Determinism vs Free Will

[ElvenKing]

All you did was essentially repeat holder of the heel, and didn't actually answer my question. You're not answering why it isn't possible for my consciousness to make choices independently, and are instead assuming determinism is true.

Take your cereal/toast example. I see that report, but instead I say "you know what I enjoy the taste of cereal so much, I am gonna risk it," which is incredibly plausible, and your statement is essentially saying this is impossible. Why can't I make that choice?

"The really tricky thing is that the notion of free will, if held, may act a determining factor in what action someone takes. An idea that someone is "free to choose" what happens next could act to determine that other influences lose their grip and they may be determined to behave in a manner than, if they lacked their believe in their ability to choose, they otherwise would."

Not at all an issue for free will. Free will states you have choice AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME, so there it's not a problem if sometimes, even most of the time we are (or someone else is) completely determined/fated to do something. After all we all must die and I don't think libertarians are going to say we have the choice at that point.

Correct, I am assuming determinism is true, as I was explaining what is the case under a determinist position.

No, that was just an example of how the action that someone is determined to do can be changed. It could have been the case, that you were determined to eat the cereal even after seeing the report; in such a case, the desire for the taste of cereal could have trumped health concerns.

You misunderstand, I mean tricky in terms of understanding how a deterministic universe works, as free will is both meaningful to people(they appear to have choice) and people believing it is true may act to determine their behaviour(meaning it might be argued that we should treat free real as real, even if we think, perhaps even-if we get to the point- know that it isn't).

 

[Dre89]

Also, do you guys randomness plays a part in the actions of determined agents? There was a thought experiment in which a donkey a thirsty. There are two watering holes both an equal distance away from the donkey. The donkey is on a flat plain, so basically there is no difference between chosing one water hole over the other, all the factors are completely the same.

Some people think that if the donkey didn't have free will, it would never move to one and die of thirst. They say this because there is no reason to favour one over the other, so under a determinist framework, which says actions are the result of certain factors, the donkey could never choose and thus would never move.

I guess you could just say it favours one out of randomness though.

Just posting this again.

 

[theunabletable]

Not at all an issue for free will. Free will states you have choice AT LEAST SOME OF THE TIME, so there it's not a problem if sometimes, even most of the time we are (or someone else is) completely determined/fated to do something.

I responded to what you said before, and you never replied to any of it :/

But what does it mean to literally have choice?

I'll restate my issue with free choice, and how I don't understand.

Every series of events, every situation, every... thing, has the trait of either being decided by something determined, or by something random, correct (perhaps all things are determined, but that's irrelevant to what I'm trying to get across, this applies to random, and determined things)?

If the decision you make in a situation, the actions you go through, etc are decided by determined things, basically you're on a set path, then how could you have free choice? It's inherently contradictory for something to be decided by not-you, to be decided by you.

Conversely, if the decision you make, the thing that causes you to make the decision, is truly random in nature, how could you have, well, have choice in that either?

Not to say in practicality we don't have free choice, there are obviously so many variables in the world, and we're so complex, that deterministic or not, in effect, we have free choice. But on a fundamental level, I simply don't understand the idea of free choice.

Unless there is a third trait you can think of that an event can have that can replace randomness, or something determined (and not a combination of both), I don't think I'll ever understand literal free choice.


And further, free choice doesn't seem very well defined, either.

What minus free choice = what we have now (if we don't have free choice)? And, if we do have free choice, what minus free choice = what determinists would say we have?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Just posting this again.

I don't really understand what you're saying, even if the Donkey had no memories, not the slightest angle towards another water hole or the slightest inch or increment towards another, if that is even possible, wouldn't it simply go for the one it sensed first? Or if it sensed the second after noticing the first, and used that received data to be determined to go to that one, or perhaps after seeing the first he goes for that one because he seen it first. It isn't random, despite being a bit arbitrary.

 

[Dre89]

I think the idea is that he senses them at the same time.

Or it could be that he walks into that spot, feels thirsty, and has knowledge of both watering holes.

The point is that there is no distinction between either option.

 

[ElvenKing]

I think the idea is that he senses them at the same time.

Or it could be that he walks into that spot, feels thirsty, and has knowledge of both watering holes.

The point is that there is no distinction between either option.

The difference is in how a choice is selected. In a random instance, at least it is implied, that there is a chance of either one happening, such as there being a 50% chance that one water hole is selected while there being a 50% chance the other one is.

Whereas in the type of situation Holder of the Heel is referring to, it is simply the case that an a watering hole is selected with there being no chance of the other one being selected at all. Instead assigning one water hole to half the numbers on a die and the other watering hole to the other half, then rolling the die to select which hole to drink from, the donkey just selected one watering hole for no other reason than drinking from that watering hole.

Though one could probably go into how randomness could be considered a way to predict how something was going to act when there is knowledge of how it may behave, rather than a reflection of why an action was taken. Or maybe a description of something occurring one way over another for no apparent reason(which would effectively mean that an arbitrary selection and a random occurrence would mean the same thing).

 

[Holder of the Heel]

There'd still be an arbitrary distinction made, in theory it doesn't even make sense to conceive, the donkey isn't like a strange line that can go perfectly to both holes while perceiving both equally (in that case they'd be right next to each other, although debatable because one could still receive his focus first, thus truly sensing one before the other).