Experimental Philosophy: Free Will

[OsyenVyeter]

I am Jim and I had french fries for lunch.

[BirthofReason]

The common element missing from this analysis is our biology. We are all human. Human culture is constrained by biology in a certain sense so that we will all have similar responses to these questions.

The efforts of the past have been ignorant of the affect of our genes on our behavior. Humans respond in a similar way because we all share the same stone-age brain which operates in a similar manner. Arm-chair philosophy reasoning a priori results in this conflict.

[1GodOnlyOne]

Suddenly I have a craving for french fries.

[maichips]

It's interesting to me that you inquire as to why philosophers disagree while non-philosophers agree so readily. Has it occurred to you that there is perhaps a high degree of wishful thinking involved in people's assessment of free will? If people WANT to be able to hold people accountable, then of course they'll choose B. It's interesting too that philosophers are taking an interest in the opinions of laymen, since philosophy began as a way of rectifying common sense opinions about the world.

[StubHorn]

Are you teasing us?

Nothing can stop a human from doin what he wants to do.

Where did the decision come from, In best case pre-thinking, in most case, just drive for need.

Responsibility is a great skill humans should develop, it makes this a world a wonderful, respectful and creative place.

[Ko252]

@StubHorn Let us change the point: you cant do anything else, except what your genetical foundation and environment (as well as previous experience), guide you to do.

[StubHorn]

@Ko252 Non sense. I mean, yeah a little sense in will-less people's world, that's the point. Justifying for lack of decision is just conter-productive. I guess every person uses his or her space time differently. Have fun you guys here

[Ko252]

@StubHorn Non-sense? On what ground? It being counter-productive, doesnt prove it wrong, does it?

[StubHorn]

@Ko252 Yeah you're right, it doesn't prove it wrong.

[stripedcat]

@StubHorn How can you claim people will-less, because your perception of their will does not equal your perception of your will. Lack of decision=decision. Justifying lack of decision=Justifying being. Justifying decision=Justifying being.

[stripedcat]

@I3obkat If free will exists, our world is not logic at all, but only in retrospect. If absolute reality exists, world will be nothing but logic, and free will is reflection of subjective meaning of action. And most people will not speculate if the whole world is illogical, so it is fair in that respect exclude free will. And even if, you cannot reason the unreasonable(or is this real reason? :P), so believing in free will be nothing but conflicting comfort, was my point. Sorry for all the text!

[stripedcat]

@I3obkat Trouble communicating.. Basically what I meant - there is no free will unless it is completely free, which it apparently is not, but somehow might be. You use your computer beacuse you had a reason(mana), if you didn't get mana or you knew you got better/easier mana by a different source, you wouldn't use your computer unless in randomness. But, yes, the two different perceptions are visible at all times if one cares to look.

[Ko252]

@stripedcat Randomness doesn exist, it is only lack of information that drives us to conclude so. That goes for quantum physics as well.

[stripedcat]

@Ko252 My point exactly. So it does exist, as a part of our reasoning of experience.

[Ko252]

@stripedcat It is a human defintion. What is meant to happen, will happen, since it all connected into a long equation. Our lack of information, force us to use the term "randomness".

[stripedcat]

@Ko252 You see that is just a human concept, just as randomness is. But we experience both as real, you can't deny that, even though you intellectually can reason it not being real. But if you do so, you deny a "real" experience, so you are surpressing your subconciousness as well as your ACTUAL experience of "reality", which is the unknown. I am not saying the unknown is randomness, far from it, but because of as you say lack of information you cannot conclude real experience as only absolute.

[Ko252]

@stripedcat Yes, I can level with you on the matter of experiencing free will, even though it isnt, but not randomness. I rather tend to experience the lack of information, rather than the feeling of randomness.

[stripedcat]

@Ko252 So do I, it is the REASONING of experiencing the FEELING of randomness, but I don't claim it is actual randomness in moment of truth. Still, the feeling of randomness is just as real as the feeling of knowing. Both feeling of randomness and feeling of knowing is from the drive for reasoning the unknown.

[stripedcat]

@Ko252 Basically I agree with you regarding randomness, that was kind of my point from start, in evidence of the invalidity of free will. Everything happens for a reason, by reason of course. If randomness existed, all would be random. I don't believe that, and neither would anyone claiming free will. So "free" will is only an effect of reaction of the absolute, by reason.

[stripedcat]

@Ko252 Basically: Your lack of information invalidates your concept of "lack of information", just as the concept of randomness. By "real life" experience of course. In moment of truth, which is not according to "real life" experience, all is validated, as you, as well as I am, are proposing. But we don't know the moment of truth, because of lack of information, and so it will always be until we don't lack ANY information. So to claim anything at all is really just arrogance based on fear.

