100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Determinism or free will? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I am involved in a discussion with some rather intimidatingly intelligent folks on this question and would appreciate thoughts from both sides.please feel free to elaborate in detail on your point of view...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm an existentialist, which means that I reject a higher authority, and believe in an individual's free will (and the responsibility that comes with having it). I think that, no matter where you are in life, you are free to make your own choices, and you alone are responsible for dealing with the consequences. It grinds my gears when I hear people say, "Oh well, it's God's will" or "I prayed about it, so that's all I can do." I don't believe in making excuses. You can always be better than you are.
I also don't believe in an absolute moral code. The Ten Commandments say that under no circumstances should one tell a lie. But if it's the Holocaust, and I'm harboring Jews, and Nazis knock on my door, I'm sure as hell going to lie to them, to save the lives of innocent people. An existentialist appreciates the privilege and the burden of making difficult choices. As for the "meaning of life"... an existentialist believes that there is no one answer - it is what you make it. If life is predetermined, what's the point? /: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe life is a combination of our choices and my higher powers divine plan for me. I believe in the power of prayer but at the same time I agree with rebecca that life is also what you make it...I confuse myself sometimes but it's what gets me through life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks ladies,very insightful.
Here's the argument from determinists. Biology at its most basic level is predictable. Since our mental selves are a manifestation of biology there is no ground for free will. Free will proponents argue that biology is organized information contained in genes. The origin of that information is unknown which implies the existence of intelligent design IE God. But then they make a "leap of faith" to the Bible and its implication of free will. I have not taken a stance on this debate as I don't have enough information yet. Thanks for responding. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as I see it
according to Einstein's math, time is a discrete finite entity. If you could step out of it and look in, everything happens all at the same time. We are just forced to experience that time linearly so everything that has happened will happen and is happening right now so everything you do you've already done so whatever choices you make you've already made and you're locked in so while I believe in free will I also believe in destiny |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as I see it according to Einstein's math, time is a discrete finite entity. If you could step out of it and look in, everything happens all at the same time. We are just forced to experience that time linearly so everything that has happened will happen and is happening right now so everything you do you've already done so whatever choices you make you've already made and you're locked in so while I believe in free will I also believe in destiny |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BOS wrote: Here's the argument from determinists. Biology at its most basic level is predictable. Since our mental selves are a manifestation of biology there is no ground for free will. As I see it, it's an utterly ungrounded assumption to assume that our mental selves are a manifestation of biology. They are making a huge "leap of faith" right there. The mere fact that a physical universe exists at all, defies that kind of logic already. So this line of thinking is extremely poor, IMHO. Free will proponents argue that biology is organized information contained in genes. The origin of that information is unknown which implies the existence of intelligent design IE God. Well, this argument is similarly weak. Just because the origin of information is unknown does not necessarily imply "Intelligent Design". However, it does imply that something more is going on than the mere laws of physics can account for, so I'll give them partial credit for this idea. But then they make a "leap of faith" to the Bible and its implication of free will. Well, even when I consider the possiblity of an underlying spiritual essence to reality (which I often do consider), I have still ruled out the Bible as having anything to do with it. I don't believe in an egotistical godhead who has more lusts and wants than mere mortal men. Such a God would be far lesser than the mere mortal men he's supposedly judging, IMHO. I have not taken a stance on this debate as I don't have enough information yet. Thanks for responding. I don't blame you for that. I can't say about the details. I firmly believe in free will, even if only intuitively. In fact, it seems to me that if everything had been 'pre-destined' that would imply an 'intelligent designer' even more than free will would. It seems to me that Quantum Mechanics has shown us, without any doubt whatsoever, that a strict 'cause and effect' deterministic universe simply isn't even possible. The universe simply doesn't work that way. So, to me, the question of whether or not things are 'predetermined' has already been answered by science. Precisely what that means in terms of "free will" is another question altogether though. Things could have a random nature to them and still not be "free". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its almost impossible to have a truly open discussion or investigation into this question. Our belief in free will is so central to our sense of identity... allowing that free will might not exist is to invoke some very unpleasant ideas about who and what you really are.
