9 ms·

This sort of debate always struck me as nonsense. If our actions are not derived of our own free will, but just exist as a small part of nature, then if you fol

This sort of debate always struck me as nonsense. If our actions are not derived of our own free will, but just exist as a small part of nature, then if you follow that thread far enough you’ll understand that all reason and truth would also be invalid, being just the effect to some coincidental cause. This incidentally would render theories about the subject of free will invalid as well. Thus if there is no free will there is no way for us to know it.

gameswithgo 6y ago
Suppose an all powerful god controls everything that happens to us. Could not such a God give us the knowledge that we have no free will?
- peterburkimsher 6y ago
  Suppose God is infinite, and we are finite. If free will is finite, then we have free will, and have knowledge of good and evil. Yet it also means we can never know God's will, which is infinite. Does infinity mean an unchanging concrete block? No! Recursion and fractals are infinite. There may yet be a perfect, infinite pattern that this world is designed to follow. Would it be possible to know the whole pattern? No. But could we know enough to fit into that? Yes. And I think that it requires the surrender of self-will, which is usually deterministic. In earthquakes, bridges (nicely rational, rectangular shapes) often crack (with fractal tree-shaped fractures). It is for our own good to surrender to a greater design than our own finite understanding.
  - hnedeotes 6y ago
    You wouldn't be able to distinguish between: A) A universe with God; B) A simulated universe (where the simulation due to the nature of being simulated will have all the characteristics that lead to the conceptualisation of God, hence being indistinguishable); C) A fake universe - for similar reasons as the simulation, and conceptually being the same as a simulation, it will exhibit all the same characteristics - the equivalent non computational example would be seeding a planet with humans and letting them go about their lives while keeping an eye on them and intervening when wanted, or the story shown in Truman’s Show - the fake here refers to it not being what it seems, not to it not existing; D) A universe where consciousness IS the essence of it and what gives rise to it in the first place, making every manifestation in it be direct manifestations of that consciousness and being effectively intertwined to the point where conscious parts can in some way affect the global consciousness and vice-versa, this eventually leads to the idea of A God as well, but is not "God" in the way we usually define it, it just quacks like it; E) A universe different from all the previous descriptions, as in without an overarching conscious form modelling it - the fact that you would then have both free-will and subjective experience of it (since I think no one will argue that you can NOT "experience" things objectively) would probably lead you (or someone) to formulate any of these other ideas - simply because the universe to be experienceable has to have certain minimal rules - given that the rules/laws supersede the abilities of the subjects (cannot be/have been made by the subjects describing them themselves) it can look like any of the other universes. A totally random universe doesn't seem to make sense because for it to exist in any way experienceable it has to have at least certain laws that govern its manifestation and any possible perception by “anything” in it, at which point it stops being completely random and has to be one of the other 5 descriptions, which again, will all be indistinguishable. If this makes sense for you then: > It is for our own good to surrender to a greater design than our own finite understanding may or may not be a valid proposition. If you cannot distinguish between them then you have to assume that it might not make sense to blindly "surrender" to a greater design.
- twodave 6y ago
  Yes, in my opinion the only way for reason and free will to exist are if some supernatural being were to grant it to us. That said, in order to truly have knowledge of anything we must first be able to assert free will. Otherwise even this God figure's interference in our natural lives may just be interpreted as an outside stimulus that we're dutifully responding to according to the laws of nature.
  - deeeeplearning 6y ago
    >That said, in order to truly have knowledge of anything we must first be able to assert free will. This is not a coherent argument. You claim to have better insight than hundreds of years of Epistemology?
    - twodave 6y ago
      I'm simply asserting that a lack of free will constitutes lack of control over one's own thoughts. Do you disagree with this or am I just not communicating well? Edit: I'm also not saying anything that hasn't been said before. Just because you personally haven't read the authors or pieces that agree with my point of view doesn't mean they don't exist.
      - deeeeplearning 6y ago