[Ko252]

@stripedcat The one comments starting with: Basically: I agree. Your second paragraph: I have somehow stopped feeling randomness. I just cant. I am not trying to avoid it, I just cant feel it any more. And regarding your last; "...only an effect of reaction of the absolute, by reason.", thus an illusion.

[stripedcat]

@Ko252 Having a mind set by reason makes the mind somewhat delusional, so be aware your mind can trick you in any way by reason. If you are aware, very good for you:) Yes, an illusion, but by reason of course. But experience of the absolute is also only an effect of reaction of the absolute, and by reason an illusion. Not denying the absolute, the experience of experience and non-experience, which is all that is absolute until moment of truth.

[stripedcat]

@I3obkat The reason you relate at all is because the world is a scary place, so what you see as free is conditioned by fear. Discomfort of fact of uncertainty of mana+conform system(promise+reward)+steady income of mana=free will. No mana=riot against system/comfort of uncertainty=blame: ignorant [of] system/self. You are the relater, so in that sense you are free because you can always focus on mana and not cul-de-sac's - memory is it's own moment and really does not relate to now.

[stripedcat]

@I3obkat It is not flaw in that manner. If you believe the universe was created by any means, order or disorder, you will have to seperate it. However, you cannot prove the one without the other. When you made a choice, you did it because of something, which means you are ultimately conditioned by your circumstances. You will always make compromises because you did so from day one, so ultimately there is no free will, only the "reassurance" you made the "right" choice.

[cocochanelnr5]

It gets us back in a circle. If when you do a decision have all the molecules and atoms in a place and can read it well, you will now what will happen. If you rollback and do it again with all the atoms on the exactly same place you would get the same result, Empircal. This thesis wont be failed until physisics find a random pattern in atom sub or above movement.

When we punish ppl, then we go back to the question, do we decided fate, or did the placement of the atoms made us do it.

[gracefulgraceful]

@I3obkat mind fuck

[rossvideosprint]

The reason people agree is because humans PERCEIVE their actions to be entirely their own. This experience of seeming control over your actions, where you actively interact with the world around you, arguably gives the illusion of a non-deterministic universe where the decisions we make effect the world around us. The reason philosophers and scientists cannot agree is that when you actually look into it, you find those initial perceptions to be a weak model for the way the universe actually is.

[stripedcat]

@WYATTSHOW1 Theres parameters of compromises where you would or wouldnt step in front of a bus, if you value life(experience, as there is also parameters of compromises where you would or wouldnt value life) obviously if you have experienced traffic or there is no reason(also parameters of reasons) you wouldnt step infront of a bus, but if you havent experienced or if you dont value life or if the reason is big it is a compromise to step infront. Will is based on experience, retrospect whatever.

[pyrrho314]

why "human"... why not decisions in general?

[Mike10four]

What about universe C? Free will is confined to the Laws of Nature. In time, from a random thought a choice begins the pursuit of a future objective; in the present, an emotional response to the accomplishment of said objective; for in the past, there are side effects echoing throughout time, of said objective; probably effecting future thoughts as in experience manifesting in knowledge and virtue, as in the “love of wisdom;” hence, philosophy. For a real experiment, see my channel video.

[WYATTSHOW1]

Free will DOES exist, and manifests in the form of anticipated outcome avoidance. As an example if i stepped in the street and noticed a bus coming toward me, I will anticipate being hit by the bus. I could move to avoid being hit, or i could AVOID moving and BE hit. The non-existence of free will can only be argued in retrospect, after a decision has ALREADY been made, but anticipation of outcome gives us the free will that these philosophers cant get on the same page about.

[brendonjc81]

I think people are making a mistake when talking about Free will and Choice. Choice is made from the thoughts that happen in your brain. You have no control of how your brain works or functions. So YOUR not making the choice, your brain is! Free will, If you were playing a video game for Eg. You would have Free-will up to the "Laws or rules" of that universe that your playing in. Free will is the option you have at the time. Black or blue, red or green. Picking an option it not free will!

[peterroscoe]

Morality is a causal mechanism which affects the decisions we make. Whether we hold people accountable does not itself have to be a moral decision. It can be a pragmatic one. Accountability is another causal mechanism.

Decisions we make take into account a great variety of factors, both conscious and unconscious. Would you decide differently simply to prove you have free will? That desire to prove free will becomes one of the factors.

[cgreen1480]

"man has free will to the extent that he knows who he is..... not otherwise" Alan Watts

[LysergicAngel]

I answered universe B before you got to the second question!!

[kyledavidbyron]

Libertarian freewill is outlandish.