What is the real difference between 'the illusion of free will' and 'having free will' ? How can you determine the difference? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Tue 01/05/10 06:04 PM
|
|
Here's the argument from determinists. Biology at its most basic level is predictable. Yes – in most of the sciences we look to cause and effect to support our theories. Our universe has proven to be a rather mechanistic place functioning deterministically through the laws of nature. All parts of the universe, including humans, function under the laws that guide motion and matter. This philosophy is often referred to as ‘Hard Determinism’, in which an unbroken chain of cause and effect extends from the most distant universal past to your individual decisions today, and well beyond us to all matter in the universe. Since our mental selves are a manifestation of biology there is no ground for free will. Free will proponents argue that biology is organized information contained in genes.The origin of that information is unknown ------ which implies the existence of intelligent design IE God. Well I see a problem right away in that genetics are actually part of the argument that upholds the deterministic view. If we function “strictly” though genetics then we are acting reflexively (as in making choices purely based on survival outcome). Furthermore, if cause and effect were followed back to the origin of ‘first cause’ we would have the ‘formula’, so-to-speak, for how that DNA was created and encoded. The “leap” you say is taken comes when “unknown” information is transformed into a specific design by an intelligent “First Cause”. But then they make a "leap of faith" to the Bible and its implication of free will. The ‘evolution’ of Christianity (at least in part) seems to keep this philosophical debate continuing. God is the supreme all-powerful, all-knowing authority and creator of the universe. That sort of flies in the face of free-will, don’t you think? If God knows all ‘before’ it happens, than it means that all things have been determined “predestined”. The oldest forms of Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim religions including many today, include a doctrine of predestination. Given those circumstances “Jesus” makes sense as a redeemer of sins would be absolutely necessary because it was thought that we actually had no free will. Not that we were bad, mind you, but that ‘evil’ existed which would lead us astray – and this was predestined, so a savior requesting only belief that he is God can forgive anything you do that causes harm. But of course religion evolves and it evolved when people realized – Hey, why are you blaming me? Why are you holding me responsible? Was I not ‘made’ this way? Was I not led astray by the forces of evil? Oh heck no – you have ‘FREE WILL’. So now you must take responsibility for your actions.  Well – I could really have fun with this – but I’ll move on to an in-between ideal called indeterminism (so-called by William James) also means fee-will. The quick and short of it is this: Freedom of will exists insofar as we are limited in our choices in any given circumstance. This does not have to disrupt the chain of cause and effect – obviously we act, behave, or are put in motion, because we have been affected by a previous cause. If the action we take is a self-determined action of free-will (not a reflexive survival action) that we are actually making a choice and the outcome of that choice will go on to be the cause of some other action in the chain. This is not to say that ‘free-will’ rues the day – not at all. In fact sometimes we must choose between very limited options, in situations we would not wish to be in much less have only the choices we are faced with. But that’s where our sense of ought (responsibility) is supposed to come in. We choose based of what it best, what we have been ‘taught’ is best – is that really free-will? Any - a final question - since you mentioned that it is Judeo-Christians who defend free-will - I wonder, do you think atheists are all determinists??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any - a final question - since you mentioned that it is Judeo-Christians who defend free-will - I wonder, do you think atheists are all determinists??? Didn't you hear? Atheism is a religion. We all go to the same church, read the same books, attend the same seminars, and share all the same beliefs. Yeah, so obviously there are atheists who are very attached to the idea of 'free will'.... what I find far more interesting is that there are determinists (in every other aspect of their worldview) who are attached to 'free will'. I consider the question ill defined... and when I hear better-defined versions of the questions, it mostly seems to me to be outside the domain of knowability. I am agnostic on this question, though its obvious that at least the illusion of free will exists, and plays an important role in human affairs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's the argument from determinists. Biology at its most basic level is predictable. Yes – in most of the sciences we look to cause and effect to support our theories. Our universe has proven to be a rather mechanistic place functioning deterministically through the laws of nature. All parts of the universe, including humans, function under the laws that guide motion and