Do you believe in fate? Do we really have free will?

no free will, is just a masquerade… I think fate controls our life :s
this of course, comes from the point of view of someone who gets a tarot read every year

Your ideas sound about right to me. You can choose what you do at a particular moment and the resulting consequences are what are fated to happen.
For example, I once read somewhere that Hitler’s Anti-Semitic ways were heavily influenced at a young age and twas all cos of one single man who was ill-behaved in public and Hitler believed him to be Jewish. Kinda maked me wonder if my own seemingly innocent actions haven’t influenced the ideals of a young future could-be world ruler.
Behave yourselves in public people!!!

Nope. Action reaction.

It is what makes the world go around.

Free will is all a part of I think, therefore I am thinking.

endless choices leading to endless destinies and endless fates. all choices being true real choices, all leading to real true destines.

very strange topic. i believe some actions will set a ball rolling and cause certain unpredictable outcomes. but then you have chaos to consider and a few other factors.

i would say its probably a mix, of choices, the illusion of choice, post rationalization of choices, pot luck, destiny and just plain random chance.

“I believe some actions will set a ball rolling and cause certain unpredictable outcomes”

Only unpredictable if you do not have ALL the variables.

It is my fate to believe in free will.

Another interesting question might be: if God is all knowing, can humans have free will?

I don’t believe in an omnipotent and omniscient deity, so I do not believe in Fate. (For that matter, I don’t see how anyone who does hold a belief in an all-powerful and all-knowing entity with complete causation over matter, energy, space and time could possibly believe in Free Will.)

So I believe in free will.

But, for example, if you get up on the roof, get drunk and run around in the dark, then fate will eventually take over when you fall off. Free will to a point, then, and at some point physics, chemistry, biology—“nature”—takes over.

I don’t believe that I have ultimate control and therefore I believe in fate. Of course I can make decisions but I am a strong believe of “if it’s meant to happen then it will” and this is something I can’t control regardless of what small decisions I make along the way. Sometimes I feel comforted by this and sometimes it scares the bejasus out of me!

I don’t believe in fate. Your example, meeting someone in a bar, happens a lot. You both happen to know someone who died from cancer, thousands of people die from cancer every year so it’s not that coincidental that you both have that in common. Both died from pancreatic cancer? I think you’re reaching for things. These are commons things that people like to reach for and believed it’s their destiny. Anyone can pick out little things and assume that it is fate.

I’d like to believe I’m in control of everything I do.

@mrentropy, I was writing the same as you posted yours. Was it my fate to be follow you?

Nah… I just chose to write more. Free will all the way.

@CyanoticWasp So… Free will to Fate to Free fall?

Excuse me while I rock out, this question reminded me of a Rush song…

“Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without.”

“Beneath our poised appearance, the truth is we are completely out of control. Causality. There is no escape from it, we are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, our only peace is to understand it, to understand the `why.’ `Why’ is what separates us from them, you from me. `Why’ is the only real social power, without it you are powerless.”

- The Merovingian

I have to believe in free will… I would hate to know that every day I get up, what happens to me is already predetermined… I know some people find that comforting, and that’s fine for them, I just find it entrapping
Because, if I have no choice in what I do, where’s the meaning in it? Maybe I don’t understand the idea of ‘fate’. But I like to think my thoughts are my own, that I deserve my successes through hard work rather than someone deciding I’ll be the one to do whatever it is I did, and that my mistakes were really mistakes, that I could’ve, and so still can, do better.
...And back to the mention of Hitler: how depressing it is to think what he did was just destiny! How horrible to think that all these tradegies “had” to happen, because they were already pre-planned into the world. Why would it be someone’s fate to suffer undeservingly?
I don’t know. All I know is that I feel like my choices, my actions, are my own. So if I want to change something about my life, it’s in my power to do it, I’m not fated to live a certain way, do a certain thing… And I like that feeling. For me, it’s empowering.

Not predetermined.

Just a process unfolding.

@mrentropy: Free will to Fate to Free fall

Been there; done that.

How to debunk the notion that there’s no free will:

1. If you don’t have free will, all your actions are mechanical burps, without meaning or value.

2. You believe that there is no such thing as free will… but, as we established in #1, this belief is without meaning or value—it’s just a mechanical burp.

Therefore if there is no free will, we have an endless loop in which the conclusion invalidates the initial condition: you cannot claim that your opinion of “no free will” is meaningful because you’re just a machine that spits out whatever thoughts the mechanism generates.

1. True

2. I said true to #1

And, correct and so crudely put.

This might be a bit of a geeky answer, but here goes anyway…

The philosophical notion of free will is all well and good, and for all practical purposes is what I believe in.

But when you get down to a more elementary level (think sub-atomic particles), its all driven by action and reaction and governed by the rules of physics. That said, the very first action (say, the big bang) essentially triggered off all following actions. It could be argued that that first action set in motion all future course of action. Your brain is nothing but a collection of such particles that have been formed the way they have because of all prior actions leading up to it. Even the way it “thinks” is governed by how these basic particles fire and react.

So, at an elementary level, everything is predetermined and is a series of actions governed by physics—you could call this fate, I suppose.

I believe in free will.

If we were living in a universe with fate, well, then it’s my fate to believe in free will.

@Sarcasm, that’s also my response to a lot of theists:

If you’re right, and there is a god, then It made me an atheist. If you don’t like that, then take it up with god.

@zaphod “The philosophical notion of free will is all well and good”

It’s just not, the philosophical notion of free will is a fallacy. It’s based on the premise that consciousness, or soul, or whatever you want to call it is something outside or beyond our physical universe (why else would it be exempt from the laws of causality, as free will proponents claim?). It’s Descartes fault for inventing cartesian dualism, something that has plagued philosophy (and psychology) ever since.

It’s simply not true, there is nothing pointing to the fact that consciousness is something metaphysical or super natural, it’s just not understood well (much thanks to the mystics who have claimed the mind and soul as their holy territory, off limits to science for the last 500 years). To quote fight club, we are the same decaying organic matter as everything else. We humans and our consciousness are the same dirt and dust as everything else, let’s try and shed this illusion that we are so special and maybe we can go ahead and finally uncover the secrets of the mind.

I like to think our loved ones that have crossed over (quoting John Edward there) still have an influence over us, like a muse.

I don’t believe in fate at all, that would make me a mere biological computer.
Although I have to accept the posibility that I am.

But that would make fluther totaly pointless :-(

@Pazza: If you don’t accept the idea that you are nothing but a biological computer (or moist robot as someone put it), try taking some drugs that change your chemical brain balance (such as alcohol, nicotine, or birth control pills) and watch your behaviour change. Why do you think girls are so upset that day of the month? Free will or chemical imbalance?

@nisse
I’m ready to tell you my secret now….....I’ve seen dead people!......walking around like regular people….

Ps. MDMA is the prefered choice. lol

But!....... I’m still me even if my perception has changed.

@Pazza: I retract my statement about recommending you to try mind altering drugs. ;)

You say you are still you, but how would you define that. you could say you are not even the same you as you were five minutes ago. Yes you still have 99.9% of the same wiring in your head, but the fact that the drug changed your personality temporarily means there is some other drug being responsible for your current personality (GABA, Serotonine and other neurotransmitters). If you do enough drugs for a long enough time your mind will alter enough for people around you to notice the difference.

I don’t believe in free will.
I do, however, believe in Free Willy.

Oh wait.. I’ve heard this one—the punchline is “The O’Malley twins are drunk again.” har har! ;-)

Haven’t read the above, but I think it’s an inadequate dichotomy. I think something more akin to the “Law of Attraction” is a better explanation. Our reality is borne in our imagination, and we attract like resonances.

@nisse
Fuck man, I can’t even understand myself, never mind define myself!......

Everything we incounter is perceived reality, and our mind decodes that reality, so if conciousness is a seperate, it is relying on the mind to give it information about its suroundings, and in reverse, our conciousness gives instructions/information back to the brain which then interprets that information and outwardly expresses it giving the appearance of a different individual, a bit like chinese wispers.

Even quantum physics (tho I can’t do the math!) states that we can never truly know the numina. So no matter what science says, it could all just be an illusion.

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance take,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
“The stars aren’t aligned,
Or the gods are malign…”
Blame is better to give than receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose freewill.

There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them; they weren’t born in Lotusland.

All preordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can’t pray for a place
In heaven’s unearthly estate.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose freewill.

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that’s far too fleet.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose freewill. —Neil Peart

@Pazza: I can’t fully follow your argument :). The whole point im trying to make is that there is no “separate” consciousness. Indeed the whole body/brain/mind/“I”/consciousness is just one long continuum. If you took away the body, the brain would die and so would the “I”, and vice versa. That’s where i try to point at the fallacy, i mean that the mind is (physically) nothing more than the body, which is nothing more than dust or fruit loops.

What quantum mechanics says (im assuming you are referring to Heisenbergs principle of uncertainty) is that you cannot measure both the position and speed of a particle at the same time, i don’t see how you relate that with the mind/body dichotomy and free will, although some have speculated that consciousness is a product of quantum phenomena (Penrose for example).

Certainly, there could be an evil demon replacing all my sensory inputs with fake ones, or I could be a brain in a glass jar somewhere hooked up to some electrical wiring, or I could all be living in the matrix. There is certainly very little proof in support of this evil demon actually existing, but then again that is the whole point of the argument, which effectivly makes it impossible to disprove, and as such a null statement.

There is no purpose or reason for existence, therefore, there is no fate.

I also wouldn’t say all if our choices are free choices. We are still bound by the rules of physics. And my philosophy teacher always said a true free choice gives you the option not to choose.

For me, we are all just floating around and bumping in to each other. No choice. No fate. We just are.

@Sarcasm – You hit the hammer right on the nail! GA

@nisse
I was refering more to the matrix, tho not in the sense of being in a jelly bowl with a wire in the back of my head, I’m saying that the reality we perceive is a secondary, created by the mind, so you can’t really even know for sure that your brain really exists as a physical noumenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon – Kant – Use in philosophy)

I don’t know much about quantum mechanics (at all) but I can visualise mentaly, how matter can be a see of resonating energy, that nothing is really solid, and that mass is just the perceived interaction between two frequencies of oposing energy.

I’ve come to the conclusion (wrongly or insanely) that space/distance, time, matter, speed, gravity and mass are all perceptions. I’m now actually confused by distance more than anything else.

The analogy that plagues my mind:

Take a line 1000mm long. You can theorticaly chop this line into an infinite number of pieces. Now take your infinitely thin knife and slice say 10 pieces, now place the first on the table, then another and another untill you have all 10 stacked up. You’ve now got a stack which is 0mm high right.

(I know its insulting your inteligence, but bare with me)

If you wanted to walk along this line, you would have to walk through each one of these slices, but moving from the first slice to the next, you’ve travelled nowhere, so how could you posibly get to the other end of the line?

Similarly when you slice the line, you’l start slicing and get nowhere, so to me the only logical explanation is that distance is a perception.

So to clarify my position, in my opinion only the ‘I’ exists and nothing else.

According to the Bible, you have a choice.
DEu 30:19–20(KJV) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: 20That thou mayest love the LORD thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.
Heb 10:26(KJV) For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deu30:19-20;Hebrews%2010:26&version=ASV;DARBY;KJV;NASB;YLT

For an in depth answer that I gave about predestination on answerbag: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/6798607

@texasescimo
This is not an attack on your faith but, the bible has been edited and re-written so many times how could you posibly take anything in it as gospel?

(says the nutter who thinks reality is an illusion!)

Perhaps you are dating your uncle.
And Grandma was a transexual.

Pazza, I really like the way that you started that out, that was kind. I also since some sincerity in your comment rather than an attack as sometimes happens.

There have been some attempts to alter the Bible such as the addition of Mark 16:9–20 of which verses 17 -18 are why some Churches handle snakes to prove they believe.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark16:9-20;&version=NIV;NKJV;NCV;ESV;NASB;

For an obviously skeptical person such as yourself, you could check different translations, concordances, and even key verses in manuscripts to see what is true and what is not. One manuscript is not that really far off from another, especially the further back you go. I was not raised in a religious household so was skeptical myself. When I first started studying the Bible, I spent a small fortune on different translations and concordances. No one has to do that today as most have access to the internet and most are available online now.