[BlitzSageFFVI]

I will answer your question with another question. Is it in fact possible that us common people actually have all of the answers that you can't find? Is it that our minds have not been subject to such rigorous philosophical discussion so that our minds are not tainted? Maybe it is the common man that has all the answers. Perhaps we search for answers while you search for questions.

[mrchacko]

@BlitzSageFFVI

Uh, no. Not thinking about a subject does not default to having an answer for it.

By this logic I am an expert in quantum mechanics because I don't study it.

[oneofthey]

Moral judgment is not a free will in universe A, so that if this universe is A we shouldn't be worry about that. In universe B, on the other side, we can freely judge actions of persons knowing they have free will. In each universe, the perfect internal logic prevent the possibility of an asymmetry.

[zvorran]

not everyone is smart enough or educated enough to say. people sure as hell feel free will but really, there is much evidence suggesting the opposite. and people also fail to realize that you actually can be held morally responsible for your actions in a causal world like ours (people just dont like to think that way).

regardning discrepancies, we can ask people to prove that they have 10 fingers. most people will say, look at my hands. academic philosophers would argue that this is not enough.

[RandomDirectors]

In Universe A we are not responsible if we kill someone... However we are a risk to everyone else and therefore should be locked up.

The punishments should be used in Universe A to EFFECT the future of the choices the people chose to make.

If we allowed everyone to get away with anything we would soon die out and we are determined to want to live as a species for as long as possible.

[RandomDirectors]

Universe A is real.

[muzakgeek]

You're missing Universe C - Compatibilism. It doesn't necessarily follow that just because one accepts Determinism that Free Will can't be included.

I see Determinism as a necessity for Free Will. If your actions are not determined by your own beliefs, desires, personality, etc., then it seems that they aren't really YOUR actions anyway.

I desired to comment on this video, so I did. There was a chain of caused events leading me up to this decision, but I still could have chosen to not to do so

[TheJerm78]

To those that believe in universe B I would ask this: What is it about a human brain that it doesn't have to obey the same laws of physics that everything else does? Every atom in your brain used to be part of something else--a plant, a rock, a star, whatever--that presumably had to obey the rules of cause and effect. As what point did the switch take place and how? Would it be possible to use some sort of device to watch a working brain at the atomic level so we could witness this magic?

[BruceSpringsteeen]

@TheJerm78 I think that first it is important to note that the idea that 'free will' is the power to change the future is completely nonsensical - 'The future' is simply what will be (in the future). Therefore, when talking about human free will, I subscribe to the notion that it should be seen more as an ability to change what WOULD have been IF the brain were nothing more than bits of plant, rock, star, whatever. Now (assuming we both agree so far), the problem of moral responsibility - cont.

[BruceSpringsteeen]

@TheJerm78 Simply because our actions may be the result of planetary collisions billions of years ago, that doesn't immediately remove responsibility. Take for example a faulty engine part in a car - it causes the car to not run effectively - so a mechanic would remove it from the system. Perhaps (and only perhaps) this would be a defense for punishment (not capital, just jail time). Remove the "defective" brain from society so that you decrease suffering - A Utilitarian defense.

[BruceSpringsteeen]

@TheJerm78 Maybe "defective" brain should actually be "a brain unfortuantely geared towards crime/evil/antisocial behaviour".

You know what I mean hehe. Meh, just semantics :)

[muddy2332]

i was getting into this then i saw a pen and start clicking it is that more like A or universe B

[nerdfiles]

Moreover, what would it look like for such a member to succeed? And would we ultimately find ourselves asking the same question of the "academic" that we ask of ordinary folk? I doubt any person who sincerely reflects on the matter would find it shocking that it is possible, if not probable, for global agreement on *some* set of sentences or other. What makes *this* particular set interesting? And could we ask this question of *any* rigidly defined set (of decidedly moral propositions)?

[nerdfiles]

I hope that we should be able to find, somewhere in the referred literature, for lack of its presence in this video, a definition of "academic philosophy. Such a definition was not even attempted, yet the conceptual metaphor that there is an "inside" and an "outside" to such a thing is deeply rooted at the base of the discussion. What does it mean to be "in" academic philosophy? And what does it mean for a presumably extant member of such a category to *fail*?

[Dominicwashere]

Filosophers have the ability to look at themself objectively. Therefor they think it could be possibly to live in universe A. But ordinary people have such big ego's that they don't want to believe that they aren't any more special then the world around them. Therefor they don't want to believe that their schoices depend on the circumstances.

[Ko252]

@Dominicwashere not only their circumstances, but their genetic heritage, also. My favorite example to ramify it: Genetics are the brick, which the environment create into a master piece.

