Philosophy Question

[APhil]

So, can it be proven -- let's say to a jury's "reasonable doubt" threshold, 97% -- that free will does not exist?

 

[crysede]

Is determinism the same as Fate? Where the choices you appear to make are actually irrelevant anyway?

No, determinism is often confused with fatalism (the doctrine that human action has no influence on events) particularly by its libertarian critiques, but determinism, by itself, carries no implications that human action is ineffectual: it just says that our acts are all determined (ie, our choices are fixed by antecedent events).

 

[Juspar Emvan]

Ask Todd.

 

[Juspar Emvan]

No, determinism is often confused with fatalism (the doctrine that human action has no influence on events) particularly by its libertarian critiques, but determinism, by itself, carries no implications that human action is ineffectual: it just says that our acts are all determined (ie, our choices are fixed by antecedent events).

Where's the line between end result and action. If you're fated to a certain outcome, isn't it reasonable to assume that every step along the way is also predetermined? Perhaps I'm screwy, but I don't see the difference here.

 

[crysede]

Where's the line between end result and action. If you're fated to a certain outcome, isn't it reasonable to assume that every step along the way is also predetermined? Perhaps I'm screwy, but I don't see the difference here.

Fatalist are certainly determinists, but determinists are not necessarily fatalists. You can hold that all events are predetermined while also believing that human actions do have an impact on events.

The fatalist would say there is no point in putting a lock on your door, if you are fated to be robbed it will happen no matter what precautions you take. The determinist would say that your precautions can determine whether or not you are robbed, but your taking those precautions is, of course, also determined by the factors responsible for making you the sort of person who would take such precautions.

Does that help any? Some of this stuff is a little hard to wrap one's head around.

 

[crysede]

So, can it be proven -- let's say to a jury's "reasonable doubt" threshold, 97% -- that free will does not exist?

Not until we solve the mind-body problem IMHO.

 

[freescorfr]

The buridan's ass directs the question towards the traditional philosophical debate on free will and as crysede has said it touches on many other conundrums in western thinking.

I don't expect whoever was asking this would necessarily find this useful. However, I posted what follows on Greeneyedgirl's romance thread yesterday - it's merely a pointer in another direction and philosophically less "tight" than often required for a philosophy essay (which I presume is what the original questioner is after)

"......about Jungian archetypes - the great symbols we access in our collective subconscious. I believe that these days many people in psychoanalysis believe that it's not only the Gods and Goddesses !!! who dwell there, but also such forces as missions of fidelity which come both from the cultural community we are born into and our own family history.
Whatever, these notions bring a direct challenge to the illusion of freedom which we all want to keep - and to the doctrine of freewill.
The critically important balancing act for personal liberation, I think, is to be able to accept responsibility for my own actions, while accepting that my choices and responses to life's events are often made under the influence of subconscious forces of which I am often unaware - hence the main part of any therapeutic work involves getting in touch with what is going on in our subconscious and bringing it into the conscious. Conscientisisation- in French So Freud is not so outdated after all, a real genius. "

 

[Juspar Emvan]

So is determinism based on a predetermined set of responses to stimulai - ie. instinct/reaction. Or is it that the course of all activity is predestined. I'm confused.

It really lies at the heart of the question from what I can see. And I think we've morphed it.

If you're talking destiny, then human actions are events. And everything must be preordained. You can't say 'lock it or don't you're destined to be robbed or not either way', because the action of locking or not, may be instumental in the robbery, but the choice you make is already determined. So yuo still have to make the choice, because that's part of the required sequence. My conclusion: free will appears to exist, but in actuallity there is no choice because your response (though you can go either way) is already written.

If you're talking auto response, we get clearer evidence of lack of free will. I think I can grasp the concept here, but it's pretty blury beyond simple situations. Then throw in human ability to consider abstract and you start talking in five dimensions or some shit. On a simple model, you can predict the 'choices' or responses to stimulai, therefore free will obvuiosly does not exist. I don't believe it applies to humans though. Sounds more like a clinical study than a philosophy.

Chaos theory says there will always be a determining factor, the ass cannot die.

 

[T.H. Oughts]

Now I understand.

 

[crysede]

Ok, determinism, spelled out in more detail, is essentially the scientific doctrine of cause and effect. According to this law, for any event e, there will be some antecedent state of nature, N, and a law of nature, L, such that if L, N will be followed by e.