Some online Bibles and other resources that I have found are:
http://bible.cc/psalms/83-18.htm /. Several translation, only one verse at a time.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1John5:7-8;&version=31;77;50;51;49; /. 5 versions with up to 5 groups of verses
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/tyndale/ /. William Tyndales Bible
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_00.htm Many articles with links to scriptures.
http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf Online interlinear.
http://www.thebiblereference.com/ /. King James and American Standard with Strongs references
http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines /. Vines concordance
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm Many versions, concordance’s, manuscripts (including the “Textus Receptus” and the “Alexandrian”.
http://www.eliyah.com/lxx.html Fragments of the Greek Septuagint
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx Query&book=36&chapter= 1&lid=en&side=r&ve rse=18&zoomSlider=0#36–1-1 8–5 Sinaitic manuscript, I believe that it is the oldest complete manuscript.
Here are some differences that I have noticed. http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7025764

The following have something to do with the Vatican MS 1209 from the 4th century, but as of right now, I don’t see an English parallel. [http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03
http://www.biblefacts.org/church/pdf/Codex%20Vaticanus.pdf
Further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04086a.htm /./ http://betterbibles.com/2008/07/24/in-the-news-worlds-oldest-bible-goes-online/]
.
Not sure what filmfann is talking about.

@texasescimo I guess it isn’t funny if you have to explain it.

Things/events happen outside of your control = fate
How you respond to those things = free will

Those who say that free will is an illusion, that it’s all quantum waves collapsing, etc… they do have a point—if you attempt to reduce everything to the quantum level, you will find that you can concoct explanations which are coherent and account for everything in the abstract.

But, that kind of reductionism takes away all sorts of other useful concepts as well: where is the “being” that is supposedly the subject of the debate, for example? At the level of “it’s all particles”, there isn’t even a subject to discuss… there is no “person” with boundaries that distinguish him or her from the rest of reality.

So challenges to free will which depend on reductionist zeal erode the philosophical foundations of everything, not just free will. It’s like winning the lottery only to find that money has lost all value… makes you want your $2 back.

Free will is meaningful and real where it matters: at the level of understanding human life and value. At the level of quantum mechanics, it’s not relevant.

Filmfann, if it ain’t overly dirty, please explain. I do have a sense of humor.

Aprilsimnel, I think of fate as destiny or an inevitable outcome. One reference says that: “Fatalism is the belief that all events are determined by the divine will or by some force greater than man, that every event must take place as it does because it has been predetermined.” Your definition of fate to me is more like time and unforeseen occurrence.
Ecc 9:11 “I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all”
The Bible mentions Meni, the God of destiny. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isa65:11;&version=AMP;HCSB;NKJV;NCV;NIV;

HasntBeen, most of what you said went over my head. Lol I probably need to get out a dictionary.

@HasntBeen phew! I was getting scared for a moment there. Your beliefs fit into a category I lovingly refer to as “scared shitless that I might be a robot!” Myself, I fit into a category that I lovingly refer to as “Determinist. Most atheist of all atheists and/or 100% Panentheist.”

The idea that the value of life dissipates with the unveiling of the mechanical nature of all reality is false. not only are we robots, we are robots who use the term “value.” We are robots who have discovered fire, named millions of species, seek world peace, and love a good bevy on the patio.

There is no need to deny any of it. Any of it. Everything is real. Even the fact that we are robots. Even the fact that we fall in love.

@texasescimo : sorry. The big word here is ‘reductionism’, which means “breaking something down into it’s most basic components trying to understand it, but in the process losing the forest for the trees”. Lots of concepts only make sense if you work at a high level, because they depend on other concepts which are also “high level”. If you try to talk about why Mr. X loves Mrs. Y in terms of the electromagnetic forces between the atoms, you just get absurdity.

@ninjacolin: I’m not clear how you’ve dismantled the argument that your opinions are mechanical burps. If you don’t have free will, on what basis should we take your ideas seriously? You had to say that. :)

@texasescimo, don’t worry if you can’t understand @HasntBeen‘s answer. It’s just electronic dots on a glass screen. In fact, it’s just power fluctuations that cause lights in the screen to be turned on or off… it’s not even a real dot on the screen.

See how easy this reductionism stuff is? Hell… you don’t even need to read it, it’s so easy.

@HasntBeen

How do I dismantle it? Prima facie.

A) Evidently, we are robots as you noted above (at the molecular level).
B) Evidently I “burp” as you call it.

Now, my burps are each the result of the programming I’ve received to-date. Without said programming, I wouldn’t be able to burp the way that I burp.

My burps are products of my past. My present is evidently real. Therefore, everything I am and everything I burp is real. Evidently, I am a robot who, evidently, burps the way I burp as a result of previous burps. Prima Facie! :)

in plain english: I can’t help but value what i value. I have no choice!
It’s impossible for me not to value it because my programming is just that stringent.

No, you haven’t proven anything—you’ve just stated that your viewpoint is internally consistent, which I’m happy to grant. Lots of viewpoints are internally consistent—i.e. they “explain everything”. That does not make them true.

Free will does not make sense at the level of molecular interactions, just as truth does not make sense at that level. If you reduce the conversation to that level, you get nonsense, not logic.

of course free will doesn’t make sense at that level. it doesn’t make sense at any known level because free will doesn’t exist.

free will requires freedom to make choices outside of the laws of physics. we have never observed anything that can defy the laws of physics. and we have no “good” reason to believe that our brains can defy the laws of physics either.

cause and effect wins every time.

@HasntBeen, I think I finally get it. You mean that at the molecular level, conversation is… Yahoo!Answers?

loll.

Why do I have the sense that I’m arguing with a machine? :)

@ninjacolin, no one said we had omnipotence. “Free will within the confines of our bodies”; how’s that?

because you’re a genius, @HasntBeen.

He has no choice about how to respond. What’s the point of posing questions to him?

@CyanoticWasp free will is only metaphor.. or maybe even that is the wrong word. It’s a fallacy. It seems to make sense, but technically does not. And our reliance on free will has misguided us through history.

Like any mistake in your own lifetime has contributed to who you are now, the fallacy of Free Will has strongly contributed to who mankind is today. Now that we have the opportunity to know that there is no free will, along with everything else we know about reality, we can and will use it to create a better more sensible future for ourselves.

I think you’re missing the point: your argument is reductionist… it can be used to deconstruct anything, rendering all words meaningless. That is not the same thing as actually providing evidence which invalidates the existence of free will.

For example, if it’s all just particles swirling around, there is no such thing as the Milky Way galaxy… that’s just an abstraction invented by humans to refer to a bunch of particles. It’s a fallacy. You can do with this anything, but you only have to do it with two or three things before it becomes unbearably dull.

@HasntBeen, in that case, maybe he’ll stop soon.

Oh, I feel I can prove it too with a few “concrete” syllogisms. But if I do have to go down that long windy road, I wanted you to know first that my conclusions have lead me to hope, not fatalism. Or if you will.. a fatalistic view that hope is the only answer we can possibly come to. :) Hard Determinism is not the end of the world, morality, or value. My grand conclusion is that the universe is such a thing that forces itself to progress, hence, we have no choice but to approach utopia. we have no choice but to cure diseases.. things like that. It’s just the way things go.

My argument to smush free will has already been discussed at length on fluther but I know you’re just arriving. So, I’ll do it again.. i mean, it is my favorite topic after all:

The final syllogism looks like this:

P1) At moment T in time, you cannot “choose” what you believe.
P2) All actions at moment T are determined by your beliefs
Conclusion: Therefore, all actions are determined by your unchosen beliefs.

In english: “free choice” is never a part of the decision process at any given time. All actions are necessarily the result of the past.

Arsenal: I have a prima facie proof, a thought experiment, that can prove to anyone that Premise 1 is true. I have a syllogism and a few other arguments that prove Premise 2 is true.

Ultimately then, I allege that I can prove the above conclusion through a logical discussion.

I think you’re arguing in the wrong domain entirely—the problem is with the ontology of your viewpoint… it’s absolutist, and allows only “concrete” things to exist. But, it cheerfully throws around other words like “belief” and “determinism” and “forces” which are equally ungrounded!

The vast majority of meaningful things are not concrete, they’re abstract. In fact, even the concrete things are really abstract when examined closely: what is a ‘particle’? You can decompose it into more elementary things, and if you keep on drilling down you end up with something entirely inconceivable… yet very real.

The fact of the matter is that at the human level, we experience making choices, we experience consequences for those choices, and we experience the difference that personal responsibility makes in the experience of being alive—as well as in the results of our actions. For those who care about results as distinct from ivory tower noodlings that’s pretty f*ing real.

It’s important to realize that I have nothing to hide here: My viewpoint is absolutist because the conclusion I’m suggesting is absolute. I can provide an absolute definition of “belief” as I intend it. For starters, I agree with you: All that abstractivity that you speak of, ends up being something material. And that thing happens to be a belief inside the brain of an animal like you or I. That very real belief, then influences our bodies to react to it’s existence.

In the end, we have reality manifested, decisions made, and time passed. We may not be able to understand what it’s all made of but we can’t help but acknowledge that it exists in this way: That inability to acknowledge anything but reality as we perceive it tends to unfailingly cause human action. Why? I don’t know. But it is absolutely observable that this is the case.

To respond to your last paragraph, I’ll offer two introductions:
a) No, we never experience making choices. We only ever experience induced beliefs and belief-induced-action.

b) Yes, we do experience something which we can label as “choices,” but it mustn’t be neglected that they are always determined by our beliefs which are not in any way “freely” chosen. Hence, it is more fitting to understand them as “determined choices” rather than “free choices.”

A or B, either way I’ll continue:
Your Belief about how “choices” are made, whether freely or determined, influences the “choices” you will make going forward. And for those who care about the results of their actions it is important to realize the whole truth, the reality about how all actions are caused: via your unchosen beliefs. (yes, absolutely.)

I think you’re denying your own experience… whiling away your time in abstract thinking instead of observing life as it really occurs. But there’s more to my objection than an intellectual disagreement—determinism is actively harmful.

The world we have is caught between the twin demons of fundamentalist religion on the one hand, and fundamentalist nihilism on the other. You’ve chosen the latter as your calling card, and while I’m sure you’re a nice person, this is neither original thinking nor is it free from harm. The evil done in the name of nihilism is no less evil than that done in the name of religion, it’s just done with more style.

The future of humanity depends on learning how to balance as a community: to reject extremism while still finding the middle-road between valuing individual freedom and valuing the power of community—and the heart of that balance is understanding morality… there is such a thing as right and wrong, choice and responsibility, and these things are central to having life be a meaningful exercise. That does not mean God hands down the rules—it means we, as a collective and emergent life form of our own, have evolved to the point where we are able to guide ourselves without mythology.

But that kind of guidance still demands wisdom, and you don’t find any wisdom in the simplistic fundamentalists… either “God did it” or “it’s all dead rocks”... both viewpoints are devoid of the richness and depth that humanity needs in order to pick up the reins and start steering this journey.

Nihilism is, in the final stretch, the avoidance of responsibility. Carefully couched in pseudo-logic, wrapped with an air of respectability, but laid bare when life faces us with the tough choices that produce real growth. It’s powerless to shed any light when the light really matters, all it can do is explain why you’re powerless.

@francespneuman : Interesting story but it sounds more like probability, the “Human Web” or the “Six degrees of separation” than fate or free will as they are usually discussed. I think we (people) are a lot less unique than we think we are. Walk into any public place and the probability is pretty good that, even if you’ve never met anyone there previously, you will have some “unique” things in common with some of the people there. The catch is that most of the time we won’t normally go up to strangers and speak about the personal details of yourself (or your grandmother! ☺) so we never get the opportunity to find out just how much we actually have in common. The uninhibited and social atmosphere in pubs probably explains why these experiences usually happen in such settings. I’ve had a few myself. Believe me I’ve heard a lot of life-stories from strangers I’ve met in bars, clubs etc..and I’ve met friends of friends and even distant family members like that. ☺

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation

This is all philosophy of determinism:

@HasntBeen actually, I’ve read many of your views on fluther and I happen to know that your ideas of how people ought to deal with their issues and find their answers are congruent with mine. At first, i thought you were a determinist and I even gave a compliment. Yesterday, you said something and I just about posted: “From now on, @HasntBeen will post for me because he’s so much more eloquent and he expresses everything I ever mean to say from my hard determinist outlook.”

You make poetry out of my hard science. And where my hard determinism is a hard sell, your mysticisms tickle the ear. Ultimately, your buddhist-inspired philosophies are the poetic fulfillment of the deterministic vision that I’ve got.

The point is: You’re way wrong. This determinism that I’m introducing to you is where all of history as you know it has come from. Every human achievement ever made, whether for good or for evil. Whether it was discovering electricity or the success of the greatest athletes. Whether it’s you telling me that determinism is “harmful” or me telling you that you’re “Way wrong”.. all of it, everything we do second by second is the result of determinism and always has been.