[Dominicwashere]

@Ko252 very optimistic last sentence =P

[Ko252]

@Dominicwashere It is a well-known fact that determinists are quite optimistic.

[SamQuentin]

Another believer in Universe A here. A person's decision to have french fries is dictated by their taste in food which is formulated based on their individual biology, as well as their upbringing as well as their mood. There is not a single factor in that decision that cannot be traced back to root causes outside of the scope of the individual's sphere of influence.

[EloyGod]

see my theory :)

[moegreen2]

I argue that a person with "free will" is just as little responsible as a person without. Why? A person with free will makes an action based on no causes. An action that have no causes is random. Where does the responsibility fit in? He would have just as little control over the outcome as a deterministic person. I think we should judge both, not because it is right, but it works.

[fragmachine1]

That's not true. Just because a person has free will does not mean his action is based on no cause or random. For example, he may choose to have french fries today because he had mashed potatoes yesterday, that said he may choose to have french fries again. The point is he made the choice and he is responsible for it.

Your argument states that a man has no responsibility for his actions, as every decision is just a random throw of the dice. This is obviously flawed thinking.

[moegreen2]

No the flawed thinking is thinking you will get responsibility with free will. If he can choose without the past, it must be random. If it's based on the past it is not random but deterministic. And I guess you go for the mix where you get a little bit randomness, but where does the responsibility fit in?

[fragmachine1]

I see where your coming from but I still disagree. Just because the outcome is not set, doesn't mean the outcome is random. When a person makes a descision they draw on previous experience, culural norms etc and this is where the mix comes in. Their descision is affected by the past though not defined by it. Because they have the ability to break from the past or continue in the same way, the outcome is the result of their descision, making them responsible for it, no?

[moegreen2]

If it's only random between two good choices dosent matter, it is still random if it is not deterministic, just too a smaller degree. So they are responsible because they can act diffrently? I do not agree. I say they are responsible because they can understand the consequenses of their actions. Empathy for example: we do not do something bad to others because we can understand how it would make them feel. This we can have with or without free will.

[DauntProductions]

God Vs Atheism

If god has a divine plan, created us, and knows everything... then how could we have free will? With god knowing exactly every choice we are going to make, then wouldn't that mean most people were CREATED TO BE PUNISHED?

[gracefulgraceful]

@DauntProductions if this is truw that there is a God and that he knows everything, it doesnt necessarily mean that we are created to be punished. We still have free will and the ability to make any decision and choice that we want to, just that God knows what that decision and choice will be. He hasnt influenced or chosen our decision and he hasnt created us to be punished when/if we make the wrong decision, he just happens to know what it is that will happen

[Ko252]

@DauntProductions To be free, your choise has to be unknowable, since you can make any choise you want. How is the suitable with infinite knowledge?

[Imm0ralMin0rity]

The example of choosing what to have for lunch is a poor way to lay out this problem. Nietzsche said we should not look for volition in every day tasks, but only in moral decisions.

Debating whether free will exists or not is complete folly. You might as well debate about the existence of God.

The reason so many people believe that Universe B is most like this one is simple; it is a comfortable thing to believe. Determinism isn't a pleasant thing to believe in, but the truth isn't often so.

[bxjam85]

I believe that universe A most resembles our own, but the folly is presuming that free will cannot be determined or caused. The question isn't whether or not our actions are caused, the question is whether or not our actions are internally caused or externally caused.

[cm2dude]

determinism?

[Individualism101]

Humans are morally driven creatures. That is why people answered in that way.

I chose universe A, and I also chose that people are morally responsible.

It does not matter that causality is in-tact, because all of the concepts of morality, ethics, philosophy, free-will etc are contained within the causal timestream.

The future might as well be random -- It is mathematically incalculable. You would need a 100% model of the universe to perfectly predict the future; which is impossible.

[NeuroPharmacist]

What you guys are saying would be plausible if the universe was really that simple. The universe is not like A or B, and does not necessarily have such a linear continuity. Look at the strange conclusions derived from quantum mechanics or general relativity. Certainly consciously made decisions pose a great philosophical problem, but I doubt you could strip it down to just an action-reaction kind of thing

[unseenstrings]

Wow! You guys are so smart: you've found another way to do science. Instead of using methodological naturalism to figure out all the causal factors involved in a particular phenomenon, you just take a survey and find out what the public thinks about the matter. Then you can proclaim their opinion a scientific fact. Yeah, wow! Say, do you reckon there could be any causal factors resulting in the opinions the general public hold? Gosh, I mean, it seems you want easy answers to fit your opinions.