        I'm not aware of anyone making the argument that without free will knowledge does not exist. And really the situation is simple. Either you believe in determinism or you believe in libertarian free will. The problem is that one of these beliefs is supported by science and the other requires magic.
        twodave 6y ago
        Can you explain this further? It sounds an awful lot like you're dismissing my viewpoint without really putting an effort in to argue your side, which would be rude. While that may be the case, I'm going to overlook it. The argument isn't directly that knowledge requires free will, but rather that you can't, as a mere product of some chain of events, be a reliable source. This isn't an argument against determinism so much as it is against naturalism. I would also argue against determinism in some respects, but my thoughts about events being predetermined are a bit more complex. I would say that just because something is pre-known doesn't require it to be pre-determined. To say such a belief requires magic is a little flippant, I think. Our universe and everything in it exist as they are in a moment of time. Our attempts at reasoning about the universe have given us some degree of accuracy in describing it. But the fact remains that whatever ideas and supporting science we come up with are just that, ideas and science. Reality trumps it all. So--while you can _say_ things in whatever tone you like and alienate or belittle folks who don't believe the same things you do--I would say that how we as humans show love for each other is much more helpful, and that it's okay to admit we don't know nearly as much about the world as we think we do.
wruza 6y ago
I’m interested in topic. Can you please expand a little or point to a book/idea that does? The “reason and truth” part specifically. Why truth would be invalid if there exist only complex finite automata? Can’t complex enough entities reason about this system while being a part of it, coincidentally being able to do that without contradiction?
- Thorrez 6y ago
  Does it make sense for an automaton to say "I will search for truth. I am searching for truth. I have found truth." when that automaton has been preprogrammed to say that and had no choice in the matter? Here's a version of this argument: https://youtu.be/BsAEj6UsrI0?t=297 https://youtu.be/BsAEj6UsrI0?t=297
  - wruza 6y ago
    That boils down to the question “can deterministic system contain inner truths?”. While I can’t really answer that now, imagine a deterministic system that has some truth in it that may be observed from outside (by e.g. us, its creators). Then claiming that there is no sense in automaton reasoning is equivalent to claiming that this system doesn’t have an attractor for that. But if there is such attractor, then we may watch this automaton in “realtime” looking for truth (being catched by an attractor), move to it (along its field), and then state that it found it (by observing a fixed point). Or it could spiral into “truth point” never reaching it, like we usually do. Iow, systems are not required to have truths or elements that are pre-aimed to balance themselves along these truths, but our world doesn’t have to be like that (unless proven otherwise).
- twodave 6y ago
  I speak of reason and truth as human constructs. If we cannot be sure that we have free will, then, while truth exists in abundance, we have no ability to validate it. I say this all a bit tongue in cheek because I absolutely believe that we have free will. And in any case, to suggest otherwise to me would seem like a cop-out for the consequences of my own decisions. The first 3-4 chapters of the book Miracles by C.S. Lewis cover this topic pretty well in my opinion, even if you're not spiritual-minded.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cardanome 6y ago
A deterministic machine is still able to react based on external stimulus and able to reason about the world and itself. And we don't even need to go the full determinism route to disprove free will. What can free will be other than an illusion? Am I really deciding to be hungry, to want companionship, and so on? Am I simply doing what needs to be done to fulfill my needs while my brain is inventing reasons? What am I other that environmental factor, genetics, and maybe random noise? Nothing. Objective truth and reality exists independent of any person having a free will or not.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Relativity theories say that objective truth only exists globally/abstractly, and cannot shared between observers.
  - mcswell 6y ago
    No; all observers see the speed of light as the same.
    - lanternfish 6y ago
      Do you see the speed of light?
      - mcswell 6y ago
        You can measure it quite easily, in fact in a high school lab. So yes, in a non-pedantic sense, "see".
        lanternfish 6y ago