Think about what that means: Every “good” thing that you are so proud that we’ve accomplished is the result of this natural process. Every evil empire that ever got defeated, every bad idea that was ever quashed.. all the result of this ever pressing reality called the universe. Get it? All good things have come from the deterministic reality. In the same way that our glorious human brains have come from the process of evolution.

Determinism justifies everything and “everything” just so happens to be mostly good. That’s how it works. It’s the reason we’re trying to fight global warming (which may or may not be worth our time, but determinism will sort that out). It’s finding new ways to fight diseases. It’s building a better healthcare system in the US. It’s writing the next amazing book that you’ll enjoy. Determinism produces every good thing in the world.

It’s just like God, only it actually works to our advantage. Because.. we are It. Whatever evils you think Nihilism has caused in the past, determinism sorted them out for you. Think about it that way.

@ninjacolin – You are so right on! GA across the board.

Though I am not too crazy at being seen as a robot. :-)

And, I think that is the problem. Seeing us for how we really are, people feel they are less “human”.

Just like God. You want to put God into the equation?

“He” snapped his fingers. Put the universe into motion. At that point, action reaction took care of the rest. God is perfect and he is just waiting for the bell to go ding so he can take the cake out of the oven.

But, I do believe there is another realm of logic out there that we have not discovered yet.

@ChazMaz thanks man! :)

@HasntBeen this is a more normal response to your post:

“The future of humanity depends on learning how to balance as a community”
this is what determinism has taught us so far. You are determined to believe that because of the history that you believe is real in the world. Of course I agree with this, of course we’re going to push this ideal forward.. We have no choice! That’s the whole point.

@HasntBeen said: “Nihilism is, in the final stretch, the avoidance of responsibility.”
You might be right about Nihilism. But that’s not what I’m saying at all. If you lump this in with Nihilism you’ll never figure out how this works.

Determinism is not the avoidance of responsibility. Determinism creates drive by it’s very nature. It functions along with memory in the course of time. For example, the fact that you remember you have to work in the morning, makes you go to bed at a decent hour. The fact that we know we want to live, makes us want to fight diseases. You can’t “avoid” Responsibility because it simply never existed. We don’t have responsibilities, instead, we have only noble desires.

(and now, a bit more philosophy.. you don’t have to respond to all this but i’d love it if you did.)
You said: “I think you’re denying your own experience.”

Determinism is my experience. It was from observing my experience that it occured to me: I never make a choice that I don’t believe I ought to make and I never believe anything on purpose. It occurred to me also, that all mistakes I ever make, are the result of not knowing better. Hence, not believing something I should have believed in order to avoid the fault. Tripping over a rug, for example, occurs when you don’t believe it is in your way but it actually is. Cheating on your wife occurs when you don’t know what else to do or at the very least, how to get it done. Ignorance, I’ve learned, is the only evil. All of the 7 deadly sins come down to ignorance of another way to behave in a given situation or moment.

@ninjacolin, actually, I think your entire philosophy is summed up in two words in Islam: Allah inshallah. I reject it there, too. (Whether or not you believe in the ‘Allah’ part, clearly you believe ‘inshallah’—predestination.)

I don’t. When I stop at the gas station to fill up the car I have choices—and don’t think that I’ve never run through some of them. I can turn the hose on myself and self-immolate; I can run the hose on the ground for who knows how long and cause massive destruction… or I can fill up the gas tank, get in the car and drive off. (So far, I’ve made that “choice” each time. It is a choice; it’s not like I don’t have the other options—every time.) Even when I leave the gas station I have choices. I can turn left and head back towards home and work, or I could go right and head off for an entirely new life. And that’s a choice that I have made—figuratively—from time to time, and not just because the wind was blowing that way, either.

Maybe you could argue that some of the randomness in my life is an inevitable product of where I happen to be in the stream of life, and could be predicted with some sort of mathematical certainty based upon the factors that influence where and how I’m suspended in space and time. Maybe—I won’t say it’s not possible—maybe you’re even right. But I prefer to think, and as @HasntBeen says, I experience those moments as choices (and sometimes fairly whimsical ones at that). Others might experience the same moments as Divine Guidance—or the Devil.

We’re all arguing about Faith, in the end. You have no way to prove that “it’s all determined in advance and there’s nothing you can do to change it”, and we have no way to prove that you’re nuts. I’m leaving this thread for now, because… I choose to get to work on time this morning.

Have a nice day; the choice is really yours.

Well @ninjacolin, it doesn’t sound like I’m going to persuade you here, and I like few things less than lost causes… even though it is enjoyable to argue with someone so articulate. But I think the disagreement is too fundamental to bridge in a reasonable amount of time, and like @CyanoticWasp I have work to do! :) Good day, should you choose to recognize it as such :)

No worries guys. I’ve been working all night myself (that’s why I took so long to reply) my breaks about up though, I just got back with a huge coffee.

I believe what I’m saying is reflective of reality, aka. “truth”, however I don’t know whether it is or not. What I do “know” however, to the best of my knowledge of course, is that this argument is logically irrefutable. It’s based on real facts about how I behave and I assume that if you guys are real humans like me, you have the same limitations as I do. But I don’t know. maybe I’m the only one without free will? Maybe I got jipped? ha.

Anyway, I’ll offer you one more idea, @HasntBeen and @CyanoticWasp that ought to prove to you that I’m right about the logic stuff at least. This isn’t a mind trick or anything, it’s just factual information, take it as you take it and tell me what you think sometime:

If you have free will to do as you please, you OUGHT to be able to agree with me 100% by choice right this very instant. There shouldn’t be any prerequisites for your belief. It should be something you can simply do.

However, I’m fairly certain that you aren’t able to agree with me right now. Meaning, you’re determined in this time frame, to disagree with me. Unable to choose the opposite belief, and hence, unable to act on that opposite belief in a “true” non-pretend way. So, of course I mean beyond “lying” and merely claiming to agree with me. You ought to be able to actually agree with me. But it’s not possible. Or if you happen to agree with me already, you’ll find it impossible to wholeheartedly disagree. Just as I find it impossible to disagree with these notions at this moment.

The only thing that can change a belief, is evidence. Which I cannot produce for myself at this moment. If you had some killer undeniable argument, I could be convinced by it. But as I said, to the best of my currently available knowledge, this shit makes sense to me and I’m unable to truly behave as if it didn’t.

This happens to be the way it works with all beliefs as far as I can tell. All of them without exception.

Oh wait, it looks like I’m not quite done! :)

Since you seem to have an appreciation of science, try this one:

If reality is predetermined, then all the information contained in the current state of the universe must have been present at the Big Bang. Nothing new could enter the system, for in order to be pre-determined completely, all the exact details must have been known.

So the precise thing that Luke Skywalker said to Leia when she kissed him was present in the amorphous blob singularity which constituted the entire universe at T=0, yes?

How sensible does that sound? Religions which believe in predestination consider that God has infinite mind, and that “solves” this problem. Doesn’t sound like you have such a repository available to store all that data in your theory.

That is how it seems to be. However, we don’t know yet what the universe is made of. Latest theories suggest that we could be simply a child universe of a greater multiverse, hence, perhaps new “stuff” is coming into our universe through some umbilical cord somewhere.

But, ignoring those new theories.. (either way, cause and effect is the name of the game, whether it’s from our universe or from some other one) yes, it seems what you described would be the case. It sounds perfectly sensible, really. I mean, where else would everything, including those words, have come from if not from somewhere?

@ninjacolin, going back to your previous post this morning (and not the one just overhead here), I could very easily choose to believe in your philosophy. I’m in no way compelled to believe in my own. I’m choosing free will.

But going down one, to the immediate post, whether the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune have been with us since the dawn of this universe, or whether we are, as you suggest, buffeted by unknown currents and effects from elsewhere, it hardly matters. If I’m hit by an asteroid—or a bus—this afternoon (or at any time!) you may be sure that it’s not an act of my free will; I’m not going to choose that fate. It might happen, but I’ll still maintain that it was my choice whether or not to be in the landing zone or the middle of the road at that time. A bad choice, maybe, but all mine.

@HasntBeen, you forgot that all of the outtakes in the movie would have had to be predestined, too.

I think, @ninjacolin, that a modern understanding of physics and information is completely antithetical to your theory: information content encodes complexity, and requires regularities of difference to do it. In a singularity, there are no regularities of difference—really, there’s no information of significance.

The modern version of this story is that reality is inherently chaotic: the butterfly can flap its wings in Asia and affect the weather in New York. If that concept is alien, I’d be happy to pull in some authoritative links on the topic. There’s just no way that the infinite complexity of the modern universe was encoded in the first moments of our universe somehow… if you’re going to make that argument, you bear a very heavy burden of proof to describe the mechanism by which the information was stored and expressed.

I have a wonky nose because that information was encoded in my DNA. But my DNA got that way, in part, at random. The early universe knew nothing of it.

“regularities of difference” come from a conclusion lacking all the information.

“the butterfly can flap its wings in Asia and affect the weather in New York. ”
Actually it does, as all things are connected. Even if at a quantum level.

“There’s just no way that the infinite complexity of the modern universe was encoded in the first moments of our universe somehow”
I really do not see that too hard to understand.

“The early universe knew nothing of it.”
Your problem is you are trying to replace action and reaction with thought and reason.

@CyanoticWasp “I could very easily choose to believe in your philosophy.”

claiming to be able to and actually believing it are two different things. try it.

A clearer example is this: Red
Now, try to believe that I actually said “Blue” instead of “Red.” Try to believe that I never said “red” in this post at all. In your next post, type whatever color you actually and honestly believe I wrote first, between red or blue.

I commented on a real world example here. Why wouldn’t a jury simply “choose” to believe what was true instead of mistakenly putting someone away for 35 years in prison? The answer is pretty plain to me: Evidence determines our beliefs, beliefs determine our actions.

@CyanoticWasp you too are compelled by the evidence you’ve taken in over the course of your life to believe that you have free choices.
—

@HasntBeen said: “reality is inherently chaotic”
I’ve provided logic and evidence now that shows the opposite. Chaos is not something we have ever observed scientifically. We have only ever observed LAWS of physics. Laws which we have never seen broken. We, as observers, do not understand all the laws, we are often perplexed by what those laws are up to and how they work, but we understand them to be consistent and utterly undefied. There is order, not chaos, to the best of our knowledge… so far.

Well if you’re going up against chaos as a basic principle, you’re fighting much bigger fish than me. I guess I’ll leave you to them. Determinism has been dead for decades in science… it’s a bit like trying to promote the flat earth again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

I’m not saying that Chaos does not exist.. i’m simply pointing out that science (the best of human knowledge) has never observed it.

@ninjacolin, I think it’s utterly asinine to believe that everything is predetermined, even down to whether I put an extra pat of butter or two on my baked potato at dinner. Or if I choose to be different and have the fries instead. Or go completely wild and have the fries and the baked potato.

That’s why I’m choosing not to believe in this inanity. (As for your thought experiment about red vs. blue, I fail to see how that applies here. That would be simple self-delusion or false memory, if it worked.) I agree that laws of physics apply to the objects in our universe. You have a long way to go to prove that the laws of physics (or even chemistry and biology) apply to my choice of a side dish with my dinner.

The laws of physics apply to that potato and that butter. If the potato is hot (and since I’m going to be cooking it I have some choice in that), and if the butter is available (at my house? always!), then it will by-god melt on that tuber. It’s my choice whether to set all that in motion or not, though. The Big Bang can hang, for all the effect that it has on this.

I’m curious now: Do you do tarot readings? With all of this determinism, there must be at least some degree of predictability that you could cash in on.

:) I can predict with 100% accuracy that you will never take an action that isn’t your highest priority preference at that moment.. unless of course, if it were spasmatic. But then a spasmatic action wouldn’t be a free choice action, so it doesn’t count. I can also predict with 100% accuracy that your house will not turn into a zerbra and gallop away today.

The red and blue thing works this way. Your belief is determined by evidence. The evidence was my post where I typed the word “red.” Until you receive new evidence, you are unable to believe anything but that which was made evident to you. You are slave to the evidence you’ve taken in.

You’ll also notice that you still have not chosen to believe me. You claim that you can, but you haven’t done it yet. You refer to this phenomenon as a choice. And I’m happy with that term as long as we understand that it is a “determined” choice, not a free one.

You are stuck believing that you have free choice until, as you say, I “prove” it to you. You are looking for evidence, because evidence is the only thing that can force you to believe something else.

And here you have that evidence in all this.. but you’re like a hung jury. Unable to realize what it is you’re faced with and what it all means.

