FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Philosophy time - Freewill vs determinism
Philosophy time - Freewill vs determinism
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Do you think freewill exists or do you think everything in the universe is deterministic, can be described in physical equations and we are just going through the motions?
For believers in freewill? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is another realm of consciousness outside of physical world?
For believers in determinism, how do you build a moral framework if nothing is under your control?
Any book recommendations on this topic are welcome too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Very interesting questions OP but possibly too much to grapple with in this forum ? I would say there is lot going on between pure free choice and pure determinism and that binary is not where I would start a discussion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Very interesting questions OP but possibly too much to grapple with in this forum ? I would say there is lot going on between pure free choice and pure determinism and that binary is not where I would start a discussion. "
Agreed that it might be too deep for the forum. But I have seen plenty of questions on morality. So I thought why not?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Very interesting questions OP but possibly too much to grapple with in this forum ? I would say there is lot going on between pure free choice and pure determinism and that binary is not where I would start a discussion.
Agreed that it might be too deep for the forum. But I have seen plenty of questions on morality. So I thought why not?
"
Absolutely why not, and serious discussions are always welcomed by me.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think they co-exist simultaneously as a paradox, there cannot be a right or wrong answer, both and neither are true.
I only look like an airhead, and you're welcome  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not one I thought hard about ... But I cant square of quantum physics with absolute determinism.
But I do sometimes wonder about how we move from stimuli response of very basic creatures through more complex to us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ea monkeyMan
over a year ago
Manchester (he/him) |
The two concepts are mutually exclusive yet people hold to aspects of both and make reference to each.
In truth I think that our minds are not capable of grasping the vagaries of the universe and we only understand a tiny proportion of life in reference to ourselves. The rest we fill in with warm ideas to stop ourselves from running screaming into the sea.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"do you think everything in the universe is deterministic, can be described in physical equations"
Equations are a human construct. So, no.
I don't believe we have free will either. If the laws of humans don't get us the law of nature will. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Not one I thought hard about ... But I cant square of quantum physics with absolute determinism.
But I do sometimes wonder about how we move from stimuli response of very basic creatures through more complex to us. "
Just recently read on quantum physics and that does allows for freewill. But yes. There is lot to unravel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The two concepts are mutually exclusive yet people hold to aspects of both and make reference to each.
In truth I think that our minds are not capable of grasping the vagaries of the universe and we only understand a tiny proportion of life in reference to ourselves. The rest we fill in with warm ideas to stop ourselves from running screaming into the sea.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *VineMan
over a year ago
The right place |
"Do you think freewill exists or do you think everything in the universe is deterministic, can be described in physical equations and we are just going through the motions?
For believers in freewill? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is another realm of consciousness outside of physical world?
For believers in determinism, how do you build a moral framework if nothing is under your control?
Any book recommendations on this topic are welcome too. "
Sam Harris has written a great book on this subject. It’s called Free Will. He comes down on the side that free will is an illusion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not one I thought hard about ... But I cant square of quantum physics with absolute determinism.
But I do sometimes wonder about how we move from stimuli response of very basic creatures through more complex to us.
Just recently read on quantum physics and that does allows for freewill. But yes. There is lot to unravel."
agree quantum does allow for free will. I think it puts pay to full on determinism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't believe free will exists but in the absence of a better description for human behaviour it is as good a place to start as any.
Our justice system does already accept that not all behaviour can be attributed to free will, for example we include age, mental health, physical health and even prior lived experience in our judgement of morality.
There is more than enough evidence to know for a fact that physical changes to the brain whether through injury or illness can significantly affect a person's behavoir. The same is clearly true of certain chemicals. It is therefore clear that our behaviour is at least affected if not determined by the physical structure and chemical makeup of our brain. A child has free will, as does a person with a brain tumour, alzheimers, head injury or schizophrenia yet every single one of these would ensure that they were found not guilty of most if not all crimes. In cases such as these the language of free will is not the best description we have for a persons behavoir, instead we tend to use a language that relies far more on ideas close to determinism.
I have no doubt that as our knowledge of how the brain works continues to increase, the language we use to describe it will change. The difficulty is that this will come into significant conflict with our sense of self.
Sam Harris has written some useful stuff on morality though he fails to subject his own opinions to the level of scrutiny he places on others and his contempt of religion means that his arguments against it are often based more on emotional reasoning than logic. Yuval Harari (Sapiens) and Sean Carol (The big picture) both touch on this too.