        But ultimately that's still an observation of a measurement; any 'truth' is necessarily abstracted into an internal ontological representation of that observation. One person's understanding of the measurement of the speed of light may absolutely be different than the next. These represntations may converge more strongly than, say, something more ephemerate like the human condition, but regression towards shared observation via scientific processes (or otherwise) doesn't have to imply truth. Ultimately the definition of 'truth' dictates the extent of it's subjectivity, so this discussion is necessarily pedantic. I'm not well enough studied in ontological theory to have a horse in the race, but I don't know that the conclusions of relativistic experiments are enough to indicate universality of experiential truth.
netizen-936824 6y ago
The brain is a deterministic system. We understand the dynamics of deterministic systems from the study of physics, so what is free will in terms of a system with an already decided outcome?
- kanzenryu2 6y ago
  Quantum Physics has perfectly random outcomes
  - wruza 6y ago
    In QM, you may teleport into the sun, but it was never registered for de-coherent macro objects, even for few millimeters. A brain is macro, neurons and their signals are pretty macro. Why should a brain or its parts even slightly depend on QM effects? Modern CPUs which have much smaller parts can work for years and not experience QM randomness bugs. Nothing is deterministic or “the same” at quantum level, but at the classical scale it doesn’t matter, because chances to observe any difference or randomness in an usual object lifetime are essentially zero.
    - netizen-936824 6y ago
      QM does have some impact on functional biochemistry, but I highly doubt its enough to make the system nondeterministic at any appreciable level. Not to mention, do we truly know that any part of QM is nondeterministic? Perhaps the nondeterministic appearance of QM is just our lack of understanding combined with our limited perspective.
  - simiones 6y ago
    That is debatable. QM is deterministic at the quantum level, and deterministic at the classic level, randomness only (seems to) appear at the cross between them. There are even interpretation such as MWI that don't involve any randomness at a fundamental level.
- kbelder 6y ago
  Possibly it's a chaotic deterministic system, which means it can't be precisely predicted by any means short of a full simulation.
benibela 6y ago
I said that in a philosophy exam in school, and got a D- for it
- twodave 6y ago
  There are probably more reasons you may have gotten a D- for it--I'd think a fair professor would have allowed such an argument assuming it was well-thought-out. There are of course plenty of professors (especially in philosophy) who give out grades based on how thoroughly they feel their egos have been stroked. Shame on them. Grades based on sycophancy are no different than any other kind of corruption.
anothernewdude 6y ago
Free will is almost axiomatic.
WhompingWindows 6y ago
You claim this "thread" leads to all reason and truth being invalid, which is overreaching, to put it plainly. How do you reckon that all mathematics, the periodic table of elements, the planetary bodies in our solar system, are suddenly invalidated because humans weren't deciding to study them, but were merely following natural behavioral patterns? If we don't have free will, does that invalidate all aliens' civilizations study of universal laws too? In my view, humans are curious creatures whose natural inclination to study their surroundings led them to discover scientific truths, which exist on a higher plane than our mere thought. Combine this with societal support of scientific activity, and we have a burst of discovery of truth and reason which was hitherto un-revealed to us. Our "free will" and "decision" has nothing to do with 2+2=4 or that Mars is red due to rusty iron, these are simply factual scientific observations which have stood the test of time in science: no theories have invalidated them. So, our free will is not necessary for the physical laws of the universe to exist. They existed before us and will exist after us. So where do we lose all reason and truth by being merely curious, as opposed to having a homunculous man in our heads telling us what to do at each moment? Look into meditation practice if you still believe in the switchboard operator pulling all the strings in your mind. I challenge you to find free will in yourself, find something you're actually genuinely choosing. Can you explain why free will allows the random thoughts that crop up in your mind constantly? Those random thoughts dictate our behaviors, the actions of humans; but where are they from? They're random nervous firings that our physical body, physical tongue, physical fingers, are all acting upon, there is no "switchboard operator" choosing anything at any time.
- twodave 6y ago
  I didn't intend to imply that truth would not exist--rather that we'd have no way to validate it, truth and reason being human concepts. If we invalidate our own faculties (I don't see any other way to categorize not having free will) then while there absolutely still is truth out there, we are hopelessly incapable of validating any of it.
- twodave 6y ago
  Also I thought by calling this whole debate nonsense I would be seen to believe that free will must exist. It's simply not derived from some haphazard biological coincidence, in my opinion.