[unseenstrings]

Oh, by the way, what does the religious notion of "moral responsibility" have to do with society acting to curb crime and protect itself? No one brings up religious notions when a brain damaged person commits an illegal act. No one brings up religious notions when trying to figure out how the person should be handled. The behavior of a "healthy" person is just as determined by psychological causality as the behavior of the brain damaged person is. Opinions of moral responsibility are prejudiced.

[ebaker1]

Well... an opinion is a fact if enough people believe it. Isn't belief the basis for truth? Funky thing: If philosophy is a science, then it is a social science. What better way to conduct social scientific research than to ask society what its philosophical views are? Once the views are gathered, then the casual factors can be identified. Imagine: a science capable of interacting with the group it is studying! Kinda neat.

[unseenstrings]

"Well... an opinion is a fact if enough people believe it."

The world was flat for thousands of years because many people believed it? The gods of Egypt were real at one time because many people believed so? Well, if that is what you mean, I guess in that sense the opinions were facts at the time. I wonder what causal factors could have the majority of the world's population thinking the world was flat? And what caused the majority of the Egyptian population to once think Amun-Ra was real?

[Imm0ralMin0rity]

It may be the human perception of truth, but that does not make it a fact.

[etnlIcarus]

>"an opinion is a fact if enough people believe it"

No, it isn't. That's not even close.

>"If philosophy is a science, then it is a social science"

Science is applied philosophy, not the other way around.

>"What better way to conduct social scientific research than to ask society what its philosophical views are"

Equivocation. Horrible, horrible equivocation.

[WhiteHairedElder]

It seems to me that in order to answer either question we must first answer the questions of what are morals and where do they come from. How can you hold a person "morally responsible" in either case without first answering these two fundamental questions? Are morals enacted by the legislature? Are morals genetically encoded? Does the individuals life's experiences have anything to do with the morals he acquires? Does everyone have precisely the same morals? Why or why not?

Naturalism Org

[WhiteHairedElder]

Does any animal besides the human animal have morals? Do feral children have morals? Do feral cats behave differently than cats raised by humans? Are morals a specified form of behavior arising naturally or are morals an opinion of how you think one ought to act? Does the behaviorist (the scientist of organism behavior) take the morals of an organism into account when trying to determine why the organism is acting in a particular manner? See also, YouTube user, FatGermanBastard.

Naturalism Org

[ebaker1]

Ok... moralistically speaking... do you see the humor of "See also, YouTube user, FatGermanBastard."? Aren't morals another answer to: "Why does so and so do such and such?"

[WhiteHairedElder]

ebaker1, before I answer your question, I would need to know precisely what you mean by morals. The dictionary gives many definitions, some of which are metaphysical, you know, like unicorns are metaphysical. You need to clarify what morals are, whether they are inborn or acquired, and whether every human has the same sense of morality, and if so why, and if not, why not? Also, is it even remotely possible that morals could be a superfluous term requiring the application of Occam's Razor?

[ebaker1]

Like love, it's likely Occam's Razor applies. How can we determine whether every human has the same sense of morality? All I know is my perception of morality. In regards to whether they are inborn or acquired, it is both: there are base morals that I inherently abide by, but I had to acquire the ability to identify them. Is it possible that morals are inborn until they are identified? Once they are identified, can they be dismantled and replaced by new, acquired morals?

[WhiteHairedElder]

Humans are obviously herd/pack/social animals and therefore inherit tendencies necessary to adapt to various modes of group behavior. We also inherit attractions and repulsions for specific odors and flavors. Then, like morals, personal experience and peer pressure form and shape the individual's inherited tastes. In the most basic sense of the term, when you are being moral, you are merely conforming to the expectations of the herd to which you belong. Morals are irrelevant if only you existed.

[tomazzin]

I think part of the universe is planned, so is part of our decisions; but even evolution has randomness. Drop a coin ten times; drop ten coins one time. Look at the sky with random eyes (like the worms'); look at the sky with teleological eyes (like the eagles'). There you go, two nice philosophical experiments...

[terminaldeity]

The coin drop can easily be explained by probability. You'd probably get similar results. Given with only ten trials they'd have disimilarities, if we extrapolated the results, they'd both end up being about the same.

[etnlIcarus]

I don't think you're fully thought this through.

Hypothetically, if I were to account for Heisenberg's uncertainty principle; observe any of the things you just described; 'rewind time' and observe them a second time, would my observations be consistent? What about after the third or fourth time?

There's a big difference between something being literally, "random", and something being described as random, due to observational limitations.

[tomazzin]

There's universe A, where everything is black. There's universe B, where everything is white. They're both absolutist.