Personally I believe your question about morality is based on a strange assumption. Why should belief in free will give you any more right to form a moral frame work than belief in determinism? I can quite happily say that the guy who abuses kids is no more responsible for his behavoir than I am for my abhorrence of it whilst simultaneously believing that for the good of society such behavoir should not only be banned but carry such social stigma and punishment that there is as big a deterrent as possible against it. In fact, I believe a deterministic approach to behavoir gives a better system of 'justice'. Once we do away with the notion of free will we stop hating the person, and concentrate on hating the behavoir. Our justice system then stops being about exacting revenge, our words of condemnation stop being about people but rather their actions. Instead, the justice system starts being about finding the most effective ways to reduce behavoirs we as a society don't want. That is surely a far more effective and logical approach. As we stop concentrating on punishing people and start looking at ways to stop them behaving in ways that cause harm we will put our attention where it needs to be and that will undoubtedly lead to a safer society. However, notions of free will are so ingrained, as is our desire to judge other people. It isn't going to be an easy change to make.
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not one I thought hard about ... But I cant square of quantum physics with absolute determinism.
But I do sometimes wonder about how we move from stimuli response of very basic creatures through more complex to us.
Just recently read on quantum physics and that does allows for freewill. But yes. There is lot to unravel.agree quantum does allow for free will. I think it puts pay to full on determinism. "
Quantum physics doesn't allow for free will. As yet it isn't known if at the deepest level the universe is deterministic, what is known is that there is no possible mechanism Whereby human thought can influence quantum behavoir - this is not only theoretically impossible I believe it has been proved experimentally as well.
Mr |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I did a brief intro to neuropsychology ... and there is definitely a challenge to the concept of free-will, but from the perspective of such a small part of our decision-making being made consciously. So many other un-conscious factors are at play that its impossible to determine free will. But thats a mine field if you dwell on it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ettaManMan
over a year ago
Based in Kerry, work in Cork. |
"
Sam Harris has written a great book on this subject. It’s called Free Will. He comes down on the side that free will is an illusion. "
Great book and surprisingly shirt as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *agic.MMan
over a year ago
Orpington |
"In this world, is the destiny of mankind controlled by some transcendental entity or law? Is it like the hand of God hovering above? At least, it is true that man has no control, even over his own will."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Do you think freewill exists or do you think everything in the universe is deterministic, can be described in physical equations and we are just going through the motions?
For believers in freewill? Where do you think it comes from? Do you think there is another realm of consciousness outside of physical world?
For believers in determinism, how do you build a moral framework if nothing is under your control?
Any book recommendations on this topic are welcome too.
Sam Harris has written a great book on this subject. It’s called Free Will. He comes down on the side that free will is an illusion. "
Thanks. I will add it to my list. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Perhaps unsurprisingly the concept of free will is explored extensively in French writing but one of the illustrations that has always stuck with me is from the author Michel Houllebecq who did not totally deny its existence but said that it is restricted to occasional windows when we have the opportunity to exercise genuine choice.
Essentially, he posited in our daily lives as a whole, it is hard to step outside of the web of obligations that enmeshes us all in society. However, occasionally we might have an opportunity to make a decision that can change the path of our lives e.g. speaking to that person in a bar, accepting a job offer etc. Of course, even in those situations, the decision we make is likely to be conditioned by thousands of tiny prior decisions and experiences that all incrementally incline us one way or another.
Still, it's an interesting way of looking at it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I don't believe free will exists but in the absence of a better description for human behaviour it is as good a place to start as any.
Our justice system does already accept that not all behaviour can be attributed to free will, for example we include age, mental health, physical health and even prior lived experience in our judgement of morality.
There is more than enough evidence to know for a fact that physical changes to the brain whether through injury or illness can significantly affect a person's behavoir. The same is clearly true of certain chemicals. It is therefore clear that our behaviour is at least affected if not determined by the physical structure and chemical makeup of our brain. A child has free will, as does a person with a brain tumour, alzheimers, head injury or schizophrenia yet every single one of these would ensure that they were found not guilty of most if not all crimes. In cases such as these the language of free will is not the best description we have for a persons behavoir, instead we tend to use a language that relies far more on ideas close to determinism.
I have no doubt that as our knowledge of how the brain works continues to increase, the language we use to describe it will change. The difficulty is that this will come into significant conflict with our sense of self.
Sam Harris has written some useful stuff on morality though he fails to subject his own opinions to the level of scrutiny he places on others and his contempt of religion means that his arguments against it are often based more on emotional reasoning than logic. Yuval Harari (Sapiens) and Sean Carol (The big picture) both touch on this too.