gameswithgo 6y ago

Suppose an all powerful god controls everything that happens to us. Could not such a God give us the knowledge that we have no free will?

peterburkimsher 6y ago
Suppose God is infinite, and we are finite. If free will is finite, then we have free will, and have knowledge of good and evil. Yet it also means we can never know God's will, which is infinite. Does infinity mean an unchanging concrete block? No! Recursion and fractals are infinite. There may yet be a perfect, infinite pattern that this world is designed to follow. Would it be possible to know the whole pattern? No. But could we know enough to fit into that? Yes. And I think that it requires the surrender of self-will, which is usually deterministic. In earthquakes, bridges (nicely rational, rectangular shapes) often crack (with fractal tree-shaped fractures). It is for our own good to surrender to a greater design than our own finite understanding.
- hnedeotes 6y ago
  You wouldn't be able to distinguish between: A) A universe with God; B) A simulated universe (where the simulation due to the nature of being simulated will have all the characteristics that lead to the conceptualisation of God, hence being indistinguishable); C) A fake universe - for similar reasons as the simulation, and conceptually being the same as a simulation, it will exhibit all the same characteristics - the equivalent non computational example would be seeding a planet with humans and letting them go about their lives while keeping an eye on them and intervening when wanted, or the story shown in Truman’s Show - the fake here refers to it not being what it seems, not to it not existing; D) A universe where consciousness IS the essence of it and what gives rise to it in the first place, making every manifestation in it be direct manifestations of that consciousness and being effectively intertwined to the point where conscious parts can in some way affect the global consciousness and vice-versa, this eventually leads to the idea of A God as well, but is not "God" in the way we usually define it, it just quacks like it; E) A universe different from all the previous descriptions, as in without an overarching conscious form modelling it - the fact that you would then have both free-will and subjective experience of it (since I think no one will argue that you can NOT "experience" things objectively) would probably lead you (or someone) to formulate any of these other ideas - simply because the universe to be experienceable has to have certain minimal rules - given that the rules/laws supersede the abilities of the subjects (cannot be/have been made by the subjects describing them themselves) it can look like any of the other universes. A totally random universe doesn't seem to make sense because for it to exist in any way experienceable it has to have at least certain laws that govern its manifestation and any possible perception by “anything” in it, at which point it stops being completely random and has to be one of the other 5 descriptions, which again, will all be indistinguishable. If this makes sense for you then: > It is for our own good to surrender to a greater design than our own finite understanding may or may not be a valid proposition. If you cannot distinguish between them then you have to assume that it might not make sense to blindly "surrender" to a greater design.
twodave 6y ago
Yes, in my opinion the only way for reason and free will to exist are if some supernatural being were to grant it to us. That said, in order to truly have knowledge of anything we must first be able to assert free will. Otherwise even this God figure's interference in our natural lives may just be interpreted as an outside stimulus that we're dutifully responding to according to the laws of nature.
- deeeeplearning 6y ago
  >That said, in order to truly have knowledge of anything we must first be able to assert free will. This is not a coherent argument. You claim to have better insight than hundreds of years of Epistemology?
  - twodave 6y ago
    I'm simply asserting that a lack of free will constitutes lack of control over one's own thoughts. Do you disagree with this or am I just not communicating well? Edit: I'm also not saying anything that hasn't been said before. Just because you personally haven't read the authors or pieces that agree with my point of view doesn't mean they don't exist.
    - deeeeplearning 6y ago
      I'm not aware of anyone making the argument that without free will knowledge does not exist. And really the situation is simple. Either you believe in determinism or you believe in libertarian free will. The problem is that one of these beliefs is supported by science and the other requires magic.
      - twodave 6y ago
        Can you explain this further? It sounds an awful lot like you're dismissing my viewpoint without really putting an effort in to argue your side, which would be rude. While that may be the case, I'm going to overlook it. The argument isn't directly that knowledge requires free will, but rather that you can't, as a mere product of some chain of events, be a reliable source. This isn't an argument against determinism so much as it is against naturalism. I would also argue against determinism in some respects, but my thoughts about events being predetermined are a bit more complex. I would say that just because something is pre-known doesn't require it to be pre-determined. To say such a belief requires magic is a little flippant, I think. Our universe and everything in it exist as they are in a moment of time. Our attempts at reasoning about the universe have given us some degree of accuracy in describing it. But the fact remains that whatever ideas and supporting science we come up with are just that, ideas and science. Reality trumps it all. So--while you can _say_ things in whatever tone you like and alienate or belittle folks who don't believe the same things you do--I would say that how we as humans show love for each other is much more helpful, and that it's okay to admit we don't know nearly as much about the world as we think we do.