It seems that prior to one doing something that they have a choice. Example: I was preparing an answer with a quote from far up above along with a couple of analogies and then chose not to make that comment and have decided to make a different comment now. After I hit “Answer” and it is on the board, someone who believes in fate can say that I had not choice but to answer the way that I did, and once I hit “Answer” and it is on the board, no one can prove the one who believes that I had no choice, wrong. I have actually been told by someone on answerbag something like I was destined for Hell. I don’t understand that reasoning. If I have no choice, what was the point in even preaching to me? If people are fated to murder someone, why punish them? Well, then I guess that would mean that they were fated for jail? The murdered person was fated to be murdered? Personally, I believe that other than when time or unforseen occurance befall us, we usually have a choice. Some where up above, it was said that we have no choice in what we believe. I have different beliefs now than I did growing up because I chose to study the Bible as an adult. I know that I had a choice. You may not have much choice in what you actually believe based on the things or lack there of that you have been exposed to, but quite often if you choose to keep on asking and seeking, you may find other information that may alter your beliefs. I lost my thought. I hope my rambling makes some since. Lol

“unless of course, if it were spasmodic.”

That is also predictable with enough information.

Something caused the spasm.

@texasescimo : the story goes that your experience or perception of choice is just an illusion… something you’re predestined to experience.

Sorry guys, but this dog just won’t hunt. I gotta run.

consider this, @texasescimo: “if you choose to keep on asking and seeking, you may find other information that may alter your beliefs”

You only chose to “keep on asking” after you understood that you ought to. the idea of pursuing answers was already in your head and that idea blossomed into your action.

first you believed that you should look for an answer. then you looked for an answer. cause and effect.

^^ yea, work break!

@CyanoticWasp, in short I would say it this way: Evidence is required for beliefs to change.

“If I prove it to you and then you start to believe me, then I’ll have proved my point.
If I fail to prove it to you, and you continue on unable to believe me, then I’ll have proved my point.”

When someone flips a coin, and I call heads… that’s a choice. It’s not a predestined choice. The only thing predestined about it is, the number of options I have. There is nothing that I believe, other than there is an equal chance of the coin turning up heads as tails, that determined which of those choices I would select. If I were to know the amount of energy applied, the precise point of where that energy is applied, the angle of the coin at launch, the distance traversed, and the amount of resistance encountered, then the choice could be said to be predetermined. Not only am I not privy to that information, the universe isn’t either. Up until actual launch, that information is unavailable. If I happen to prefer faces to eagles, that might be considered predestined, but again I don’t. The one choice avoided that could be determined as predestined, would be for the coin to land on its edge, knowledge and experience prohibits that choice as a viable one. Tracing this event all the way back to the big bang, I think, is a distraction; there are far too many unknowns to come to any conclusions. Which brings us back to the real issue at hand, and that’s about an individual planting himself in a conclusion, which doesn’t have sufficient data to support it. When unknowns are involved, and they always are, taking an absolute position on any given topic isn’t logical. We just don’t have sufficient data to be absolutely sure of anything. It feels comfortable to arrive at these conclusions, because we’ve assigned cause. The ability to make that designation, affords us a sense of power in knowledge, but that assumed knowledge has no foundation in fact, due to the unknowns. As far as my ability to determine what I believe… let me just say, the brain is completely programmable. I could take a concept that I currently believe to be utterly preposterous, or that I find abhorrent in nature, and through self inflicted or externally applied conditioning, become a believer in that concept. Considering these facts, the notion that I have no choice in what I believe, isn’t valid.

“When someone flips a coin, and I call heads… that’s a choice. Its not a predestined choice.”
Yes it is. How did you even know which to choose? Knowing the difference between a head and a tail.

“Up until actual launch, that information is unavailable.”
Does not mean that the process of determination does not exist.

“there are far too many unknowns to come to any conclusions.”
And once the world was flat.

“taking an absolute position on any given topic isn’t logical.”
I totally agree. Sometimes you just have to punt. Because it is overwhelming.
Some guess on a test. Some know the answer.

“but that assumed knowledge has no foundation in fact,”
That is subjective but all deriving from a “reason”.

“Considering these facts, the notion that I have no choice in what I believe, isn’t valid.”
That decision coming from a bunch of information that you pulled from.. And, were kind enough to put before us.

Knowing the differences between heads and tails alone, does not determine which of those I choose.

You’re right, I should have better phrased my response. I should have said: there’s no evidence to back that it’s a predestined choice. The two options show evidence of determination, the final selection doesn’t.

The world being flat… another conclusion based on insufficient data, among other factors… ‘nuff said… that puts an exclamation point on my point.

Absolute positions taken when unknowns are involved, can only be a guess or a belief, but never a certainty. Either could be correct. The one with the most supportive data being the best candidate for belief, but not absolute.

The point is, there isn’t as much supporting evidence that leads to a conclusion of predestination, as there is for free choice, when it comes down to the final selection of heads or tails. The options show evidence of determination, but the final selection shows none, other than the options.. If you’re saying that it is determined that I would choose one of those options, there is evidence for that, but not in the actual selection. The absence of evidence doesn’t prove that either concept is or isn’t so, but arriving at an absolute conclusion, in the absence of evidence, isn’t logical.

I would like to also add, that due to the lack of data, we could bat this back and forth indefinitely, without resolution. That being the case, it would be debate for the sake of debate, and a modest amount of mental gymnastics. I’ve enjoyed your view, and I’ll return to read more, but a point has been made regarding absolute positions, on which we both seem to agree. Caring it any further, would be less than satisfying in the lack of substantial gain for either of us.

“The point is, there isn’t as much supporting evidence that leads to a conclusion of predestination,”
Sure there is. Common sense.

“but arriving at an absolute conclusion, in the absence of evidence, isn’t logical.”
We do it all the time. Some are as easy as boiling an egg. Some are as complex at the universe spinning.

“it would be debate for the sake of debate.”
I totally agree, debating on the information you carry.

“Caring it any further, would be less than satisfying in the lack of substantial gain for either of us.”
It would be a long tennis match. :-)
But there is always gain in in information. It being positive or negative. Both providing an end result.

Well, I wouldn’t want to hang my hat on common sense.. there are far too many things in the cosmos, based on current knowledge, that seem to be counterintuitive.

As for the egg. There’s quite a bit of evidence from past performances, that the egg will and does in fact boil. We can never be certain beyond all doubt, but we have to have points of reference, in order to progress our thinking beyond whether it really does or doesn’t, or miss breakfast in our uncertainty.

I agree, information is valuable, but mostly for its application… not so much as a stand alone. If the information promises a practical purpose, its value increases… as I don’t know what the future has in mind, I will store what I’ve accumulated here for future reference. =0]

@ninjacolin & @ChazMaz do you guys work? I’m not being flip; it’s a serious question. If you believe in predestination, that “what will be, will be”, then why work? You may as well sit in traffic, because apparently, you’re going to get what you have coming to you regardless of your choice. So why bother to get up in the morning? Why shower and go to work? Why bother cashing the check, or even accepting it?

For that matter, if you have personal relationships, then why do you treat other people with any kind of civility or respect? According to what you’re saying, people will react to you the way they are programmed to, and there’s nothing that you can do to modify or influence that. So… why bother with manners, exchange, or even asking people for what you want? You’re going to get it all anyway, right?

When it comes down to a person’s day-to-day living, your arguments are nothing more than hot air; totally specious.

“If you believe in predestination, that “what will be, will be”, then why work? ”
For the same reason a match burns.

“regardless of your choice”
Not my choice. Product of environment.

Action reaction. That has been what it all has been about.

Damnit, I love that question.. i was trying to work.. sigh.. anyway, I hope you appreciate the answer:

Sitting in bed all day is exactly what we all do. And yes, things just happen to us!

For one thing, we happen to get bored. We happen to lack funds. We happen to get hungry… Because these beliefs automatically occur, subsequent conclusions are automatically drawn: It is better to work, make money, go on trips, have food, enjoy life.. than it is to sit in bed all day. Again, we don’t choose to believe these things, it just happens to us. And the next thing we know, we find ourselves at work. Completely against our will!

There is a whole moral code to all of this too that I haven’t said anything about. But the fact of the matter is, that our memories coerce us to do everything. We can’t sit around and do nothing because we remember and believe in the goodness of accomplishment.

Contrast adults, then, against babies. Babies have no memories which is why they really sit around in bed all day. But that changes as they gain more and more memory about how they can interact with their environment.

A lazy person, it can be said, is really someone who doesn’t “know” or “believe” that his hard work brings more happiness than his lax attitude. If he truly knew and believed in the benefits of hard work, he would be forced into action.

@CyanoticWasp said: “For that matter, if you have personal relationships, then why do you treat other people with any kind of civility or respect? According to what you’re saying, people will react to you the way they are programmed to, and there’s nothing that you can do to modify or influence that. So… why bother with manners, exchange, or even asking people for what you want? You’re going to get it all anyway, right?”

Nope, you’re veering away from the real ideas behind this determinism stuff. Belief = Action.

If I believe good things will come from my being polite, then I will do it.
If I believe nothing good will come from my being polite, then I won’t do it.

The next impolite person you see, consider them from this perspective. As I said earlier, the only sin is ignorance. If you don’t know something is good for you, you won’t do it. If someone treats you poorly, it is only because they are unaware of any benefits of treating you differently. (Yes, notice the blame is removed from their behavior)

However, you’re very wrong to assume that we can’t affect others. I can affect your beliefs and hence your actions, almost easier than I can affect my own. We have no control over what we believe remember? So, if I treat someone politely and give them a positive experience with me, I’m literally coercing their memory of me. I’m literally making them like me more because they have nothing else to remember about me except the goodness that I brought into their lives. Of course, the opposite is true, if I treat them poorly they will be coerced towards disliking my memory, and hence me. Cause and effect.

arrrg! no more fluther for the day!... yea right.. i wish i only remembered having shitty conversations in this place.. i’d stay away then

@CyanoticWasp
Like it, but you forgot people who get really pissed at pedophiles, bit pointless that.

@Kravenhead said: ”[re:coin toss + guess] there’s no evidence to back that it’s a predestined choice. The two options show evidence of determination, the final selection doesn’t.”

The final selection does prove determination. You’re challenging the exact same principals which work in the matter of choosing between eating Rotten Fish or Steak but on a matter of split second timing.

What we know, as far as we are able to know anything, is that you will call whichever side of the coin is present in your mind a split second before opening your mouth. If cause and effect functions in producing the half-syllables needed to say the word “hea-ds” We know that there was also a moment where you brain had to process the decision “heads” in the first place. Otherwise, if it was truly random, you might have said: “Hea-ails” In stead of either “Heads” or “Tails”. But you don’t. Unless you’re goal is to try to be funny.

Really, it’s fairly self-evident that there exists a sort of “cursor” in your mind, that can only access so many thoughts at once. For example, right now, whatever is on your mind your mind is certainly not (until now) on Grover of Seseme Street. Suddenly, he’s there in your mind. But he wasn’t before. With your focus on him now, something else has most likely slipped your mind. There is somewhat of a limit to how much we can be focused on at a time.

Again, while we don’t know exactly how this all works, we know that it is true that thoughts at one moment in time can be ignored and then in the next moment of time they can be focused on.

Determinism works across time.. this is evident in the way you can forget your keys in your house. The belief “I need my keys” simply doesn’t cross your mind one moment, and then the next moment, once you’ve locked the door and closed it behind you, the belief suddenly appears in your head. There’s some sort of linear nature to when thoughts will pop into your head. And again, it’s evident that your decision to say “heads” at time T is a matter of mental convenience. The thought is there, so you say quickly before you run out of time when the coin hits the ground.

anyway.. lots of rambling.. hopefully this makes some sense.
—

@Kravenhead said: “The point is, there isn’t as much supporting evidence that leads to a conclusion of predestination, as there is for free choice, when it comes down to the final selection of heads or tails.”

false. clearly so. everything we know of in existence (microwave ovens, computers, tv’s, rocks skipping across water, gravity, solar systems) works on what appears to us to be a determined schedule. This very rare clusters of atoms called Humans, are the only ones who seem at first glance to function with choice. But when you examine the evidence: That beliefs cause all actions and that beliefs are all unchosen.. we can see pretty clearly that even we are slaves to the laws of physics and that we function in according to that predictable system.

I am really getting confused on what people are saying. Prior to looking back tomorrow night and saying that what you did tomorrow was predestined, is there anyone in this thread that thinks that they cannot choose to call in sick tomorrow or stay in bed an extra hour if they choose? Understandably there will be cause and affect. Because you chose to call in the affect is perhaps a request for documantation. I am not talking about consquences, I am talking about choosing.

the problem is, it seems “choice” is a consequence in itself.
there doesn’t seem to be a moment where “you” get to choose anything. decisions seem to just happen as a mere consequence of your beliefs.