Personally I believe your question about morality is based on a strange assumption. Why should belief in free will give you any more right to form a moral frame work than belief in determinism? I can quite happily say that the guy who abuses kids is no more responsible for his behavoir than I am for my abhorrence of it whilst simultaneously believing that for the good of society such behavoir should not only be banned but carry such social stigma and punishment that there is as big a deterrent as possible against it. In fact, I believe a deterministic approach to behavoir gives a better system of 'justice'. Once we do away with the notion of free will we stop hating the person, and concentrate on hating the behavoir. Our justice system then stops being about exacting revenge, our words of condemnation stop being about people but rather their actions. Instead, the justice system starts being about finding the most effective ways to reduce behavoirs we as a society don't want. That is surely a far more effective and logical approach. As we stop concentrating on punishing people and start looking at ways to stop them behaving in ways that cause harm we will put our attention where it needs to be and that will undoubtedly lead to a safer society. However, notions of free will are so ingrained, as is our desire to judge other people. It isn't going to be an easy change to make.
Mr"
Lovely post. My question on morality was based on how we deal with crime. Some criminals are cut some slack because of bad childhood/mental issues. But every issue can be tracked down to some cause that caused this effect. You explained well about how to handle crime if determinism is true. Never thought that deep about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ettaManMan
over a year ago
Based in Kerry, work in Cork. |
I think the answer lies in the Buddhist doctrine of 'no self' which basically tells us that our perception of ourselves is incorrect. This would mean that our idea or free will is a misperception.
Our thinking is very much conditioned by our environment and our experiences. This is how the false sense of perception develops. Buddhist practice is all about cutting through this conditioning to the true nature of our mind, which some spiritual traditions say is just part of the universal will.
The universal will (our true will) is to be happy and content. This part of our will is free but our conditioned mind misappropriates it. While our true will is to be peaceful and happy, our conditioned mind searches outside ourselves for this happiness.
...
If materialistic determinism i.e. deterministic cause and effect is true, then there can be no free will. 'The will' would have to be of a different substance which is not subject to cause and effect, a lá Cartesian Dualism.
Quantum indeterminism doesn't restore free will by virtue of challenging determinism bcos our decisions would be the result of random quantum events and hence not free. Again, substance dualism would be required.
...
There are some who argue that free will is one of the axioms of quantum mechanics and so is there as a fundamental assumption, with the verification of quantum mechanics being a verification of free will. See this thread on boards for a discussion on that topic:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058014595/dawkins-vs-sartre-existentialism-vs-biological-determinism/p1
I would be inclined to think it is the universal will which is the free will in quantum mechanics
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I did a brief intro to neuropsychology ... and there is definitely a challenge to the concept of free-will, but from the perspective of such a small part of our decision-making being made consciously. So many other un-conscious factors are at play that its impossible to determine free will. But thats a mine field if you dwell on it"
It is indeed a minefield and I don't think we will be possible for us to get an answer in my lifetime at least. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Perhaps unsurprisingly the concept of free will is explored extensively in French writing but one of the illustrations that has always stuck with me is from the author Michel Houllebecq who did not totally deny its existence but said that it is restricted to occasional windows when we have the opportunity to exercise genuine choice.
Essentially, he posited in our daily lives as a whole, it is hard to step outside of the web of obligations that enmeshes us all in society. However, occasionally we might have an opportunity to make a decision that can change the path of our lives e.g. speaking to that person in a bar, accepting a job offer etc. Of course, even in those situations, the decision we make is likely to be conditioned by thousands of tiny prior decisions and experiences that all incrementally incline us one way or another.
Still, it's an interesting way of looking at it."
Never heard of the author. Interesting way to look at it. Thanks for the recommendation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I think the answer lies in the Buddhist doctrine of 'no self' which basically tells us that our perception of ourselves is incorrect. This would mean that our idea or free will is a misperception.
Our thinking is very much conditioned by our environment and our experiences. This is how the false sense of perception develops. Buddhist practice is all about cutting through this conditioning to the true nature of our mind, which some spiritual traditions say is just part of the universal will.
The universal will (our true will) is to be happy and content. This part of our will is free but our conditioned mind misappropriates it. While our true will is to be peaceful and happy, our conditioned mind searches outside ourselves for this happiness.
...
If materialistic determinism i.e. deterministic cause and effect is true, then there can be no free will. 'The will' would have to be of a different substance which is not subject to cause and effect, a lá Cartesian Dualism.
Quantum indeterminism doesn't restore free will by virtue of challenging determinism bcos our decisions would be the result of random quantum events and hence not free. Again, substance dualism would be required.
...
There are some who argue that free will is one of the axioms of quantum mechanics and so is there as a fundamental assumption, with the verification of quantum mechanics being a verification of free will. See this thread on boards for a discussion on that topic:
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058014595/dawkins-vs-sartre-existentialism-vs-biological-determinism/p1
I would be inclined to think it is the universal will which is the free will in quantum mechanics
"
Hinduism too has three schools of thought on reality, one of which is completely deterministic.
On quantum physics, indeterminism just opens up a chance that free will could exist. As you said, proof of indeterminism itself shouldn't be taken as proof of free will. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
