Determism or Compatibilism?

[Hidden]

In other words do you think Humans have free will?

But that is not the question of your survey. Compatibilism is the philosophical position that free will and determinism are not incompatible.

I actually find the wikipedia article on compatibilism rather poor; a much better explanation and argument can be found in Smullyan's essay, Is God a Taoist? (originally cited to me by Hollow Bastion). Essentially, we make a false distinction between 'ourselves' and whatever outside force we see as potentially controlling us--God, nature, society, etc. But, as Smullyan points out, when we realize that we are not something separate of our own biological makeup and social conditioning--we are those things--the question of whether they control us or we control them is rendered moot.

Smullyan says that free will is "part and parcel of the very essence of consciousness." That is, as LongLiveLife points out, we are aware of ourselves as causal agents--we do things that have consequences. And that awareness of our own role in the chains of cause-and-effect is really what we define as free will. Determinism is merely taking a step further back and realizing that we are not the first cause nor the last, and we do not exist in a vacuum. Compatibilists see only a difference in perspective between free will and determinism.

At any rate, that is my understanding of compatibilism, and it is how I have imagined the free will / determinism divide since first reading Smullyan.

 

[krexia]

To once more quote LongLiveLife:

If it looks, smells and tastes like free will, it's probably free will.

But what precisely is free will? Is it true freedom from determinism, or an illusion that subjectively feels free only because our minds are wired to think they're in control?

After all, studies have shown that the brain finds answers before the conscious mind is aware of them - that we are only conscious of our decisions after they happen.

If the universe is governed by physical laws, and we are no more than physical bodies, how can our decisions not be determined?

Compatibilists see only a difference in perspective between free will and determinism.

Oh, that's cool. I never knew there was a name for my views on the issue

I don't see why the fact that my choices are determined makes them any less my choices. If you offer me cake or death, the fact that I'll inevitably choose cake every time doesn't make it any less what I want.

 

[Orion]

After all, studies have shown that the brain finds answers before the conscious mind is aware of them - that we are only conscious of our decisions after they happen.

I've no doubt that an answer is formed or understood before the conscious even starts to think about it. But is that the basal/subconscious part of the brain physically acting in accordance to natural laws, or is that the lower levels of the brain just... functioning freely?

If the universe is governed by physical laws, and we are no more than physical bodies, how can our decisions not be determined?

That is a bloody good question and let's hope when we find the answer it at least means we have a little bit of freedom. Maybe quantum weirdness/uncertainty allows for thought and actions free from typical natural laws? I don't know - there's a lot of observing, testing and thinking still left to be done on this topic.

I don't see why the fact that my choices are determined makes them any less my choices. If you offer me cake or death, the fact that I'll inevitably choose cake every time doesn't make it any less what I want.

But that's more of a calculation than a choice. There's one option that is clearly beneficial, and one that is definitively detrimental.

 

[krexia]

I've no doubt that an answer is formed or understood before the conscious even starts to think about it. But is that the basal/subconscious part of the brain physically acting in accordance to natural laws, or is that the lower levels of the brain just... functioning freely?

What do you mean by "functioning freely"? Do you think there's some basal/subconscious part of the brain that doesn't act in accordance to natural laws?

But that's more of a calculation than a choice. There's one option that is clearly beneficial, and one that is definitively detrimental.

My point is that the fact that you know I will always consider cake a better option than death does not make it any less what I want. If you could build a supercomputer big enough to make predictions on the microscopic level, and know every decision I make before I make it, that wouldn't make those decisions any less my own, either.

In my view, "free will" is the somewhat misleading name we give to our awareness of how the complex system that is our brain makes decisions in accordance with our desires - desires that are determined at the most fundamental level by biology.

 

[Orion]

What do you mean by "functioning freely"? Do you think there's some basal/subconscious part of the brain that doesn't act in accordance to natural laws?

There isn't any part of the brain that enables telekinesis or telepathy, I know that much. I know there are things the brain simply will not be able to do because its structure and/or physical laws do not allow it to. However, despite the fact the brain should act in total accordance with all the chemical and energy processes inside it, there is still a very apparent (or very convincing) level at some stage where there is the ability to choose rather than be totally bound to mechanical and predictable actions.

Gah, that's what I hate about these debates. Having to define all the aspects of enabling and detractor factors of free will.

In my view, "free will" is the somewhat misleading name we give to our awareness of how the complex system that is our brain makes decisions in accordance with our desires - desires that are determined at the most fundamental level by biology.

But at least we have this, and it's something to go on. Then of course there's also the other factors that could stem directly from the structure or microscopic make-up of our brain - we can't think in every single possible way because our brains need to have a certain organisation to them to function. Not to mention there's also societal and environment influences on a person's consciousness (read: not brain) that further filter how they think and act.

 

[krexia]

However, despite the fact the brain should act in total accordance with all the chemical and energy processes inside it, there is still a very apparent (or very convincing) level at some stage where there is the ability to choose rather than be totally bound to mechanical and predictable actions.

What non-chemical, non-energetic, non-mechanical and non-predictable process do you speculate influences the neurons to behave in one way rather than another when you exercise this ability to choose?