Wow. Applause, to all of you, seriously! I wasn’t planning on reading all “58 new answers” until I got going… then I couldn’t stop!! haha
I just want to say, I think you guys got so into debating each other you forgot to hear the other’s side except for how you could prove them wrong…
Or maybe I’m wrong! Correct me if that be the case, but I think you guys were arguing more or less the same thing. you guys kind of agree, I think… or at least, that’s what I got out of this whole debate
I didn’t really hear either side say that everything was “PREdetermined”... rather, one side saying “it’s our choice what we do” and the other saying “we’ll choose to do whatever choice accomplishes what we want”
While at the gas station (going way back up to that thing @CyanoticWasp mentioned ^^) we all have the choice to put the gas into our car or spray it all over, because of our prior knowledge to the dangers of highly flammable/volatile liquids, and the need we have of fueling our main transportation device, most of us will inevitably put the nozzle into the side of the car. But if you ever saw the Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DiCaprio, you’ll remember the gas station scene at the beginning… in their ignorance, see what they chose? Yes, we choose. But all our choices are based off of what we know from the past, and what we want in the future, consciously or unconsciously.
We have “free will” but also a ”will to live” that work together, struggle against each other, and when all’s said and done, give us ourselves, our lives.

“you forgot to hear the others side except for how you could prove them wrong…”

I believe this subject, in order to debate you need to “understand” the other side.

It is a paradoxical discussion. I think therefore I am.
Self conciseness brings self awareness, bringing purpose and meaning.
So now we ask why. And that is the problem.

This in not a complicated discussion. Ok my opinion.

But, we reach into our inner child. “We” attach empathy and tradition to our reason.

Let’s not forget that ego. “God forbid” if we are just a cog in the machine.

Funny part of it… Everything I just wrote. As incoherent as it might seem, was a product of information that I contain.
Or I would not of done it.

It’s not that chaos or free will doesnt’ exist.. I’m simply saying that we have no reason to believe that they do unless you can think of a single time in your life or in one that you’ve heard of where the following statement doesn’t or wouldn’t apply:

This moment was brought to you by the last.

Well, first of all, the uncertainty principle tells us there is no predetermined fate.

What is the fate of the solar system? We don’t know. We don’t know if it’s stable or not. Most likely it is, and most likely the sun will continue to burn for several billion years. Most likely the sun’s fate is a transformation into a red giant. For sure? No. Maybe it gets sucked into a black hole or something else happens. Maybe someone builds a Dyson sphere around it.

Do people have free will? Neuroscientists are not sure. A lot of our decisions seem to come from our unconscious mind. I think the conscious mind does have veto power, but the issue is controversial. See this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_Libet.27s_experiments

“Libet’s experiments suggest that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If the brain has already taken steps to initiate an action before we are aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated.”

@ninjacolin Just a thought. How does this determinism help us beside soothing our consciences and helping us accept defeat. i.e. “It wasn’t my fault. It was predestined. It was in the hands of the gods.” Sounds like a cop-out to me.

“Neuroscientists are not sure.”

I love to hear that. I mean, the formula i provided kind of tells us whether we have free will or not. It’s pretty clear cut. Neuroscientists simply aren’t aware of that simple formula. If they were, and they worked the math out on it, I think we’d have neuroscientists who were sure. Either that or they would be able to finally tell me where the logic fails, but most likely the former.

and i’m no tooting my own horn so much as i am trying to push for a challenge.. well, okay, i’m doing both, since that’s not a true dichotomy :D :P
—

@MarkyMark that’s a big question..

First off, I don’t think it is “meant” to help us as per se. It’s just a naturalistic discovery. But there are all kinds of things to gleam from it, I’ve found. If you look at any of my serious answers on fluther, they’re usually based on the idea that memories (aka, Beliefs) have to be modified. That’s how people change. If you don’t remember going to the store to get yourself an ice cream cone, you’re not going to be able to believe that you now have an ice cream cone. Having certain memories (beliefs) makes you a different person than another version of yourself who lacks those memories or who has other ones.

This idea leaks into more pressing matters like criminal behaviour. In our libertarian (free will) judicial system, we attempt to punish people for the things that they did in the past AS IF they had a choice when they did the deed. Now, I’m not saying that something shouldn’t be done, but I am saying that the only reason anyone ever does something “wrong” is because they didn’t have other memories in their head besides they ones they happened to have at the time of the crime. I think this is significant. It tells me that for the most part, people aren’t evil. They’re just victims of their beliefs and/or their lack of beliefs. This tells me that rehabilitation needs a lot of reform and if improved, it would have the power to change the life of an inmate simply by exposing him/her to specific, new memories and beliefs.
—

Also, just to clarify, it’s not so much about the “pre“destination. It’s moreso the fact that everything is caused. When you say something to someone, you really affect them. You really cause them to react to you. You really change their lives by the things you say and do. We don’t seem to realize how seriously we affect each other. We really have to abandon the old, false notions that: “I can’t cause you to be angry or to be hurt” or the idea that “it’s just words!”.. we really do set things in motion. Like the butterfly wing hurricanes. It’s very similar to the ideas of Karma, only science-ified.

Lastly, i would say, it’s the idea that we really do cause ourselves to become the next thing that we are. And hence, we really can cause our lives/countries/world to improve just the same way that many have caused their lives/countries/world to be shitty.

as an overview of some of the ideas anyway

@ninjacolin: OK. Thanks for clarifying. Funnily enough after I posted that question I thought to my myself – If the essence of what you are saying is that actions and thoughts have consequences then that’s true…but it’s not exactly a new concept. Consequences are one of the first things that parents (ought) to teach their children. “Don’t do X because Y will (probably) happen.” To build on your example of criminal behaviour, my contention is that most career criminals were probably not taught these lessons or that the lesson on consequences was lost on them for some or other reason. A learning opportunity is after all only an opprtunity. There is no guarantee that the person being taught is going to take in or embrace what’s being taught to them. A memory or an experience is a learning opportunity. A belief is something else. A belief is a dearly held value or principle. Yes, I agree that people should be mindful (take responsibility) of their words and actions as they may affect other people negatively. But it cuts both ways. People (the criminals this time) should also take responsibility for their own behaviour. Philosopies like determinism and fatalism do not encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions. It encourages apathy and blame-shifting. Your intentions are no doubt noble but still think that determinism is a cop-out – a convenient abdication of responsibility by the “wrong-doer”.

Close! You’re getting off a little too early on that train of thought.

First of all, as I said earlier, there is no such thing as responsibility. You can’t abdicate a thing that doesn’t exist in the first place. The philosophy of free will, which i believe is essentially a lie, contributes to the problem by confusing the individual into thinking he has some responsibility to abdicate! Everyone else, victims for example, are also deceived by that philosophy into dwelling on the idea of retribution. “This person must suffer for what they have done.”

However, determinism is such a thing that punishment (in the classic “spite” sense) is never required because the individual’s past actions are not a guarantee that he will ever act that way again. Past actions don’t tell us what that person amounts to, rather, they tell us what kind of memories and beliefs are in that person’s head at present. They tell us that the kinds of thoughts and memories that this person has a habit of accessing are the sort that enable them to commit the actions we’ve just observed from them. That is, if that person simply had different memories and beliefs, relevant to the situation, he would have acted differently in that situation.

Do you see what I mean by this? It’s like a robot with bad software. If the software changes, the robot’s actions will necessarily change as well.

i submit: if responsibility actually existed, no one would be able to avoid it.

:-)

@MarkyMark said: “A memory or an experience is a learning opportunity. A belief is something else. A belief is a dearly held value or principle.”

I loved what you said before this but I have to say that this part is false. Memory, Belief, and Knowledge are all exactly the same in some interesting ways. (I have more thinking to do on this too but this is where i’m at so far)

If I have a “memory” of eating a hamburger last week, I also have a “belief” that I ate a hamburger last week, I also “know” that I had a hamburger last week.

And here’s where it gets really interesting: If I “believe” my wife cheated on me, then I “know” she cheated on me, regardless of whether or not it is true. As for memory, I have a “memory” of my imagining her cheating on me.

Usually, we try to fight this saying: Well, if it isn’t actually true, then you didn’t “know” it. Which I usually agree with until I realized that if someone believes something to be true, they will act AS IF it is true. Hence, in practice, beliefs and knowledge have the same weight on society, they both manifest themselves in significant and real ways.

What you knew might have been false, but you still knew it. Or as we like to say, you still believed it.

@MarkyMark said: [Determinism] encourages apathy and blame-shifting.

False, there is no blame in a deterministic universe.
Apathy only exists when someone is ignorant to the value of something. Value is something that can be taught. Once taught, it cannot be unlearned except through new evidence, proof that the value is lacking.

@ninjacolin You forget that is is possible for someone to reject or ignore what is taught to them.
In fact, you prove it yourself. You know about the concepts of free-will, responsibility and blame and yet you reject them – you refuse to believe them.
Ironically, in that you are exercising your free will.

@ninjacolin : you argue well, but do not persuade. Until one understands responsibility, they don’t really understand anything that matters.

You are it. There is nobody else “out there”. You are responsible for the whole shebang, without you it really is just all random rocks bouncing around.

It is true that responsibility isn’t hanging around somewhere waiting to be recognized: responsibility is chosen in the course of self-actualizing. One sees responsibility as an opportunity to become fully themselves, and chooses to take the stand “I am responsible”. When you do that, a transformation occurs—you are no longer a victim, you have empowered yourself, lifting yourself by your own bootstraps, so to speak.

Really, until someone understands that, they shouldn’t even use the word ‘responsibility’ in a sentence, because it just confuses things. Choice and responsibility are the keys to being a whole person. To rationalize them away is doing a grave disservice to everybody who listens.

@HasntBeen, I knew you were going to say that.

I knew you were going to know. :)

Here’s the whole bottom line on this: it really is a question of character—a human being isn’t a being until they bring themselves into existence as a complete and whole person. This makes no sense to someone who is trying to analyze the meaning of life, but you can sort of understand it if you step back and ask yourself “who is this person?” about someone who is truly large. Gandhi or MLK are great examples: ordinary people who took an extraordinary stand for what could be accomplished by having the courage to take responsibility for something large.

Everybody can explain why they are the way they are: so what? Explanation is the booby prize in life. What matters is results, and people who care about results learn about responsibility early and deeply. From nothing, a being brings themselves into being. It’s an act of pure creation, grounded only in the possibility of doing so and the vision of fulfilling that possibility. It’s an existential act of courage.

All the philosophical explanations in the world pale into insignificance when compared with the magnificent opportunity of being yourself fully. And nobody who denies their own responsibility or power of choice will ever really know what that means—until they cut it out, of course.

Quote of the day: “I knew you were going to know. :)” Classic, LOL.
Did any one try to make a choice about staying home or sleeping an extra hour today?

Quote from myself from up above: ”. Prior to looking back tomorrow night and saying that what you did tomorrow was predestined, is there anyone in this thread that thinks that they cannot choose to call in sick tomorrow or stay in bed an extra hour if they choose? Understandably there will be cause and affect. Because you chose to call in the affect is perhaps a request for documantation. I am not talking about consquences, I am talking about choosing.”

Choice is a process. From information you have stored.

@HasntBeen said: “you argue well, but do not persuade.” – i told you it’s a hard sell. :) part of the reason for that is because people don’t trust that others can handle it. they often feel, “i can handle this determinism stuff, but some criminal out there will use it as an excuse to harm my family.” and so they don’t give in. not by choice however, but out of ignorance to the fact that “some criminial out there” could not do that. Failing to appreciate how determinism works, aka Ignorance, is what allows you to continue making the mistake of disagreeing.

Meanwhile, it remains an uncontested truth that: A) your beliefs are unchosen and B) all your actions are consequences of those beliefs. When you grasp the seriousness of this reality, it will all make sense to you.

for example, the fact that you wrote what you wrote just now was the direct result of your lack of belief in this concept. consider: why didn’t you instead write: “Ninja, this logic is flawless.” or rather.. I should ask.. why couldn’t you write that? Try to answer that question in plain english for me. :)

My guess is, and correct me if I’m wrong, that you couldn’t write it because you don’t believe it to be flawless logic. You think there’s something wrong with it. You feel that you can’t put your finger on it though. However, you’ll notice in your reply you didn’t show what was wrong with the logic. You side stepped it.
—

@MarkyMark said: _“You forget that is is possible for someone to reject or ignore what is taught to them. In fact, you prove it yourself. You know about the concepts of free-will, responsibility and blame and yet you reject them – you refuse to believe them.
Ironically, in that you are exercising your free will.“_

There’s a reason that I’m able to defend this view so well: It’s because I believe it and I can see how it works. You, on the other hand, are able to disagree so well because you do not believe it. You are literally forced to disagree with me by virtue of your disbelief.