What about some flexibility? it seems that once we have all of our physics laws working fine we need to get our psychological laws. Even an atom has a free will of its own, but why should one use the words "free will" for a non-living thing.

[upsidown13]

I think this video is deceiving, as it does not mention the cases in which people actually say that one is morally responsible in a deterministic universe. These cases are precisely those in which people are presented with actual concrete cases, instead of abstract philosophical mumbo jumbo. People answer "you can't be morally responsible in a deterministic universe", but each time you ask them about a concrete case they asign blame. So much for abstract theories...

[williefrancia18]

hahaha, like any of this shit matters! why the fuck did i sit throught that! get a life loser!

[InfectedDaemon]

I think the answer to the final question is simple: People all think they have free will because they experience it from day to day. And they also think that they cannot be held responsible for something they had no choice to do.

I believe in Universe A (determinist), and no, essentially people aren't guilty for there actions yet in this universe we function as if we had free will, so not punishing a wrong-doer will have obvious consequences (he will do it again, people will follow his example)

[dcse55]

The problem with that is that your belief in Universe A, then, is itself determined by previous causes. If so, then the correctness of the belief is irrelevant to your believing it. So your belief implodes, taking Universe A with it and leaving only Universe B.

[InfectedDaemon]

Incorrect. Although my belief in Universe A is determined by previous causes, I can still believe in something or not (allthough determined). And even if my belief is relevent or not, the Universe will not implode. My opinion will be irrelevant, and we will still be living un Universe A, where your beliefs have been molded by your previous experiences, even if you don't accept them, and are equally irrelevant.

[dcse55]

I see what you mean, but no.

If your belief - in Universe A, in this instance - is determined by previous causes, you cannot still believe in something or not: you can only believe in something or disbelieve in it.

As you correctly pointed out, If we are living in Universe A, then your opinion is irrelevant, as is mine - which is to say that it cannot be known that we are living in Universe A. Your argument does implode, into solipsism.

[InfectedDaemon]

No, solipsism is completely different (I'm a brain in a vat and this is the matrix and no-one can prove otherwise). We can know that we are living in Universe A, we know it because human behaviors can be determined under certain psychological experiments.

I will admit that we don't have all the data in, and there is much to learn, but from what we know of the Universe we can say its determined. It would be calling for a special consideration for humans to be otherwise.

[InfectedDaemon]

Sorry, back to what you where saying. Its not that we can't know if the Universe is determinable or not; its that, essentially, our opinions are predetermined.

We can still know the truth, and acquire knowledge in general.

[dcse55]

This is inconsistent with your earlier statement: "Although my belief in Universe A is determined...."

We can't know if the Universe is determined if any belief you or I might have about the Universe is determined.

If I believe the sky is blue because I was set up to believe it since the Big Bang, then it doesn't matter if the sky is blue, or isn't, or if there is any sky.

I can have knowledge about the blueness of the sky only if I can believe that it is blue or isn't - universe A

[etnlIcarus]

>"We can't know if the Universe is determined, if any belief you or I have about the universe is determined"

We can't know if the Universe is undetermined, if any belief you or I have about the Universe is undetermined.

[dcse55]

No. the truth-value of any belief one might have can be knowable, if and only if one is free to believe it, or not to believe it.

If I have no choice but to believe that idea A is true, then I will believe it is true whether it is or not. Therefore, I cannot know whether it is true or not.

If I am free to believe either A or not-A, then the truth or falsity of A matters. (Not to say it is knowable - it may or may not be - but it is to say that unless I am free, its truth is not knowable.)

[etnlIcarus]

Being free to believe A or !A in no way speaks for your conclusion's, "truth". That's just assertion, and makes me really question what kind of twisted notions of truth you're dealing with.

To counter: the, "truth-value", of a belief depends upon the traceability and reproducibility of it's reason, and how accurately it describes the empirically observable universe. Any factors which defy causation, undermine any and all attempts to assess the qualitative value of a belief.

[dcse55]

"Twisted notions" That was harsh.

You say "the 'truth-value' of a belief depends on the traceability and reproducibility of its reason." (I think you might have meant to say, "evidence" not "reason.")

But if the belief is determined, you believe it is true whether it is true or not, whether its reason or evidence is traceable or not, and whether that evidence or reason is reproducible or not.

So in what sense could one's belief in A be related to the correctness or accuracy - truth - of A?

[etnlIcarus]

No, I meant reason. Evidence was covered under empiricism. A hypothesis that accurately describes nature but makes no sense within itself, is still in long-term trouble.

In the latter half of your argument, there's some rather bizarre implications about the nature of intelligence:

The animals that weren't very good as interpreting their environment/nature, died. Necessarily, the ones that survived had a pretty good betting record. That's ..it, really.