But at least we have this, and it's something to go on. Then of course there's also the other factors that could stem directly from the structure or microscopic make-up of our brain - we can't think in every single possible way because our brains need to have a certain organisation to them to function. Not to mention there's also societal and environment influences on a person's consciousness (read: not brain) that further filter how they think and act.

Yeah, I agree that there's far more at work than the biology of the brain in terms of influences on our personalities and decisions. But I can't think of a single influence that would not be derived from or bound by the physical laws of nature.

 

[Hidden]

But what precisely is free will? Is it true freedom from determinism, or an illusion that subjectively feels free only because our minds are wired to think they're in control?

After all, studies have shown that the brain finds answers before the conscious mind is aware of them - that we are only conscious of our decisions after they happen.

If the universe is governed by physical laws, and we are no more than physical bodies, how can our decisions not be determined?

This Time Magazine article is an excellent, layman source of information describing many of these phenomena.

Oh, that's cool. I never knew there was a name for my views on the issue

Nor I, before reading this thread and searching for the term 'compatibilism'.

My point is that the fact that you know I will always consider cake a better option than death does not make it any less what I want. If you could build a supercomputer big enough to make predictions on the microscopic level, and know every decision I make before I make it, that wouldn't make those decisions any less my own, either.

This of course also answers for the apparent 'paradox' of free will versus an omniscient god.

That is a bloody good question and let's hope when we find the answer it at least means we have a little bit of freedom. Maybe quantum weirdness/uncertainty allows for thought and actions free from typical natural laws? I don't know - there's a lot of observing, testing and thinking still left to be done on this topic.

I suppose the question is why freedom is only 'allowed' in the context of uncertainty, divorced from the "typical natural laws" that we admit in every other aspect of existence? The following excerpt is taken from the essay, "Is God a Taoist".

Mortal:
Well, are my acts determined by the laws of nature or aren't they?

God:
The word determined here is subtly but powerfully misleading and has contributed so much to the confusions of the free will versus determinism controversies. Your acts are certainly in accordance with the laws of nature, but to say they are determined by the laws of nature creates a totally misleading psychological image which is that your will could somehow be in conflict with the laws of nature and that the latter is somehow more powerful than you, and could "determine" your acts whether you liked it or not. But it is simply impossible for your will to ever conflict with natural law. You and natural law are really one and the same.

 

[Orion]

What non-chemical, non-energetic, non-mechanical and non-predictable process do you speculate influences the neurons to behave in one way rather than another when you exercise this ability to choose?

Magic .

 

[krexia]

This Time Magazine article is an excellent, layman source of information describing many of these phenomena.

I actually did a year of experimental psychology as an undergrad; I've read quite a few of the studies whose conclusions are paraphrased in that article (and I love Steven Pinker). I'm also a big fan of Gerald Edelman's books Wider than the Sky and Second Nature. I think his Neural Darwinism ideas about how the brain works make a lot of sense.

 

[Love Machine]

Of course we have our own free will. Although, there are external influences that can convince us.

 

[LongLiveLife]

If the universe is governed by physical laws, and we are no more than physical bodies, how can our decisions not be determined?

Our decisions are determined by the biochemical balance in our brain, but what determines that biochemical balance and how our neurons fire was not set in stone at birth. Just the simple act of breathing or eating or sleeping or talking changes your neurochemistry, which in turn changes the way you make decisions. No equation can predict every choice a person makes, because no equation can take into account the sheer randomness of events that said person does not initiate him- or her- self. There are many external agents that influence both the chemistry between, and the biology within, different neurons.

While, in a constant state, I am sure you would be able to map out a very elaborate decision path a person takes, it all goes out the window when you introduce a previously unaccounted-for external factor.

When I say we have free will, I mean it in the sense that we are not acting from a script Fate handed to us on the day we were born. Sure, I believe that our personalities are the product of how our brain is wired, and our choices relate directly to this; I just don't believe anyone can determine the course of someone's life, just by knowing a few odd ends about how the brain works.

 

[krexia]

No equation can predict every choice a person makes, because no equation can take into account the sheer randomness of events that said person does not initiate him- or her- self. There are many external agents that influence both the chemistry between, and the biology within, different neurons.

Last I checked, every one of those external factors was a part of the universe and governed by physical laws. The fact that we don't have a computer powerful enough to calculate all of their influences doesn't mean they aren't determined.

 

[LongLiveLife]

Last I checked, every one of those external factors was a part of the universe and governed by physical laws.

Right, and I'm not denying that.

The fact that we don't have a computer powerful enough to calculate all of their influences doesn't mean they aren't determined.

But what about road accidents? Or accidents in general? Or just random events? Have they been determined? And if they have, why can't we undetermine them? I just don't think that even a hypothetical computer of infinite processing power and infinite information about the current state of the universe can determine if and when every event takes place.

 

[Hidden]

But what about road accidents? Or accidents in general? Or just random events? Have they been determined? And if they have, why can't we undetermine them? I just don't think that even a hypothetical computer of infinite processing power and infinite information about the current state of the universe can determine if and when every event takes place.