I’ll say this again: It is not possible to reject something you believe. This is a fact. Consider it.

@MarkyMark, examine this fact in your own beliefs and then let me know what you find. Claiming to disagree with something and actually disagreeing with something are two different things. You will find that it is impossible for you to freely choose to disbelieve something that you actually believe is true. Consider my red example from above. Also consider the fact that you are unable to agree with me by choice alone.

Tell me what these facts mean to you.
—

@MarkyMark said: “you refuse to believe [the concepts of blame and responsibility]”
@HasntBeen said: “you argue well, but do not persuade.”

Again, to both of you: I do not “refuse” to believe those concepts. I find it impossible to believe them. Just as you, so far, have found it impossible to believe mine. This is proof of the deterministic principal: We have no choice but to act according to our beliefs.

Examine the logic more closely guys.

“And nobody who denies their own responsibility or power of choice will ever really know what that means”

if i had a choice, i would believe everything you say.
if you had a choice, you would believe everything I say.

unfortunately, neither of us do have that choice. (try it! you’ll see that i’m right. that the only conclusion you can come to is your own.) we’re slaves to the evidence we’ve each examined in our heads, as @ChazMaz pointed out above.

@ninjacolin

I think your logic is flawed for two reasons:

1.) You make bold but highly disputable statements and then proceed from there. In doing so, you build your house on a shaky foundation. When your premise is flawed, everything else that follows is flawed. The whole argument is fundamentally flawed.
e.g.
” there is no such thing as responsibility”
”if responsibility actually existed, no one would be able to avoid it”
”Memory, Belief, and Knowledge are all exactly the same”
”there is no blame in a deterministic universe”
”Apathy only exists when someone is ignorant to the value of something. Value is something that can be taught. Once taught, it cannot be unlearned except through new evidence, proof that the value is lacking.”
”it remains an uncontested truth that: A) your beliefs are unchosen and B) all your actions are consequences of those beliefs”

2.) You contradict yourself as it suits you.
e.g.
“It is not possible to reject something you believe. This is a fact.”
”memories (aka, Beliefs) have to be modified. That’s how people change.”

I am not one to argue a point ad nauseum so….Have a Happy Christmas! ☺

@MarkyMark, I gave up arguing with him after I realized (after far too long) that his whole argument is a tautology: “It is because it is.”

“I think your logic is flawed for two reasons:”

By saying that, you just proved him right.
And, no question, it is a repetition of meaning.
One ugly circle of logic. Biased on one fact.

Everything we do and say is from information we have acquired.

The complexity of what we know and how it makes us function, creates the action of enlightenment.

@ninjacolin: Wow. Just wow. You’ve just verbalized my beliefs and clarified many points i’ve been pondering and trying to express clearly to myself. I think you are my new fluther hero.

@everyone else: Great, great discussion and kudos to everyone for the civilized and intelligent presentation of your ideas and viewpoints.

I agree with most of @ninjacolin‘s views (although not all of them), as my previous posts probably gave away. I think he presents the only no-bullshit not-fooling-yourself position one can take after serious consideration of the world we live in. Also in my opinion being a “moist robot” does not negate the concepts of humanity or individual responsibility as many of you have argued.

@ninjacolin. The choice of either heads or tails, is very little like the options of rotten fish or steak. Assuming the steak isn’t also rotten, I know the consequences of opting for eating rotten fish. I would choose the steak because past experience, either first hand or hearsay, provides the knowledge of the consequences of eating rotten fish. So yes, you could easily predict my choice, and label it determined. In the case of heads or tails, the consequences are equally probable for either. It’s more akin to asking whether I would prefer steak (A) or steak (B) with out further description, other than that an unknown one has gone bad. It’s likely I wouldn’t choose either in that case, not willing to take the risk, and that could be considered a determined option, dependent on my developed personality regarding risk.

The coin toss has no such consequences attached to the choices, if gambling isn’t part of the equation, other than disappointment. Even with that consequence attached, each option equally shares that probability. If I were so sensitive that even minor disappointments are intolerable, and I opt not to participate; then that is also due to past experience, and therefore could be said to be determined. If I’m willing to risk minor disappointment and play, that could also be classified as determined, for the same reasons as previously stated (I know what I can handle). So now we get down to the choice itself. The consequence is being wrong. Which is fine, I’ve already “determined” to take the risk of possible disappointment.

In the coin toss, I know both options equally carry that risk, and I know that from previously acquired knowledge, we can say determined. The one that I choose, has to be pushed from my brain to my tongue, to escape my mouth. If you are to say that the word had to be a thought, before it could be spoken, that is also true, and determined, for I’m incapable of speaking something that doesn’t first appear in my brain. It is also true that both choices have to be in my brain, if both are to be options… also determined. It’s possible, but unknown if or why, that one of the choices will be shuffled to the forefront of my thoughts, due to some construct of my brain and thought patterns. So you could argue for the sake of argument, using that unknown as a foundation for determined choice. Although assuming unknowns for the absolute position of determinism isn’t scientifically sound, let’s take it a step or two further.

At any point in this process, I can buck the system, or not; reverse a tendency, or not; go against my first impulse, or not. I’m able to do that via my accumulated knowledge, a determined factor, in that I couldn’t do it unless I knew I could. In so doing, freedom of choice has been determined, and I’ll accept the responsibility for my action rather than relegate it. Of course you could say that the tendency to buck the system or not, could be determined, but that’s like asking the question why after every answer to an original question. Eventually everything breaks down to an I don’t know, but that doesn’t leave why as a constructive argument to hang your hat on. You’re left with an I don’t know, a nothing, not a conclusion. That being the case, neither position can be assumed with absolute certainty. With all due respect, I also suspect that ego is playing a role here. I’m willing to concede that I could be wrong, but I think an opposing position needed to be presented, to an absolutist position. Considering the uncertainties, assuming such absolute positions are risky, not only for ourselves, but for others that may be influenced by these less than legitimate certainties presented. I would suggest that determining the need to present the position of determinism as an absolute truism, in light of the possible risks involved in doing so, due to the unknown factors and possible ensuing results, be assessed. In so doing, we may want to present our case as: This is what I think may be the deal, what do you think? Of course that doesn’t afford us the same sense of power that thinking absolutely does, but it’s more legitimate, and a little more benign in nature. In my opinion, if we accept determinism as an absolute fact, it’s far too easy to assign culpability elsewhere, and to continue in the delusion of self-serving behavior.

@texasescimo, your question is best asked this way: “Is there anyone in this thread who thinks they can freely choose to call in sick in response to this question but without first receiving this challenge to call in sick and wanting to participate as a consequence?”

Important Points:
– You must call in sick in response to this challenge but
– You must do so without being influenced to participate by this challenge

@MarkyMark said: “I think your logic is flawed for two reasons:”

what you have to deal with is the fact that your belief that my logic is flawed is necessarily forcing you to behave in disagreement. you are without the free will to agree with me. again, as @ChazMaz has pointed out.

@MarkyMark said: _“You contradict yourself as it suits you.
e.g.
“It is not possible to reject something you believe. This is a fact.”
”memories (aka, Beliefs) have to be modified. That’s how people change.”“_

Correction, it seems like a contradiction to you. But it’s not.

It is not possible to reject something you currently believe, MarkyMark. This is a fact. However, if you take in new evidence which convinces you otherwise.. If you no longer believe that that thing is true, then it is rejected.

But you cannot be both in a state of belief and a state of disbelief at the same time. This is impossible.

@CyanoticWasp said: “I gave up arguing with him after I realized (after far too long) that his whole argument is a tautology: “It is because it is.””

My whole argument is very simple, valid and sound syllogism:

P1) At moment T in time, your beliefs are unchosen.
P2) All actions at moment T are determined by your beliefs
Conclusion: Therefore, all actions are determined by your unchosen beliefs.

That is all.
Free will/choice never seem to enter into the picture.

@ninjacolin
”your belief that my logic is flawed is necessarily forcing you to behave in disagreement. you are without the free will to agree with me.”

You seem to have decided that I am un-persuadable. That I am incapable of modifying my views. This is yet another one of your bold assumptions, ninjacolin. Or are you saying that all people are un-persuadable and incapable of modifying their views? Still a bold and highly disputable assumption but if this is your belief then why do you bother trying to persuade people of your views? What’s the purpose of schools and lecture-rooms (and Q&A sites for that matter) if people were really that close-minded?

You say ”It is not possible to reject something you currently believe” I disagree. At the point where someone modifies their views they are indeed rejecting their old views. I don’t think that you, ninjacolin, can dispute that (with integrity) as you have already admitted that people can and should modify their beliefs.

since you’re up, MarkyMark.. I’ll just post this. I’m still writing something for HasntBeen, though. :)
—
@MarkyMark, I’m looking at that “contradiction” accusation more and i’m changing my mind about whether my wording was contradictory. You may be right! But I want you to pay attention to what’s going on here because this is a case in point.

I’m not trying to get a wrong idea here. I’m very interested in learning that this whole thing is false if that is the case. I love to be right, but I’m more entertained if I’m wrong about something, honestly. Since I now agree with you that my wording was off, I now am compelled to correct that wording.

I don’t have a choice about it. My aim is to be logically sound. That is, I believe being logically sound is more important than being “wrong and strong” as my mom would say. I can’t help the fact that I believe this to be the case. So, then, my hand is forced. I must correct my phrase to make it make sense. There is no choice involved. I’m simply acting according to my beliefs. Now, without further ado, what I was trying to say was this:

“It is not possible to reject something you believe while you believe it.” Obviously, if I’ve ceased to believe something it is also grammatically acceptable to say that I have rejected something I [previously] believed. I’m sorry I didn’t see that earlier. My mistake.

Merry Christmas to you and all too! (I didn’t realize it was Friday already!!)
—

Thanks @nisse! I’m glad to have helped if I did! I’m curious what bits you don’t agree with of course! I’m always looking to improve my own understanding of this stuff through discussion! :)
—

@ninjacolin I don’t see any real difference between the phrases” cease to believe “and ”rejecting a belief”. Its basically the same thing…or am I missing something here?

@HasntBeen said: “Choice and responsibility are the keys to being a whole person. To rationalize them away is doing a grave disservice to everybody who listens.”

You say this as someone who doesn’t understand what I mean as yet. And anyway this is a sort of branched off topic but I thought I would share my view on it with you as you’ve shared some of yours. So far we’ve been discussing whether there is free will, however, this phrase attempts to dig into into free will vs determinism as competing philosophies.

With determinism as we’ve been discussing, I agree with you that “you” are “it.” That makes a lot of sense to me. Myself, I’m a solipsistic atheist which (as far as I can tell) is the same thing as being Panentheistic. The way I see it, it is impossible to fail to be yourself. Hence, we all come pre-self-actualized. You simply learn more and more about yourself (aka. “reality”) as you go. Whatever comes into your memory becomes a part of what you would call “reality,” and everything outside of your memory simply doesn’t exist. This is similar to what I mentioned earlier about how we act on whatever we believe/remember regardless of whether it is actually true.

Now, I do understand “responsibility” as Libertarians (those who believe in free will) mean it. I’ve lived that way all my life, afterall, and only became a determinist a year and 2 months ago. I only learned of the in-existence of responsibility.. like 30 days ago or less. And I only made sense of it finally when I wrote that paragraph above.

But it is becoming clear to me, myself, that responsibility isn’t key at all. Firstly, it doesn’t seem to exist in my understanding. So, instead, what I now realize is most important is what you will do with your present: Your virtues are key.

In the book “Believe and Achieve” by the Napoleon Hill Foundation (and I don’t even regret their seeming to be a sort of Christian organization) they quote a training video that says:

“Any resolution or decision you make is simply a promise [a responsibility you’ve assigned yourself] which isn’t worth a tinker’s damn until you have formed the habit of making and keeping it. ”
Square brakets are my own

And I’ve said elsewhere on the site that promises are just “plans” which can be broken. This is why the concept of responsibility doesn’t hold much weight with me anymore, even though I get the idea of it. The quote continues:

“And you won’t form the habit of making it and keeping it [...] unless right at the start you link it with a definite purpose that can be accomplished by keeping it. In other words, any resolution or decision you make today has to be made again tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, and the next, and so on. And it not only has to be made each day, but it has to be kept each day, for if you miss one day in the making or keeping of it, you’ve got to go back and begin all over again. But if you continue the process of making it each morning and keeping it each day, you will finally wake up some morning a different man in a different world, and you will wonder what has happened to you and the world you used to live in.”