matter. This philosophy is often referred to as ‘Hard Determinism’, in which an unbroken chain of cause and effect extends from the most distant universal past to your individual decisions today, and well beyond us to all matter in the universe. Since our mental selves are a manifestation of biology there is no ground for free will. Free will proponents argue that biology is organized information contained in genes.The origin of that information is unknown ------ which implies the existence of intelligent design IE God. Well I see a problem right away in that genetics are actually part of the argument that upholds the deterministic view. If we function “strictly” though genetics then we are acting reflexively (as in making choices purely based on survival outcome). Furthermore, if cause and effect were followed back to the origin of ‘first cause’ we would have the ‘formula’, so-to-speak, for how that DNA was created and encoded. The “leap” you say is taken comes when “unknown” information is transformed into a specific design by an intelligent “First Cause”. But then they make a "leap of faith" to the Bible and its implication of free will. The ‘evolution’ of Christianity (at least in part) seems to keep this philosophical debate continuing. God is the supreme all-powerful, all-knowing authority and creator of the universe. That sort of flies in the face of free-will, don’t you think? If God knows all ‘before’ it happens, than it means that all things have been determined “predestined”. The oldest forms of Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim religions including many today, include a doctrine of predestination. Given those circumstances “Jesus” makes sense as a redeemer of sins would be absolutely necessary because it was thought that we actually had no free will. Not that we were bad, mind you, but that ‘evil’ existed which would lead us astray – and this was predestined, so a savior requesting only belief that he is God can forgive anything you do that causes harm. But of course religion evolves and it evolved when people realized – Hey, why are you blaming me? Why are you holding me responsible? Was I not ‘made’ this way? Was I not led astray by the forces of evil? Oh heck no – you have ‘FREE WILL’. So now you must take responsibility for your actions. Well – I could really have fun with this – but I’ll move on to an in-between ideal called indeterminism (so-called by William James) also means fee-will. The quick and short of it is this: Freedom of will exists insofar as we are limited in our choices in any given circumstance. This does not have to disrupt the chain of cause and effect – obviously we act, behave, or are put in motion, because we have been affected by a previous cause. If the action we take is a self-determined action of free-will (not a reflexive survival action) that we are actually making a choice and the outcome of that choice will go on to be the cause of some other action in the chain. This is not to say that ‘free-will’ rues the day – not at all. In fact sometimes we must choose between very limited options, in situations we would not wish to be in much less have only the choices we are faced with. But that’s where our sense of ought (responsibility) is supposed to come in. We choose based of what it best, what we have been ‘taught’ is best – is that really free-will? Any - a final question - since you mentioned that it is Judeo-Christians who defend free-will - I wonder, do you think atheists are all determinists??? If it were possible to communicate the essence of our minds with out words even in thought I believe there would be much more harmony among people.God,Devil,Good Evil,Positive Negative,Yin Yang,Order Chaos,etc.All are attempts at apprehending the same "thing"(for lack of a better word)that has existed from the beginning of human existence and possibly before.It seems to be dichotomy that allows existence to be manifest.To be honest I'm still groping in the darkness of trying to understand. So much great stuff has been posted here that I am humbled by it. Thanks to all of you... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
BOSKOINC
on
Tue 01/05/10 06:49 PM
|
|
Here's the argument from determinists. Biology at its most basic level is predictable. Yes – in most of the sciences we look to cause and effect to support our theories. Our universe has proven to be a rather mechanistic place functioning deterministically through the laws of nature. All parts of the universe, including humans, function under the laws that guide motion and matter. This philosophy is often referred to as ‘Hard Determinism’, in which an unbroken chain of cause and effect extends from the most distant universal past to your individual decisions today, and well beyond us to all matter in the universe. Since our mental selves are a manifestation of biology there is no ground for free will. Free will proponents argue that biology is organized information contained in genes.The origin of that information is unknown ------ which implies the existence of intelligent design IE God. Well I see a problem right away in that genetics are actually part of the argument that upholds the deterministic view. If we function “strictly” though genetics then we are acting reflexively (as in making choices purely based on survival outcome). Furthermore, if cause and effect were followed back to the origin of ‘first