See you in 10 hours.

[dcse55]

This last note makes me think that one or both of us has been grossly misinterpreting the other.

You had been arguing that determinism is true; I had been arguing that it is not, and therefore it is possible that the will is free.

But this last seems to suggest that you are arguing against the determinist position, for you indicate that ideas about fact are related in some way to fact.

Did I get you wrong, did you get me wrong, or both?

[etnlIcarus]

>"I had been arguing that it is not, and therefore it is possible that the will is free."

Fundamentally, this is a non sequitur. Whether or not the universe is deterministic, has nothing to do with the kind of human agency you're proposing.

[dcse55]

Well, no. If the universe is entirely determined, then my thoughts are entirely determined.

And if my thoughts are determined, then the will cannot be free.

Not at all a non sequitur.

[etnlIcarus]

Except you haven't defined how a non-deterministic universe makes you any more 'free'. It's just, again, asserted.

[dcse55]

I was assuming that "free" included (at least) the concept, "could be otherwise." I am free to choose X iff I could choose not-X.

If I am free to choose something, but not to choose something else, then I'm not really "free" - by *any* possible definition - am I?

I am free to write back to you only if I am free not to write back. If the universe is determined, then I am not free not to write back (as evinced by the fact that I am writing back to you).

In which case I'm not free.

[etnlIcarus]

>"I was assuming that "free" included (at least) the concept, "could be otherwise""

In the context of this discussion, freedom doesn't really have any clear definition. It's not a concept that scales well to the physical sciences and ends up just looking like special pleading.

Fundamentally, 'could be otherwise', can only be assertion. While we can conceive of difference, we have no evidence that anything could be different.

[dcse55]

You are correct, that you and I haven't agreed on a definition of "free." But we haven't needed one yet, except that it include the notion, "could be otherwise."

But it appears that you are of the opinion that "could be otherwise" doesn't mean anything.

Is that your opinion?

[etnlIcarus]

The literal, "could be otherwise", can only be considered an extraordinary claim, extraordinarily lacking in evidence. It's about as substantive as anything else I can conceive of, that can't be demonstrated unequivocally.

[etnlIcarus]

My goal has been to coax you away from the kind of ontological notions of 'truth', or essence, you seem to be arguing in favour of. The folly of such impractical definitions of truth, is your argument becomes an exercise in irrelevance.

The little ode to natural selection was meant to demonstrate a practical argument, for the reliability and accuracy of human predictions.

[dcse55]

I said nothing at all about "essence," and I was not arguing for any definition of "truth" - only that truth-or-falsity actually refers to something.

If "true" is a null set, then the notion of natural selection - or any other notionat all, for that matter - has no meaning.

[etnlIcarus]

Equally, I was arguing that 'truth or falsity' refers to something. I actually defined what I meant, though.

>"If "true" is a null set, then the notion of natural selection - or any other notion at all, for that matter - has no meaning"

See, you're doing it again. If you take truth to mean anything more than 'something that is accurate', you've set an untenable standard of truth, that has no practical application.

[dcse55]

But don't you see that if your thoughts are determined, then you will have those thoughts whether or not they bear any resemblance to the universe - that is, if they possess 'accuracy' - at all?

If your belief that the sky is blue is determined, then you will believe it whether the sky is blue, or the sky is not-blue, or whether there even is a sky at all!

In which case "truth-or-falsity" refers to nothing.

[etnlIcarus]

You keep repeating the same philosophical trap, as if it's somehow revelatory. It's not even a very good example, since colour definitions are about as arbitrary as you can get. Talking about the 'truth of the sky's blueness' is tautological.

Ironically, if your goal was to prove the sky's blueness, I dare say you'd be reluctant to shun determinism so readily.

[dcse55]

I keep repeating that same philosophical point because you keep demonstrating your failure to understand it.

If you understand the point (NOT to say, 'if you agree with the point'), demonstrate your understanding.

[etnlIcarus]

I understand it fully. It's how I was able to repeatedly reduce it to the absurd, by implication ('I intend to prove the sky's blueness, with regard to ungoverned, unpredictable and unknowable forces' - creationists would be proud).

[dcse55]

Well, if you had understood it, you would not have gone on to say the rest of what you said. You keep speaking as though I had made a statement about the sky.

I'm going to stop now. Talking with you is like talking to a wall.

[etnlIcarus]

You've had plenty of opportunities to elaborate, which is why I objected to your repeating the same trap, regardless of the content of my reply.

That said, this has been fun. Thanks for the replies.

[dcse55]

No: that is not solipsism.