Our ability to reason depends upon this law, since it's what allows us to pursue goals, to anticipate problems, to choose paths, and all the other things we must be able to do if we wish to be reasonable agents, that is, if we wish our freely chosen actions to be non-arbitrary. Clearly we want to be able to claim that we are reasonable agents: that, by and large, we have reasons for behaving how we do, rather then acting in a purely random fashion (i.e., indeterminately).

But if all events are determined by the law of cause and effect, then this must include our choosing (which is an event in our brains), thus our choices are fixed by antecedent events, so no actions can be free in the sense of coming about purely because of our willing them to when we could have done otherwise.

The problem is that, if there's no freewill, then no one can be held responsible for anything they do because they had no choice, they could not have done otherwise. Which puts the screws to our entire justice system, since if our scientific understanding of nature is correct, it seems that we cannot have free will.

However, I don't accept this argument because science is completely unable, to date, to giving any acount of consciousness. I see no reason to suppose that a scientific reduction of human action to physical mechanisms, which seems plausible when no attempt is made to account for consciousness, can simply be arbitrarily extended to include consciousness. Hence, until we can give some sort of scientific account of consciousness I think that declarations of determinism are premature.

I hope that was resonably coherent, my philosophical skills start to fade a little at this time of night

 

[Guest]

Now I understand.

me too

lol

Moon

ps thanks for all the replies....I am recording them *holding up tape microphone*

Moon

 

[freescorfr]

Perhaps we should feel bad about our justice system!
It's based on a model which attributes blame and punishes, often without much understanding of the meaning of the criminal behaviour. This is increasingly less so, as in the "Tackle the causes of crime" approach.

Creysede's point about cause and effect is very pertinent. For me, like traditionally defined "freewill", our conviction that one event causes another is an illusion. I'm with Hume on this one.

In everyday life, it is very important for survivors of crime - like the many girls who have suffered sexual violation - to take personal resposibility for their hurt. It is possible to reframe the violence, the undeniable fact, in a way which gives the person control over the situation.
This re-framing involves renouncing the cause/effect belief in favour of eventA/eventB being simply sequential rather than causal. In this way I see a violence as something I receive, rather than something which happens to me. I am the person to whom my hurt belongs. As long as I continue to "see" the crime in terms of "he caused me to suffer", I remain in the belief that he has power over me.

The traditional freewill debate is firmly fixed within a conceptual framework which is objective, "scientific" and impersonal. Our experience of life in terms of the choices we make, the care with which we listen to ourselves and the efforts we make to free ourselves to be who we are, can be significantly enhanced by moving out of this old system of blaming a cause (a person or an event) outside of ourselves for what happens to us, and assuming responsibility for all that goes on inside me - and not accepting any responsibility for what other people feel either.

It's perhaps hard to take in because the "old system" is so firmly implanted in our thinking.

In other words, for me, the freewill debate is interesting, but obsolete.

 

[Dillinger]

I take issue with your question. Because your question does not allow me to exercise free will.

You ask "How is Free-will incompatible with Determinism." Which sets up a situation in which I have no free will to answer your question. You did not ask "IF" free will is incompatible with determinism and, if so why? If not, why not. You told us that it "IS" incompatible with determinism then told us to tell you why.

Dirty trick that. You took away our free will. I refuse to play that game. You already determined the nature of the answers by the way you phrased the question.

*grin*

 

[freescorfr]

I take issue with your question. Because your question does not allow me to exercise free will.

You ask "How is Free-will incompatible with Determinism." Which sets up a situation in which I have no free will to answer your question. You did not ask "IF" free will is incompatible with determinism and, if so why? If not, why not. You told us that it "IS" incompatible with determinism then told us to tell you why.

Dirty trick that. You took away our free will. I refuse to play that game. You already determined the nature of the answers by the way you phrased the question.

*grin*

And I fell for it, Dilly. I want MoonWolf arrested, tried fairly and then punished.

 

[crysede]

I take issue with your question. Because your question does not allow me to exercise free will.

You ask "How is Free-will incompatible with Determinism." Which sets up a situation in which I have no free will to answer your question. You did not ask "IF" free will is incompatible with determinism and, if so why? If not, why not. You told us that it "IS" incompatible with determinism then told us to tell you why.