cause’ we would have the ‘formula’, so-to-speak, for how that DNA was created and encoded. The “leap” you say is taken comes when “unknown” information is transformed into a specific design by an intelligent “First Cause”. But then they make a "leap of faith" to the Bible and its implication of free will. The ‘evolution’ of Christianity (at least in part) seems to keep this philosophical debate continuing. God is the supreme all-powerful, all-knowing authority and creator of the universe. That sort of flies in the face of free-will, don’t you think? If God knows all ‘before’ it happens, than it means that all things have been determined “predestined”. The oldest forms of Judaism, Christianity, and Muslim religions including many today, include a doctrine of predestination. Given those circumstances “Jesus” makes sense as a redeemer of sins would be absolutely necessary because it was thought that we actually had no free will. Not that we were bad, mind you, but that ‘evil’ existed which would lead us astray – and this was predestined, so a savior requesting only belief that he is God can forgive anything you do that causes harm. But of course religion evolves and it evolved when people realized – Hey, why are you blaming me? Why are you holding me responsible? Was I not ‘made’ this way? Was I not led astray by the forces of evil? Oh heck no – you have ‘FREE WILL’. So now you must take responsibility for your actions. Well – I could really have fun with this – but I’ll move on to an in-between ideal called indeterminism (so-called by William James) also means fee-will. The quick and short of it is this: Freedom of will exists insofar as we are limited in our choices in any given circumstance. This does not have to disrupt the chain of cause and effect – obviously we act, behave, or are put in motion, because we have been affected by a previous cause. If the action we take is a self-determined action of free-will (not a reflexive survival action) that we are actually making a choice and the outcome of that choice will go on to be the cause of some other action in the chain. This is not to say that ‘free-will’ rues the day – not at all. In fact sometimes we must choose between very limited options, in situations we would not wish to be in much less have only the choices we are faced with. But that’s where our sense of ought (responsibility) is supposed to come in. We choose based of what it best, what we have been ‘taught’ is best – is that really free-will? Any - a final question - since you mentioned that it is Judeo-Christians who defend free-will - I wonder, do you think atheists are all determinists??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any - a final question - since you mentioned that it is Judeo-Christians who defend free-will - I wonder, do you think atheists are all determinists??? I'm sorry, I've just skimmed over all of this, so please let me know if I'm missing something... Why would ANY atheist be a determinist? Wouldn't that imply a belief in some higher power (a "determiner," if you will)? I suppose it's fair to say that there are Judeo-Christians who believe in free will... but certainly this doesn't mean that atheists cannot support it as well. In fact, I think most of them do... I was explaining existentialism to an atheist friend of mine, and his response was "Oh, of course. What else would we believe?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some good stuff in this thread.
Personally, when I think of what free will applies to, I have to separate out two distinct categories. "The Physical" is absolutely determinisitic. "The Spiritual" has absolute free will. JMHO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any - a final question - since you mentioned that it is Judeo-Christians who defend free-will - I wonder, do you think atheists are all determinists??? I'm sorry, I've just skimmed over all of this, so please let me know if I'm missing something... Why would ANY atheist be a determinist? This question is arising because mis-understandings of what 'atheism' means are the norm in our culture. Many ignorant people think that atheism implies a set of beliefs, aside from the (non)existence of a Diety. Wouldn't that imply a belief in some higher power (a "determiner," if you will)? Some atheists are also materialist, and many materialists believe in that everything that occurs in our universe does so according to precise and immutable laws & principles, such as the laws of motion, etc. This can lead to a 'wholly deterministic' view of everything that happens in the universe, including the activities that (materialists believe) give rise to consciousness. So a person can have a 'deterministic' view without believing in a Deity of any kind. but certainly this doesn't mean that atheists cannot support it as well. In fact, I think most of them do... I was explaining existentialism to an atheist friend of mine, and his response was "Oh, of course. What else would we believe?" Ah....to me existentialism is like the tao; to describe/explain it is to negate its true meaning. What else would atheists believe? Whatever they wish, provided its not a Deity!!! Buddhism, Taoism, spiritualism, alien worship, materialism, pantheism, shamanism, the diversity of atheist beliefs is staggering. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you have a free will, you will choose willingly.