Essentially, it doesn’t matter what you’ve promised to yourself or what you have promised to anyone else. What matters is: “What would be a good idea for me to do today, all things considered?”

It’s with this sort of thinking that a person can reflect on their life with their spouse and children, or their work situation, or their grades at school and decide what would be the best course of action today? Regardless of any previous plans made (aka. responsibilities). What would be the best plan today that will cause the best possible tomorrow, all things considered?

@MarkyMark: I was saying that I agree with you. They are the same. I didn’t realize it at first, that’s all.

The real point is, the two concepts do not contradict eachother: Yes, you can reject a belief but you still cannot choose to do so.

Rejecting a belief happens automatically when you discover new evidence. For example, when the courts decide to release a man after 35 years in prison due to new evidence surfacing (dna evidence) which exonerates him.

So, yes, people can be persuaded.. but ONLY by evidence.
Evidence is the only thing that can change someone’s belief state.
(There are only 3 states of belief: Belief, Disbelief, Uncertainty. You can only be in one at a time. I submit: these are observable facts.)
A belief cannot be changed by any kind of mystical “free choice.”

@Kravenhead that was such a great response!!!! very well thought out. I have to admit, I didn’t read it in full until now. If anyone else skimmed it, my advice: don’t. it’s quite sweet, give it a read.

Alright, down to business. Merry Christmas first of all. :) I agree with your entire brain simulation first of all. We’re on the same page about the mechanics, i think. So, I won’t argue any of that, only your punch lines:

@Kravenhead said: “It’s possible, but unknown if or why, that one of the choices will be shuffled to the forefront of my thoughts, due to some construct of my brain and thought patterns. So you could argue for the sake of argument, using that unknown as a foundation for determined choice. Although assuming unknowns for the absolute position of determinism isn’t scientifically sound,”

A few times through this discussion, I’ve tried to be very clear that ultimately I’m not saying we don’t have free will. I’m simply saying that we have less reason to believe that we do than that we don’t. “free will” requires that there not be a mechanistic, determined reason for a decision. for that to be the case, we would need a “soul” or some other physics-defying force that we would call “you” or.. “I”.. which would be culpable for all the decisions we make.

What reason do I have to believe that this spiritual “I” exists now that I know about particle physics? I believe everything else including, the seasons of the planet, the flight or fight response of a rat, and the carnivorous behavior of a venus fly trap function strictly on the laws of physics. Why wouldn’t humans also function on the laws of physics? Even if there were a spirit world, wouldn’t it have to operate on the laws of physics too AT LEAST in order to interact with our own world? How else would the spirit world raise my arm to give a pretty girl a flower unless it operated based on my memories and within the laws of physics?

There just doesn’t seem to be any other explanation available besides determinism as far as I can tell. Free will, on the other hand, offers only a “god of the gaps” solution. Do you see what I mean by that?
—

@Kravenhead said: “At any point in this process, I can buck the system”

What I wish to tell you, is that you can’t. That is, I don’t think I can. Not at “any” point. It seems to be a fact, that I have no control over what thoughts will run through my mind. This is evidenced by the fact that I brought my keys with me on this trip (vacation) I’m on, visiting my extended family. Usually, I like to leave most of my keys at home so that I don’t lose them while I’m away someplace far. But it slipped my mind. Why did it? I certainly didn’t want it to slip my mind.. it just did. Similarily, I seem to have remembered to bring my hair gel. I was worried before I left that I would forget it. When I arrived, I thought for sure I forgot it and my comb! Then I went to check my suitcase yesterday and Voila! Looks like I did remember it! I was happy about that. I wasn’t so happy though, that I forgot my comb. This evidences to me, that I really don’t have control over what thoughts will cross my mind. And if you ask someone with dyslexia how much control they have over their thoughts while writing or reading, you’ll find more evidence to suggest that thought control is not our own.

So, when you say “At any point in this [brain-]process, I could buck the system” I’m leery. It seems more accurate to say: “At any point in this process my brain could buck the system.” if you see what I mean..

In conclusion, it’s not easy for me to say: “I’m not certain about all this.” Yes, it is more polite and socially/academically acceptable. And yes, I don’t really know whether.. but.. don’t I? What’s the alternative explanation? Is there one?

In all honesty, Kravenhead, I’m as certain about this as I am certain that I wasn’t adopted. And no I’ve never had a paternity test nor do I plan on it. The circumstantial evidence, if you want to call it that, is just too great. I’m overwhelmed. But I am searching for a reason to believe that I may be wrong. I even have tissue ready for when I cry about it, if ever that moment should happen. :)

But still, yes, this determinism stuff is simply what I think may be the deal, what do you think?
—

Oh look you’ve answered already. @Kravenhead says: “In my opinion, if we accept determinism as an absolute fact, it’s far too easy to assign culpability elsewhere, and to continue in the delusion of self-serving behavior.”

That’s what I thought too. But I’m happy to report that after over a year of life as a determinist, I’ve only become.. dare I say, more determined in life. For one thing, it turns out that whatever new thing you believe, you tend to take it up as a badge of honour somehow. Apparently, we’re always “the most educated and capable person in existence.” Such is the way of solipsism, I guess.. or “godship” if you prefer. :) please note: solipsism is not required for all this determinism stuff. just my opinion

Religion has taught us that any perfect notion can be perverted by extremism. This is true. But somehow I don’t think it would be any worse than what religion has done to the world so far. Perhaps it is even a more manageable sort of a meme to spread around.

I mean, the proof itself seems to tell you exactly how you became the person you are and even how to become whatever person you want to be: “You act according to whatever you [come to] believe/know/remember.” But this is all philosophy. I’ll answer your charge more directly:

There is no culpability in a deterministic universe. There is only the universe and what you self-servingly want to see of it. This isn’t a bad thing. I’ve linked you to some more moral philosophy babble I was sharing with @HasntBeen but maybe we should start a new thread to discuss how this philosophy works. Something like: “In your opinion, what would morality really look like in a deterministic universe?”

@ninjacolin With all due respect, there is a certain naivety to your argument. Presentation of “evidence” is not enough to persuade or convince anyone. Something else has to happen. That evidence has to be accepted. Acceptance is not implied by presentation. Look at this thread. You have been presenting evidence and it has not been accepted (by some of us at least.) The judge in your example does not willy-nilly accept any evidence that is presented to him. He may (or may not) accept the DNA evidence after considering other factors i.e. was it tainted or was the laboratory report reliable etc. A criminal might be presented with education the purpose of which is to reform him. Still he could either accept or reject this education – this presentation of evidence. Acceptance is key to this whole discussion here because acceptance, in my experience, is almost always a conscious choice – it is not “automatic” as you say. People consider the evidence consciously and then make a decision on whether to accept or reject it. Making a decision, a choice is an act of free will.

Really good stuff! I am enjoying this. :-)

So here is a word for all of ya.

Serendipity.

I forgot to mention: Responsibility is something that someone chooses to accept…just as they may choose to reject it.

I still haven’t figured out what you’re saying ChazMaz…but I’m glad you’re enjoying this! hehe! <joke>☺

@ninjacolin quotes:

“of course free will doesn’t make sense at that level. it doesn’t make sense at any known level because free will doesn’t exist.”

“free will is only metaphor.. or maybe even that is the wrong word. It’s a fallacy.”

“It’s not that chaos or free will doesnt’ exist.. I’m simply saying that we have no reason to believe that they do”

Thanks for the well wishes, and I wish the same for you. I even liked the “sweet” part… I’m not speaking to the spirit of M. Jackson am I? =0]

I guess the reason I was focusing on what seemed to be your absolute position that free will doesn’t exist, was due to a couple of your earlier statements, which I’ve provided above. In the third and in many following statements, I see, to your credit, you’ve trimmed off the edges quite a bit (square objects are lot harder to swallow). I know I do the same thing. I make a statement that’s rigid, and then regret my wording. I wish I had added: appears to be, or, in my opinion, etc. In the interest of being understood, and or persuasive, those words sometimes become a little cumbersome and left behind. Thanks for clearing that up. From now on if I come across a statement of yours that has a few too many right angles, I’ll take the liberty of trimming them down myself, as it now seems you agree that our handle on things isn’t fully attached. Maybe enough to decide to carry some things around with us, but not in total unwavering confidence.

As for the worlds of the supernatural, spirits etc. that you brought up, I suppose they are in some respect relevant to the topic, as many people do assign the notion of free will to those domains. The subject is difficult to discuss, due to the lack of hard definitive supportive data, that can be passed around the room and be mutually shared on demand and in mixed company. But at the same time, the lack of data doesn’t preclude the possibility of their existence either. Personally I have a slight problem with the word supernatural itself. I’m of a mind that if it occurs, it’s natural. If the mechanics of what’s been defined as supernatural were determinable, the event would no longer be termed supernatural. That would kinda take the spook out of what’s deemed to be spook activity. For those so inclined, it could be argued that free will is a product of this activity, as in soul or spirit, or other outside influences of a similar nature, but not likely with a great deal of success, except amongst those that are of like mind, for the reasons that I’ve already stated…. show me in a controlled and monitored environment.

Since we don’t understand the mechanics of these possible events or entities as reported, from a purely scientific stand point, it isn’t very progressive to assign free will to these proposed interactions. So I understand your position on that issue. For now you’re looking at the preponderance of the hard data to which you’ve been exposed. I would hazard this addition though; the complete rule book of physical laws is not in our possession. We seem to be missing a few pages, as evidenced by our confusion in our understanding of quantum mechanics, such as particle/wave, quantum entanglement, strings allowing for multidimensional space, and the passage of forces or things from one to another of these proposed dimensions.. or in the cosmic arena, such as Dark Matter and Energy. Things that are, and not, yet are, and do interact with conventional physical things in a measurable way. The LHC may or may not shed some light on these issues, but for now I don’t think we can close the door on the so called supernatural. It just can’t be used as weighable, provable evidence in this type of discussion.

I also understand your point regarding “buck the system” as there is no provable “I” apart from brain. But as shown above, the possibility can’t be discarded. I also understand that at the instant of belief, an opposing or alternate belief can’t occupy the same neural pattern that supports it, unless of course we allow for additional dimensions within the brain itself, or a subconscious belief that we are unaware of, which would explain the behavior of a few of my friends. Although I would suggest that if “I” apart were to exist, it’s actions would manifest in brain. Appearing that the brain were the “I”. If that were the case, the brain would be a tool (some of my friends can be that at times too). Much like if I were invisible and removing a screw with a screw driver, the removal the task, and the driver the brain. In the instance of personality change due to brain damage, it could be argued that the tool is damaged and out of accord with the “I”. Personally, whether I “believed” in the “I” apart or not, I wouldn’t base my argument on it, again for previously stated reasons. But now we get to the tricky part.

Can the brain multitask in a way that allows it to preempt a previously established belief? As we know the brain has specific areas in which different types of tasks are performed. We also know that it is quite plastic in nature, meaning it can reassign tasks to different areas, when the original segment can no longer perform the task. All of this done sometimes with or without conscious assistance. So, that being said, I think it possible that a belief could be changed within the construct of the brain, without additional input. If we can multitask, and it certainly appears that we can, considering all the things our
brains handle at any given moment, it seems that one belief pattern could coexist with
another within the same mind, although not in the same exact space. Considering the
plasticity of the brain, could we consciously switch from one to the other, without the aid
of additional input? I think it’s possible. This last segment was meant to address the idea that additional evidence must be presented to change a belief. That may not be so. Of course I wouldn’t want to stand or fall on conjecture, of which this idea is, but I think it’s interesting to note just how much we’re unsure, and unaware of what we’re capable and of who and what we are. Philosophy’s good in that it attempts to address and answer questions, but I don’t think we can in good conscience, accept any singular one as a rule of thumb, or guiding principle…. that’s just too easy.

@ninjacolin Sorry, I should have also added: I think it’s possible to consciously seek out fractured data and reorganize it, giving it weight to overwrite the preexisting information supporting a belief, without additional input, save some catalyst provoking the will to do so.
Enjoy your visit with your family. :)

You’re right again, @MarkyMark, I forgot a word: “Sufficient.” Sufficient evidence is required to switch a person’s beliefs. The word “sufficient” is required to take care of the subjectivity factor between everyone’s memory sets/knowledge bases/logical faculties.

-Man was with his wife all night.
-Friend says his wife is cheating on him.
-Man just got married to wife 2 days ago.
-Man doesn’t happen to be on any mind altering substances

These are 3 beliefs or pieces of evidence in a man’s head. Will he conclude that his wife is cheating on him? Of course not. The testimonial evidence from his friend fails to convince him because of the weight of the contradicting evidence that exists in his head. Still, evidence is what leads him to his conclusion. Just like in a court case, evidence filtered through the logical faculties of the mind determine the case.