Dirty trick that. You took away our free will. I refuse to play that game. You already determined the nature of the answers by the way you phrased the question.

*grin*

Hmmmm, good point, the TA who phrased the essay question is obviously one of those rabid anticompatibilist, hard-determinist types. (on the other hand, why accept a soft-determinist when you can have a hard one )

 

[AmishPope]

On my philosphy midterm the question was "What is courage". I wrote down "this is" and handed it in.

 

[IrishWolfhound]

"In everyday life, it is very important for survivors of crime - like the many girls who have suffered sexual violation - to take personal resposibility for their hurt. It is possible to reframe the violence, the undeniable fact, in a way which gives the person control over the situation.
This re-framing involves renouncing the cause/effect belief in favour of eventA/eventB being simply sequential rather than causal. In this way I see a violence as something I receive, rather than something which happens to me. I am the person to whom my hurt belongs. As long as I continue to "see" the crime in terms of "he caused me to suffer", I remain in the belief that he has power over me. "


I know I am come late to this party, but the above passage begs a response (is it free will which causes that, or did a chain of events lead me here?). I cannot accept that the victim must take responsibility for their hurts. If the victim had the ability to control events, then the offender had such control as well. If determinism is true, then both were propelled to collide by an infinite chain which preceded the crime. Such a proposition, simplified, boils down to "Shit happens...suck it up and move on." That is far to simplistic, especially for a crime of violation, in which the criminal has taken control of your body against your will.

 

[freescorfr]

"In everyday life, it is very important for survivors of crime - like the many girls who have suffered sexual violation - to take personal resposibility for their hurt. It is possible to reframe the violence, the undeniable fact, in a way which gives the person control over the situation.
This re-framing involves renouncing the cause/effect belief in favour of eventA/eventB being simply sequential rather than causal. In this way I see a violence as something I receive, rather than something which happens to me. I am the person to whom my hurt belongs. As long as I continue to "see" the crime in terms of "he caused me to suffer", I remain in the belief that he has power over me. "


I know I am come late to this party, but the above passage begs a response (is it free will which causes that, or did a chain of events lead me here?). I cannot accept that the victim must take responsibility for their hurts. If the victim had the ability to control events, then the offender had such control as well. If determinism is true, then both were propelled to collide by an infinite chain which preceded the crime. Such a proposition, simplified, boils down to "Shit happens...suck it up and move on." That is far to simplistic, especially for a crime of violation, in which the criminal has taken control of your body against your will.

"I cannot accept that the victim must take responsibility for their hurts" .
The difficulty in accepting this is, I imagine, in the move from the event, seen objectively, to the feelings which an individual produces in themselves, for which they and only they, can be responsible.
I'd go further and say that when shit does happen, we often receive violence at the hands of another person. This doesn't have to be physical or intentional - even the death of a loved one is a violence, a shock, which we receive from them.
Everything received can be returned, if not measure for measure, at least, and often very powerfully, symbolically. Each such restitution restores energy to the person who has received the violence.

What cannot be returned are the feelings produced in me myself. I've produced them: they belong to me and are my resposibility. Only I can deal with them.
The re-framing I talk of helps clarify what belongs where. It is a muh harder job than simply shunting blame around, but in the end much healthier, less toxic for all parties.

 

[IrishWolfhound]

Aha!!! Now I think I understand. While the event is external...the feelings it generates are owned by the victim. It is then up to the victims as to how they internalize the event.

If that is what you were saying (re-phrased in my philosophical neo-phyte way) then I agree.

 

[freescorfr]

Aha!!! Now I think I understand. While the event is external...the feelings it generates are owned by the victim. It is then up to the victims as to how they internalize the event.

If that is what you were saying (re-phrased in my philosophical neo-phyte way) then I agree.

And maybe how I should have said it in the first place. I find, like sex, there's good days and bad days.

 

[MechaBlade]

Yeah, this question has been pretty much answered... the very definition of determinism goes against free will. Such is the fault of Calvinism (predestination).

I guess right now I believe in determinism. I can see no way around it. We are the sum of our upbringing, our environment, and our genes.

 

[IrishWolfhound]

And maybe how I should have said it in the first place. I find, like sex, there's good days and bad days.

Yes, and some days you just get rained out.

A valid bit of philosophy, but not pertinent to the question at hand.