Your choice will depend on your interests. Moral, financial, economic, concern for the environment, etc. If given a set of non-identical choices, you will (freely) choose the one that is the best according to your interest, or the best trade-off for your interest if there are contentions between some. Therefore you will choose the one that is the best for your set of state. I contest, therefore, that there is any freedom involved with that. You choose only one choice, the best one, and if you choose another choice, which is not the best one, then you are insane. The mere fact that you employ your reason and emotions in making the choice has little bearing on the fact that in the exact same situations you will make the exact same choices. ---------- If the world is not deterministic, then events in the world happen haphazardly. Some theories suggest there are no haphazard behaviours in the physical world (the world that is governed only by the rules of what we consider physics and chemistry.) Some suggest, there is. For instance, the position of an electron is indeterminable, it can only be described as a probability statitic. Or the break-down of a nucleus of an atom cannot be predicted when it will happen, even though the percentage a bunch of atoms that break down is very predictable both in amount and over time. Some say this means no determination. Some others refute this by saying that tiny instances are not determinable, such as which atom will decay individually, or where the electron is at an infinitesimally small amount of time, but in the whole these things are still predictable and these things very strictly obey the rules of these predictions. Which gives rise to the POSSIBILITY that there are rules that we haven't observed yet that would give us answers to where an electron is in an instatnaneous moment or which is the next atom that will decay out of a bunch. My opinion is that the movements in the world of physics and chemistry are therefore deterministic. -------- Are movements and behaviours in the biological worlds deterministic? If you take the case of a fox, he'll hunt when he's hungry and decides that doing so does not put him in great danger. He will mate observing similar considerations, and so on. He will try to push pain out of his life and pull pleasure in. If the fox, a female fox, sees her nest burning, she will risk her life to save her children. It is only for the sake of her children's life that will make her risk her own, and only to such-and-such age of her children's lives. I propose that biological beings behave in pretty deterministic models. Their behaviour is harder to predict than those of atoms and electrons, because there are more, much more many things that influence their motions. However, though man can't always predict how a fox will behave in a situation, or an earthworm or a mosquito or an elephant, the animals will respond in an identical set of circumstances identically each time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wux, Yours is one of the most 'anti-free will' seeming posts I've seen in these forums. Makes for a very interesting read.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as I see it according to Einstein's math, time is a discrete finite entity. If you could step out of it and look in, everything happens all at the same time. We are just forced to experience that time linearly so everything that has happened will happen and is happening right now so everything you do you've already done so whatever choices you make you've already made and you're locked in so while I believe in free will I also believe in destiny I once read a quote that said "God knows all possible outcomes" which was, for me, a nice balance between the concept of free will and predestination. Regardless of a person's views on the existence of an omnipotent being or lack thereof, that old quote links nicely with your statement, Quiet. Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Free will does not exist.
Determinism is not pre-determinism. Determinism allows for the human factor. Our decisions make a difference in the future. Wux has it right. We choose according to that which influences us most when contemplating our choices and the possible outcomes. Free will therefore necessarily presupposes a creature capable of volition. In order to choose "A" one must first know of "A". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One more thing...
The term 'free will' was invoked in order to exhonerate the 'God' of Abraham from the existence of evil. It is a counter to Epicurus' argument against the existence of the 'God' of Abraham. A remnant of religion. |
|
|
|
|
