually arrived at this combination of elements, in this size and shape and at this time? In a place (it's a safe bet) where it has never been touched by human foot or hand.

He might consider: I could take out my hammer, and with a few blows break it into several pieces and throw them to different points of the compass...right then, I will have interfered with and ended a causal chain going back aeons. That rock was 'determined' to exist and to be here - and in a second I can subordinate it to my will.

But he chooses to do nothing, and walks on considering how HE came to be, and how he came to be here in this place and time. Which unpredictable permutation of thought and emotion by each of two individuals brought them together, to create him? And their parents before them? Ad infinitum.

What feelings and thoughts led him to come here into this solitude? He realises there were antecedent causes, but all of them also effects - of his knowledge and actions, convictions and relationships to other individuals - and as much as they can be understood, he understands they were not predetermined or causeless, and he was always the prime cause.

Heading back to civilisation it strikes him clearly: how this tiny corner of the Universe has never been and will never be (as long as life exists) quite the same since the self-conscious animals emerged. Man's self-determinism has come some way to partially defeat causality and determinism here.

But even more, he understands - also that every man is his own admitting agent for whatever 'comes in' - and his own sending agent for what he allows to 'go out', as he selects by his free will. "An end [and beginning] in himself", in short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did the hiker get to the North Namid Desert? Well, perhaps he's a stockbroker and saved up for the plane ticket and Land Rover rental. How did he get to be a stockbroker? Well, he studied hard, made good grades and attended the Wharton School. Why was he motivated to work hard? His parents instilled in him the values of productivity and worldly success.

But wait, what if he had been the son of lifelong welfare recipients whose highest value is to get through life with the least effort possible? Well, of course, a child does not have to follow the example of his parents. He can be a rebel against a culture of laziness and parasitism.

But what if what the child has to escape is not simply an attitude but a slave state? What if barbwire fences and guard towers with machine guns make his citizenship a life sentence?

In short, the ability to pick up a particular small rock among thousands in the North Namib Desert is made possible by a boundless series of events that are not subject to one individual's choice.

As Mises writes in Human Action, "When [a man] is born, he does not enter the world in general as such, but a definite environment. The innate and inherited biological qualities and all that life has worked upon him make a man what he is at any instant of his pilgrimage. They are his fate and destiny. His will is not 'free' in the metaphysical sense of this term. It is determined by his background and all the influences to which he himself and his ancestors were exposed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As well that Mises was a fine economist, because in this quote, he makes for a poor philosopher.

To ignore the evidence of one's own senses, experience, introspection and ability to conceptualize, is quite saddening to see.

There is so much in even the most dogmatic determinist's life which could have been something else, and indeed often was - if he were only truthful to himself.

One's thought and emotions may be channeled and transformed - even ignored - and what one does or doesn't do next with them can at any moment in action, be corrected and re-directed.

It seems a determinist is determined to be a skeptic, come what may. Self-fulfilling, as I suspected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as there are countless genetic and environmental forces that determine whether one will get diabetes, bladder cancer or bronchitis, so there are innumerable outside forces that affect the brain and personality.

Saying that it was pure free will that made the hiker in remote Africa choose one rock out of 100,000 is to ignore the millions of external factors that put him in that spot in the first place, instead of in the Gobi, the Sahara, the Mojave--or, for that matter, in Harrah's Casino, Las Vegas--or on a beach in Maui--or in a crack den in L.A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Francisco, the rock he chanced to pay attention to was random - but the thought that prompted it, in that split-second earlier, was not.

The thought could not have been predetermined, iow. His subsequent thoughts, emotions and conclusions, also could not.

I have emphasised that I'm not arguing for 'perfect' volition. "Man is a being of volitional consciousness". That's all.

What to do with it, is what counts too... big time.

Lets' say we have this conversation:

You: I can run pretty fast.

Me: (scoffing) So? You can't call it running if you can't beat Ursain Bolt. Can you?

You: No, but I didn't say...

[etc.]

It's not one's running speed that is the wonder of it, but the fact that you can run at all.

So, it's not the inarguable factors of genetics, upbringing, and so on (and I don't need to cite the many instances of poor child makes good, and the opposite) that dominate what we are and become, but the wonder of what one can do with that little bit of free-will we possess: If one chooses to choose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All events, including human action, have a cause. The hiker selected a rock, say, two yards from where he was standing. Why not a rock 15 yards away? Perhaps the hiker's stomach was growling, and it was time to cook dinner. Perhaps there was the fear of being bitten by a black mamba. Perhaps the shape and dimpled exterior of the chosen rock reminded the hiker of his second favorite past-time, golf.

That the hiker is unaware of the particular factors that prompt his decision does not mean that his choice, even his decision to pick up a rock at all, is without cause, i.e. that his will, his choice has no other cause prior to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All events, including human action, have a cause. The hiker selected a rock, say, two yards from where he was standing. Why not a rock 15 yards away? Perhaps the hiker's stomach was growling, and it was time to cook dinner. Perhaps there was the fear of being bitten by a black mamba. Perhaps the shape and dimpled exterior of the chosen rock reminded the hiker of his second favorite past-time, golf.

That the hiker is unaware of the particular factors that prompt his decision does not mean that his choice, even his decision to pick up a rock at all, is without cause, i.e. that his will, his choice has no other cause prior to it.

There you go then - exactly what I've been saying. All events have a cause. With men, the cause is thought and emotions, and thoughts about thoughts and thinking about emotions. Or if he wishes, emotion alone as the cause.

Funny, you derive determinism from the same thing that I get free-will. How's that?

Say again, an instantaneous thought prompted him zeroing in on one rock, or any rock. The nearest would do. It probably struck him suddenly that he was walking where nobody had before. Now, I ask you, how was that thought predetermined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's intellectual heir Leonard Peikoff writes in a work approved by Rand,

"Determinism is the theory that everything that happens in the universe—including every thought, feeling, and action of man—is necessitated by previous factors, so that nothing could ever have happened differently from the way it did . . . Every aspect of man’s life and character, on this view, is merely a product of factors that are ultimately outside his control. Objectivism rejects this theory."

I take "control" to mean choice, for choice, i.e. human action, is the result of prior conditions and events.

Thus, if you agree with me, then "every aspect of man’s life and character . . . is merely a product of factors that are ultimately outside his control."

But that is not free will, which according to Rand means "that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have done otherwise."

Thoughts may come to one instantaneously, but that does not mean that they arrive there by the "will" of the thinker. Thoughts from one moment to the next are the products of the combined environmental factors of prior experience (stored in memory) and present external stimuli.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now