But the term 'accident' is itself misleading. When we say something is an accident, ultimately we mean it is something we did not intend. Remove intention from the model, and there is no such thing. The car slid off the road because the road was wet; because the driver was tired; because any number of unique causes met at that precise junction and created that unique effect. From the perspective of the driver, who had consciousness and intent, it was an accident. From the 'perspective' of the universe, it was the way those elements met, interacted and resolved themselves at that precise moment in time; inevitable.

The problem, of course, is that there is no such thing as a perspective of the universe, and our closest approximation, that of an 'infinite calculating machine', doesn't really do the job. We can't remove ourselves from our perspective as conscious agents in a much larger universe, and so from our relative position of free will. That's the funny part--free will is the reality we are forced to live with; determinism is the model we construct in attempting to remove ourselves from the experiment. Yet people are terrified that this model of determinism will somehow rob them of their free will. I don't see how that's possible.

 

[krexia]

But what about road accidents? Or accidents in general? Or just random events? Have they been determined?

By the fundamental physical laws of the universe, just like anything else. I don't know about you, but I can't think of a single observable event that isn't caused by physical interactions following natural laws. Like Hidden says, the word "accident" is misleading.

 

[frisson]

Maybe the word "free" can be a little misleading as well.

 

[BladesofJustice]

This question is extremely interesting. Taking into account the myriad of possibilities any decision can render, it would seem like there are infinite amount of choices. This thought is considered on objects as minuscule as a rain drop to celestial bodies in our galaxy or further.

Take for instance, the idea of our universe ending. Could everything be put back together exactly as it was before? (You, me, typing on computers, the Earth the exact same distance from the Sun, etc) Ive been told yes, because of the possibility of Poincare's Recurrence Theorem. It states that a system, after so much time has passed, can eventually arrive back at the beginning state (don't understand all of the theorem). So possibly, if we just wait long enough, every other possibility can be exhausted and we reach our beginning? Almost like moving in a circle?

I relate that example to the possibility of existence being considered meaningless by certain theorists. If we adhere to the belief of a multiverse and the fact that all options or choices for any particular situation have been exercised because there can exist limitless amounts of worlds where we've made all possible choices, then quite frankly we have no free will. We're just another example of a decision where we went one way instead of the other possibilities.

There's no way to completely know. I can say that I made the decision to type this answer out, but maybe the summation of my life experiences, including my familial ties, social background, and upbringing eventually led me to this action?

Maybe it was pre-determined that I would be given the idea of "free" will....

I would like to believe, however, that I do contain some ability to shape and mold my own destiny.

 

[Orion]

There's no way to completely know. I can say that I made the decision to type this answer out, but maybe the summation of my life experiences, including my familial ties, social background, and upbringing eventually led me to this action?

Of course they did. Those influences enabled you to make this comment, and helped to define what the comment would be composed of.

 

[▽]

That recurrence theorem of yours is quite fancy, but it contradicts entropy, so it can't happen as long as the universe itself exists. Second is that it could happen with an oscillating universe. And even that would require one in which the constants haven't changed. And if we look at m-theory, where universes gain their characteristics (constants, energy content etc.) by collisions of branes (which are seperate universes themselves), a very specific collision between two specific branes would have to occur yet again.

What i am trying to say is, that something like that would require extreme determinism, in the metaphysical sense, and with that sentience, which i simply can't accept.

 

[BladesofJustice]

Of course they did. Those influences enabled you to make this comment, and helped to define what the comment would be composed of.

True. I just thought it was interesting to consider a what if scenario. These factors that are introduced into my environment: my family, my living situation, etc, can be pre-destined to happen. Because of extenuating factors, I was always going to eventually arrive at this website and type these words. In a multiversal definition, the one decision that I make that deviates me from this path (say instead of buying a laptop to access this website, I buy video games) provides another situation in another plane of existence that has happened. Meaning I have the free will associated with making this decision but because all scenarios are eventually hashed out (happen), it's mapped out on some giant cosmic map of alternate realities that I was going to make this decision.

Not arguing just pontificating. This topic and the answers I've heard so far are very fascinating.

That recurrence theorem of yours is quite fancy, but it contradicts entropy, so it can't happen as long as the universe itself exists. Second is that it could happen with an oscillating universe. And even that would require one in which the constants haven't changed. And if we look at m-theory, where universes gain their characteristics (constants, energy content etc.) by collisions of branes (which are seperate universes themselves), a very specific collision between two specific branes would have to occur yet again.

What i am trying to say is, that something like that would require extreme determinism, in the metaphysical sense, and with that sentience, which i simply can't accept.

A friend told me about the recurrence theorem and I did minor research on it and found it interesting. Don't know too much about M-Theory but I'll definitely check it out.

What's interesting is that I had heard of determinism before posting in this thread but I hadn't heard of Compatibilism. The idea that both free will and determinism can exist without there being a flaw in logic was definitely a stance I took on the subject. You can have multiple explanations of a subject and there not be anything wrong with it.

Same thing with theories, since they are logical explanations until other experts in the field can possibly falsify them.

Hey where are some good places to read more on M-Theory and other topics that are similiar discussed in this thread? (Books, website links, etc)