wruza 6y ago

I’m interested in topic. Can you please expand a little or point to a book/idea that does? The “reason and truth” part specifically. Why truth would be invalid if there exist only complex finite automata? Can’t complex enough entities reason about this system while being a part of it, coincidentally being able to do that without contradiction?

Thorrez 6y ago
Does it make sense for an automaton to say "I will search for truth. I am searching for truth. I have found truth." when that automaton has been preprogrammed to say that and had no choice in the matter? Here's a version of this argument: https://youtu.be/BsAEj6UsrI0?t=297 https://youtu.be/BsAEj6UsrI0?t=297
- wruza 6y ago
  That boils down to the question “can deterministic system contain inner truths?”. While I can’t really answer that now, imagine a deterministic system that has some truth in it that may be observed from outside (by e.g. us, its creators). Then claiming that there is no sense in automaton reasoning is equivalent to claiming that this system doesn’t have an attractor for that. But if there is such attractor, then we may watch this automaton in “realtime” looking for truth (being catched by an attractor), move to it (along its field), and then state that it found it (by observing a fixed point). Or it could spiral into “truth point” never reaching it, like we usually do. Iow, systems are not required to have truths or elements that are pre-aimed to balance themselves along these truths, but our world doesn’t have to be like that (unless proven otherwise).
twodave 6y ago
I speak of reason and truth as human constructs. If we cannot be sure that we have free will, then, while truth exists in abundance, we have no ability to validate it. I say this all a bit tongue in cheek because I absolutely believe that we have free will. And in any case, to suggest otherwise to me would seem like a cop-out for the consequences of my own decisions. The first 3-4 chapters of the book Miracles by C.S. Lewis cover this topic pretty well in my opinion, even if you're not spiritual-minded.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cardanome 6y ago

A deterministic machine is still able to react based on external stimulus and able to reason about the world and itself. And we don't even need to go the full determinism route to disprove free will. What can free will be other than an illusion? Am I really deciding to be hungry, to want companionship, and so on? Am I simply doing what needs to be done to fulfill my needs while my brain is inventing reasons? What am I other that environmental factor, genetics, and maybe random noise? Nothing. Objective truth and reality exists independent of any person having a free will or not.

alisonkisk 6y ago
Relativity theories say that objective truth only exists globally/abstractly, and cannot shared between observers.
- mcswell 6y ago
  No; all observers see the speed of light as the same.
  - lanternfish 6y ago
    Do you see the speed of light?
    - mcswell 6y ago
      You can measure it quite easily, in fact in a high school lab. So yes, in a non-pedantic sense, "see".
      - lanternfish 6y ago
        But ultimately that's still an observation of a measurement; any 'truth' is necessarily abstracted into an internal ontological representation of that observation. One person's understanding of the measurement of the speed of light may absolutely be different than the next. These represntations may converge more strongly than, say, something more ephemerate like the human condition, but regression towards shared observation via scientific processes (or otherwise) doesn't have to imply truth. Ultimately the definition of 'truth' dictates the extent of it's subjectivity, so this discussion is necessarily pedantic. I'm not well enough studied in ontological theory to have a horse in the race, but I don't know that the conclusions of relativistic experiments are enough to indicate universality of experiential truth.