You really don't see it, do you? If all things are determined, then all your thoughts are determined; if all your thoughts are determined, then there is no relation between your ascribing truth to an idea and the truth or falsity of that idea.

You *have* to think it's true, whether it is or not; whether there is any *reason* (as distinct from "cause") to think so.

Only in Universe B is the content of your ideas relevant, or the truth values discoverable.

[InfectedDaemon]

Let me define truth for clarity:

"Truth is the conformity of ones belief of Idea with actual occurrences in nature or the external world."

Basically, truth that our ideas conform to reality. You can still be wrong, you where determined to be wrong. Someone can be true, because it was determined he be true.

Truth matters because without it we can't aspire to know things and better our current status. And its determined that we want to live better for example.

[dcse55]

That's a rather idiosyncratic definition of "truth," and one which I would not endorse. It both raises and begs the questions, What is reality? and How do you know that?

Since rationality has nothing to do with it, it takes "truth" out of the realm of philosophy into - well, I don't know what.

[InfectedDaemon]

Well I'm sorry, that is the closest working definition anyone has of truth, its even only 2 or 3 words off the dictionary definition of truth.

If we can't even agree on the definition of one term, then its pointless to discuss anything, we can't make any headway.

Give me your definition of truth if you have any, maybe you are a sort of solipsist and don't believe that truth can be acquired, I can't say.

So I'll wait for your definition of truth to see if we can continue any further.

[dcse55]

I think you might have meant to say, "the closest working definition *I* have." Do remember that dictionary definitions are always useless for technical definitions.

But I think you're right, and we haven't been making any headway (at least I haven't) for some time now.. Let's call it a night.

Thanks for the conversation.

[InfectedDaemon]

Its a done deal. Thanks to you too.

By the way you owe me a definition. Answer some other day when and if you remember (won't hold you to answering me or anything really).

[dcse55]

It would need to include something about how one is to know if a statement is true.

Remember that if something is in-principle unobservable, it cannot be an object of science.

Similarly, if the truth of a statement is in-principle unknowable, it cannot be an object of discourse (following Wittgenstein: "one must remain silent").

But it's been so long since I studied any of this that I really don't remember how one may speaks meaningfully of the truth-value of a posteriori statements.

[InfectedDaemon]

Similar to my case, when I am to explain how to get to the truth I have to present a big bunch of arguments... oh, and "my" definition is just the refurbished Objectivist definition of truth. Anyway, till some other time.

[etnlIcarus]

>"you cannot still believe in something or not: you can only believe in something or disbelieve in it"

That's a mind-bender of a tautology.

[etnlIcarus]

>"The problem with that is that your belief in Universe A, then, is itself determined by previous causes"

I really wouldn't want to live ina Universe where 'uncaused' beliefs were held in high stead. Oh wait...

[dcse55]

Exactly

[etnlIcarus]

I think you need to re-read that.

[smima081]

Schopenhauer: a man can often do what he wants, but can never want what he wants. (I paraphrase) Universe B transgresses causal necessity... in it, uncaused events (decisions) are possible. But in our universe, says Kant, "all events are caused" is true a priori - that is, that truth is inscribed in all properly-functioning minds.

[evespikey]

In universe B, human choice may not be causally determined, but it is limited by the causal determination of everything else in universe B.

[ksol000]

Restrictions, or limitations, are identical to causes.

[evespikey]

Limitations can give a number of effects, rather than one necessary effect.

[ksol000]

Sure, causes can have number of effects.

[GraphicalRabbit]

But since you were a child ideologies

,rules,regulations and consequenes have all directed you toward certain ways of choosing one action over another. So the accumulation of events force you into a certain way of behaving, for example disbelieving this comment.

[Censeo]

Why would we want to make decisions which are not caused by our experience and our wishes at the time? It would also not make us any more morally responsible if our actions wasn't caused by anything. Therefore morality must rely on other things than indeterminism.

[ksol000]

Firstly, what common people think has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy. Secondly, "moral responsibility" doesn't imply acausality. It is entirely caused, like anything else.

[evespikey]

Actually, it does. Mill's utilitarianism was developed, not to tell people something new and show them what the right way was to live, but to articulate what people already knew; 'common sense morality'.

[ksol000]

Common sense is very uncommon.

[MenoftheInfinite]

Universe A most resembles our own because Universe B is impossible.

The reason the average person agrees about free will is mindlessness and egotism - both of which are universal to human experience.

[sonellenos]

this is crap. non-philosophers are all basically humans, no matter where they're from. they will judge based on intuitions and moral lessons in accountability and punishment. doesn't give this argument real weight. start asking what exactly causes a decision. nothing?? that's a little scary too, if you ask me.