Freewill and determinism

D4Shawn Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - When a bat strikes a ball, you can claim that the bat is irrelevant and that the ball just "willed" itself into the air. However, that doesn't actually mean anything. If a "decision" is the result/effect of prior occurrences/causes, then how is "will" not irrelevant and meaningless (as it is in the case of ball being struck by a bat)?

neotropic9 Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - Your analogy is broken. I am saying that freewill (decision making) is important even though the universe is deterministic. Fatalists say that because the universe is determinstic, the choice doesn't matter. The correct baseball analogy, for the fatalist, is saying "everything is determined therefore the baseball bat doesn't matter". Everything is determined, but that doesn't mean that you don't need a baseball bat to hit a ball. Likewise, decisions still do something, despite determinism.

premed411 Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - I agree.

D4Shawn Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - The determinist position is that WE don't "make" decisions in any meaningful way. Rather, our actions/decisions are mere causal reactions to prior occurrences/stimuli. We are like dominoes in a chain. So... the way you phrase your position, already assumes (rather than establishes) it's validity. The nature of causality would imply (to an objective observer) that our ability to make decisions is illusory. You need to address that. That is what the whole debate is about.

neotropic9 Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - You seem to be assuming something about what it means to make a choice or a decision. Decision making is a physical process. It occurs in our brains. Our neural architecture is designed by way of evolution to select between alternative actions. Fight or flee, stay or go, soup or salad. Our brains decide what to do. This is called decision making.

D4Shawn Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - Causal determinism (which to my knowledge is the only form of determinism taken seriously these days) is rooted in a materialist conception of the brain and universe. For you to imply otherwise is actually rather outrageous (since it's usually determinists who argue from a materialist perspective [if "decision making" is a physical process, then it is subject to causality]). Choice is seen as merely an illusion (effect). You're not familiar with what you're trying to argue against.

neotropic9 Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - Read Kane's "the significance of freewill" and then read Dennett's "freedom evolves", then we'll talk. One of us is not familiar with what we're trying to argue against. You're half right.

neotropic9 Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - Trust me, I understand the fatalist position. It's the easiest thing in the world to understand. That's why they teach it to first year philosophy students.

D4Shawn Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - I wouldn't equate fatalism with determinism. I don't know anyone who refers to themselves as a fatalist, and though they are similar in certain respects, wikipedia also emphasizes the distinction. Anyways, just for fun, I put "is free will decision making" into a google search. Most of the pages that came up point out that modern advances in neuroscience generally support causal determinism. You're in the minority. The articles emphasize that decision making is largely an unconscious activity.

Clutchology Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - Do you know the feeling you get when you've been arguing a point all by yourself for a long time, and suddenly you find someone else make the exact same argument? I'm getting that feeling right now. Great video.

neotropic9 Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - Thanks. Check out "freedom evolves". Aside from being overall a very interesting book and enjoyable read, it presents the compatabilist position in a compelling way.

neotropic9 Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - I am not disputing determinism. I am saying determinism is consistent with free will. That was the point of me using the term 'fatalism', which applies exclusively to those who believe free will is extinguished by determinism. Perhaps you don't refer to yourself as a fatalist, but that is the position you are arguing for. It doesn't make sense to call yourself a determinist when arguing with a compatibilist (like myself) since I am a determinist also. Anyways, read the books.

D4Shawn Says:

Jun 29, 2008 - Personally, I don't see how the term "will" has any meaning within the context of causation. To me, it seems to be a superfluous and ineffable concept/term, and seems to imply the circumvention of causation. No one has convinced me that the concept has any real meaning (scientifically speaking).

neotropic9 Says:

Jun 30, 2008 - "No one has convinced me that the concept has any real meaning (scientifically speaking). " I doubt this. Surely you distinguish between people who are morally culpable and those who were coerced or for other reasons have mitigated responsibility. That is, if someone commits a crime with a gun to their head they were in some sense not acting according to their "will", so they may be considered less guilty (or not guilty at all) compared to someone who acts according to their will.

D4Shawn Says:

Jun 30, 2008 - My goal isn't to force one puzzle piece into fitting another. My goal is to figure out what is true (even if that threatens something else I believe to be true). I haven't decided how determinism relates to morality, but I don't make the assumptions that a lot of people make (that they are antithetical for example). The more we can determine, the more thing will make sense. Whatever the truth is, it shouldn't be a threat.

Rationalific Says:

Jun 30, 2008 - I don't fear the idea of determinism. Some think that people aren't responsible for their actions because of determinism, but, as you say, they are. Even if I were a judge in court and the defendant said, "It's not my fault. The atoms in my brain produced my crime.", I'd say, "OK. That's fine. And the atoms in my brain are making me give you the gas chamber. Sorry, there isn't anything I can do about it."

t4705mb6 Says:

Jul 5, 2008 - When a "christian" bebates atheism vs. religion with me it usually starts out as a calm discussion. As I use science & the REAL world to refute their assertions, they get pensive, irrate & louder. I am not prone to yelling arguments. I stay calm & attempt to continue a discussion, employing reality & reason. Talks usually end in 2 ways: I'm an "idiot" & the person storms off or I'm threatened with violence by a screaming "christian". I'm most ALWAYS the "devil's" product, heathen or heretic.

TomSFox Says:

Jul 25, 2008 - Just what I think!

lamevideosjustclick Says:

Jul 26, 2008 - Free will does exist. Free will doesn't exist. It is actually all dependant on your definition of what exactly "free will" is. I consider it an act of decision making based on logical reasoning, or based off of past events. For me simply deciding on something, be it predetermined or not, is an act of free will within itself. Free will exists. Whatever you believe exists does exist; for you. Whatever you don't believe exists doesnt exist; for you.

SuperiorMind Says:

Aug 22, 2008 - Yup - our decisions are our own - they aren't made for us by something other than what we are. I was thinking we are basically a sum of what we are(blueprint) and where we are - accumulated over time. Determinism makes sense - it seems that the endless recursion of cause-effect both in type/source, quantity and time division results in the illusion that nothing is deterministic. All effects appear to have a predictable cause - so long as you can understand all the mechanix involved.

SuperiorMind Says:

Aug 22, 2008 - I agree. I'm wondering something - what do ppl think free-will means when they say that our decisions are predetermined? How could it be possible for us to escape the nature of cause and effect? I'm just trying to figure out what they are thinking.

Stecca Says:

Sep 1, 2008 - What about the reason for the decision making progress? Oh you non-determinists... never able to see longer than what your feet can reach.

neothomist1275 Says:

Sep 4, 2008 - Tsk, tsk, mind/body dichotomy. A choice is still an action. Even Aquinas said that our freedom only lies in our ability to CONCEIVE of the ultimate. If you're going to be doctrinaire, go there ALL THE WAY.

unseenstrings Says:

Sep 5, 2008 - The original meaning of freewill was the individual was able to make a choice without restraint of physical or divine necessity or causal law (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1975)). Of course, freewill is impossible under that definition. But you give freewill a new definition. And your new definition means every organism with a brain has freewill. And, accordingly, every organism with a brain is morally responsible. Hmmmmm. Well, I guess that is a new take on things. (watch?v=w0dCrnFqpr4)

Strideo1 Says:

Sep 9, 2008 - Thank you Prody Parrot!