netizen-936824 6y ago

The brain is a deterministic system. We understand the dynamics of deterministic systems from the study of physics, so what is free will in terms of a system with an already decided outcome?

kanzenryu2 6y ago
Quantum Physics has perfectly random outcomes
- wruza 6y ago
  In QM, you may teleport into the sun, but it was never registered for de-coherent macro objects, even for few millimeters. A brain is macro, neurons and their signals are pretty macro. Why should a brain or its parts even slightly depend on QM effects? Modern CPUs which have much smaller parts can work for years and not experience QM randomness bugs. Nothing is deterministic or “the same” at quantum level, but at the classical scale it doesn’t matter, because chances to observe any difference or randomness in an usual object lifetime are essentially zero.
  - netizen-936824 6y ago
    QM does have some impact on functional biochemistry, but I highly doubt its enough to make the system nondeterministic at any appreciable level. Not to mention, do we truly know that any part of QM is nondeterministic? Perhaps the nondeterministic appearance of QM is just our lack of understanding combined with our limited perspective.
- simiones 6y ago
  That is debatable. QM is deterministic at the quantum level, and deterministic at the classic level, randomness only (seems to) appear at the cross between them. There are even interpretation such as MWI that don't involve any randomness at a fundamental level.
kbelder 6y ago
Possibly it's a chaotic deterministic system, which means it can't be precisely predicted by any means short of a full simulation.

benibela 6y ago

I said that in a philosophy exam in school, and got a D- for it

twodave 6y ago
There are probably more reasons you may have gotten a D- for it--I'd think a fair professor would have allowed such an argument assuming it was well-thought-out. There are of course plenty of professors (especially in philosophy) who give out grades based on how thoroughly they feel their egos have been stroked. Shame on them. Grades based on sycophancy are no different than any other kind of corruption.

anothernewdude 6y ago

Free will is almost axiomatic.

WhompingWindows 6y ago

You claim this "thread" leads to all reason and truth being invalid, which is overreaching, to put it plainly. How do you reckon that all mathematics, the periodic table of elements, the planetary bodies in our solar system, are suddenly invalidated because humans weren't deciding to study them, but were merely following natural behavioral patterns? If we don't have free will, does that invalidate all aliens' civilizations study of universal laws too? In my view, humans are curious creatures whose natural inclination to study their surroundings led them to discover scientific truths, which exist on a higher plane than our mere thought. Combine this with societal support of scientific activity, and we have a burst of discovery of truth and reason which was hitherto un-revealed to us. Our "free will" and "decision" has nothing to do with 2+2=4 or that Mars is red due to rusty iron, these are simply factual scientific observations which have stood the test of time in science: no theories have invalidated them. So, our free will is not necessary for the physical laws of the universe to exist. They existed before us and will exist after us. So where do we lose all reason and truth by being merely curious, as opposed to having a homunculous man in our heads telling us what to do at each moment? Look into meditation practice if you still believe in the switchboard operator pulling all the strings in your mind. I challenge you to find free will in yourself, find something you're actually genuinely choosing. Can you explain why free will allows the random thoughts that crop up in your mind constantly? Those random thoughts dictate our behaviors, the actions of humans; but where are they from? They're random nervous firings that our physical body, physical tongue, physical fingers, are all acting upon, there is no "switchboard operator" choosing anything at any time.

twodave 6y ago
I didn't intend to imply that truth would not exist--rather that we'd have no way to validate it, truth and reason being human concepts. If we invalidate our own faculties (I don't see any other way to categorize not having free will) then while there absolutely still is truth out there, we are hopelessly incapable of validating any of it.
twodave 6y ago
Also I thought by calling this whole debate nonsense I would be seen to believe that free will must exist. It's simply not derived from some haphazard biological coincidence, in my opinion.