Acceptance of evidence occurs automatically based on the limitations of the mind to function in a healthy way and the limitations of that person’s logical faculties. No free choice involved. Go ahead and prove me wrong: Agree with me right now if you can, and without lying about it, simply believe me if you can. Otherwise, admit that you lack the evidence to do so if you can’t. Admit that you do not have the free will to simply agree with me.

@ninjacolin My experience and observation of the human animal is that people believe what they want to believe regardless of the sufficiency or veracity of the evidence presented to them. Never under-estimate the power of denial. For instance; I’ve seen parents refuse to believe that their childen were sexually-active/ on drugs/ committing crime even when all the physical and behavioral signs and paraphenalia (the evidence) was laid out before them. Sufficient evidence for one person is not neccessarily sufficient evidence for the next person. The human mind has to accept the evidence before it is believed.

On determinism: I’m not saying people’s decisions are not influenced by their stored knowledge, memories and beliefs. Of course they are. But not being the entire truth, it is an untruth… which is as good as a lie for all practical purposes. These things (stored knowledge, memories and beliefs) are only part of the body of evidence that a person refers to when making a decision. The person’s reasoning capacity provides him with more evidence. The person, like your judge, weighs all the evidence in his mind and then comes to a conclusion. Granted, in the real world, some (many) people subordinate their reasoning capacity and rely more heavily on memories and beliefs. This is a human weakness. The real question then is; do you want to be one those people? That would put you in the league of religious fundamentalists and bigots – people with stunted emotional and intellectual growth who are slaves to there past experiences and indoctrination. They cannot think for themselves because they have lost the capacity to exercise their free will. Anyway, that is why I think that the philosophy of determinism is harmful and that it is people’s appreciation of their capacity to make Free Will decisions that enables them to change their lives and indeed change the world. Free will is what releases us to achieve our full potential as human beings.

@MarkyMark said: “I’ve seen parents refuse to believe that their childen were sexually-active/ on drugs/ committing crime even when all the physical and behavioral signs and paraphenalia (the evidence) was laid out before them”

from my determinsitic perspective, I’m seeing that you think they are refusing by choice but they aren’t. that’s the danger of free will thinking. you are believing something that isn’t true: if someone doesn’t believe something, it is not because they “refuse” to believe it. even if they say “I refuse to believe it!”.. they don’t have a choice: If they don’t believe it, they don’t believe it.

if they believe it but lie about it, or ignore it in order to push another agenda, they still have no choice. they feel they don’t have to admit to their opponent when they are wrong. so, they avoid the straight questions and dance around the facts hoping never to be called out. if they are called out, they simply refuse to give you a straight answer. sometimes, they’re just confused and think they’re being tricked. this belief often forces people to avoid a challenge head on.

The person’s reasoning capacity provides him with more evidence.

I agree with you. But this is still evidence. Whatever conclusion they arrive at after spending time in thought, is a conclusion they’ve come to as a determined result.

some (many) people subordinate their reasoning capacity and rely more heavily on memories and beliefs.

it is very clear to me that this isn’t the case. i’ve observed that this is a typical free will way to demonize people who don’t come to the same conclusions as you have. trust me, you are a religious zealot just the same as all the others. but we’ll have to have that argument another day.

the fact is, everyone is just like you. “trying” their best to make sense of the evidence they have taken in. the reason people disagree is because they have all taken in different evidence. if everyone had exactly the same evidence as everyone else, there would be no disagreements. This is evidenced by test results in grade school. Those who study the evidence (books) well enough, will all come to the same answers the teachers have on their answer keys.

@Kravenhead you offer some entirely fresh challenges I’ve never heard before. While I find your challenges refreshing, I am still compelled to concede that the argument itself remains both valid and sound and I do hope that you can show me where I’m wrong about that if I am.

@Kravenhead said: “For now you’re looking at the preponderance of the hard data to which you’ve been exposed. I would hazard this addition though; the complete rule book of physical laws is not in our possession.”

I’ll cut to the chase on this. What I’m really looking at is not a particle physics proof or what have you. I’m really just looking at, as you’ve said above, that evidence which I’ve been exposed to. There isn’t much more to my argument besides this: That evidence which I have filtered through my fallible brain has forced me to conclude that Free Will does not exist. Because of that, when someone asks the question as @francespneuman has done in this thread: “do you believe in free will?” My honest answer is necessarily “no.” I don’t have a choice about it. The evidence makes me provide this as an answer, not any kind of free will. If I had other evidence, or perhaps a different brain, my answer might be something else. But as is, I have no other honest answer available for that question. My beliefs are forced upon me by the “preponderance of the hard data I’ve been exposed to.” And my actions reflect those beliefs unerringly. Particle physics and everything else are just supplementary evidence to this very simple set of facts.

Now, while the complete rule book of physical laws is not in our possession, a fact I recongize and am prepared to respond to, what is in our possession is the certainty that the laws we know of and the ones we imagine must be in place CERTAINLY produce our certain universe: Houses don’t turn into Unicorns and gallop away, Cruel in-laws don’t turn into bats or were-wolves at night, The sun doesn’t forget to rise in the morning.. Quantum “randomness” doesn’t seem to be truly random except in the eyes of the observers! It is mysterious and uncertain to us but it certainly does it’s job of staying consistent with itself.. as far as we have observed.

Even a spirit world or other dimension, it would seem, would need to work with our laws in a deterministic way in order to interface with us. At the very least, we don’t have reason to believe that they could do anything else because we’ve never observed them doing anything else. They seem only to follow the formula I’ve offered: Evidence observed and processed causes beliefs, those beliefs cause all actions. We may not know all what those possible events and entities are capable of, but we know what they’ve done so far: Apparently, nothing different. The door is certainly open for them to give us some new evidence that can prove that they exist.. but at the moment, they’ve given us nothing. So, why wait up?.. do you see what I mean with all this?
—

@Kravenhead said: “Can the brain multitask in a way that allows it to preempt a previously established belief?”

I loved this section of your response. very sciencey! I will deal with it briefly though. Assuming that your conjecture is correct that one part of the brain could hold one belief while another part of the brain holds a contradicting belief, only one belief will be acted on at a given time. That is, until the consciousness “learns” the new evidence from brain part #2, it will only act on what it was instructed from brain part #1. Either way, however, your actions are still determined by whatever of the two beliefs were in the brain. So, the deterministic formula I’ve presented still isn’t broken. Besides, if the brain does simply shift things around on us and decide to believe something willy-nilly, like that walking off a cliff is a good idea, then it still isn’t voluntary. Hence, it’s not a free choice.
—

am i missing anything here? I hope that I have successfully discarded the idea that there is a relevant other dimension to consider. again, since that dimension would still need to interface with us through deterministic means and if it has been doing so, apparently it has been doing so based on our memories and beliefs as per my deterministic proof.

@MarkyMark if you take note of what’s happening here with the evidence @Kravenhead has been supplying me. I’m “rejecting” it for logical reasons. I may be wrong in my logical reasoning, which I rely on him or you or someone else to point out. However, my beliefs about the rules of logic, and my beliefs about what he has said to me all jump in the pool and have a battle in my mind.

I do not “choose” the outcome. I calculate it.

It’s just like math. 1 + 32933299 = ???

I can’t freely “choose” what I believe the “correct” answer to this question is. I can simply observe the evidence visually as well as the evidence which already exists in my mind about what math is, and how addition works. A decision is automatically born. I can’t help the fact that I believe the answer is 32933300. I can’t help the fact that I “accept” that answer.

And correct me if I’m wrong but.. neither can you. Am I right?

@ninjacolin As I have said before I think your conclusions are flawed because your premises are flawed. Your premise being that free will does not exist or that free will is irrelevant. That people are powerless to make conscious decisions and choices. There is a deadlock in this discussion because you refuse to accept that free will exists.

Back to your grade school scenario: Suppose the test paper asked 1+1=? One student answers 2 and gets marked correct. Another student answers 10 and gets marked wrong. He explains to the teacher that 10 is 2 in binary. In reality, this student is in fact correct – 10 is 2 in binary. The teacher had been thinking from a premise that there is only one way of writing the correct answer – 2. Even if the teacher understood the binary system he could still refuse to accept the answer (maybe because he feels that the student should have known that the decimal system is the default system for tests… or some other reason). As long as the teacher refuses to accept the answer there will be a deadlock. The validity of the students explanations and arguments (evidence) becomes irrelevant.

In the same way, a debate like this could continue forever until one party accepts the other party’s premise – whether that premise is valid or not. That’s basically the long and the short of it.

Cheers! ☺

@ninjacolin: Ok… there are problems with proving or disproving determinism, one of which is time. In hindsight every event seems to have a logical precursor. The odds are in favor of the house so to speak, the house being Determinism in this case. Every event that we look at is viewed from that one perspective…. it’s already occurred. Since it’s already occurred, we can then quite easily point to the preceding action as a Determining action. The same way a sports commentator can see the outcome of a game in the player’s actions, after the game has been played. If we turn that around and try to analyze the game at the onset, we’ve lost our edge, as any bookie or gambler could attest. The moment we imagine an event for the sake of discussion, it’s already too late.. everything is already in place. That doesn’t prove Determinism; it proves in hindsight, we can see the chain of events clearly linked. The case for Determinism isn’t proven, unless we can unfailingly determine a succeeding event. Since that can’t be done, without error, especially when there is an intellect involved, there is evidence that Determinism is flawed. Of course you could say it’s because we didn’t have all the information necessary, and point out that information, if available, as proof of Determinism; but once again, that’s hindsight… It’s not objective from all perspectives, it’s subjective from one perspective. A philosophy, or any concept for that matter, needs to be verified from all available angles, to be considered proven as truth. Determinism has a great deal of difficulty going forward, and a great deal of success when in reverse. Therefore it’s not only unproven, but shows evidence to be flawed. To set up another sequence of events, and then point backwards, will not save Determinism as proven. I would suggest that accepting something that has only passed partial scrutiny, to be an error…. a rush to judgment so to speak. Especially if I planned on living my life accordingly. It’s simple, it’s compact… which makes it attractive, but it doesn’t pass all the essential tests. I know it looks good to you, it might even work for you in many respects, but I think you’re shortchanging yourself of objectivity… but of course, that is your choice. :)

I’m a stickler for logic.. or I’m trying to be anyway. It requires a bit of “faith” to believe that some spiritual version of ourselves exists that can defy the laws of physics and make decisions that are not a part of the regular causal order.

The same way that you feel that I’m shortchanging myself by foregoing this mystical belief, is the same way that Young Earth Christians believe evolutionists are shortchanging themselves by foregoing the mystical belief that God created humans specially without any naturalistic, causal order to their development. Incidentally, the way evolutionists believe such Christians are shortchanging themselves in terms of adherence to careful material observations (aka. science) is how I feel about libertarians. :) So, it evens out.

In the end, the facts remain as follows:
A) We do not have the free will to believe or accept “whatever” we want. Only the things that are evident to us.
B) All our actions are products of our beliefs. We never take an action that we don’t believe we should take above all others in that moment. (except the involuntary ones of course, like “being mugged” or spasms)

These are facts, guys. The only reason you wouldn’t accept them, is because they are not evident to you. This happens when you fail to test them yourself and see that they are absolutely true for all your beliefs and actions respectively.

Your decision not to test them so far, is itself a product of your beliefs that it couldn’t possibly coerce your beliefs. But you’re wrong. And you’ll know that AND be unable to honestly deny it as soon as you do test them. (and no i’m not accusing you of lying, i’m just trying to be precise about how this works)

@MarkyMark said: “I think your conclusions are flawed because your premises are flawed. Your premise being that free will does not exist or that free will is irrelevant. That people are powerless to make conscious decisions and choices. There is a deadlock in this discussion because you refuse to accept that free will exists.”

This is the first time I’ve noticed this charge against the argument in this thread. The fallacy is called “begging the question” i believe. (i could be mistaken) But I have to say that this is not the mistake I am making.

That we have no free will is the conclusion of the argument.
The premises are what I stated above in A and B.

(loved your comment there, markymarky about the school thing. out of time for now but i want to reply to that too)

Compare against this argument:

All cats are considered “feline”
“Muffins” is a cat.
therefore, Muffins is a “feline”

^ correction: therefore, muffins is “considered” a feline.

all beliefs are determined via sufficient evidence.
all actions are products of beliefs.
therefore, all actions are determined.

the premises are both true and the conclusion is necessitated by them.
don’t blame me for this. it’s just the facts.. as far as we can observe.

@MarkyMark, I’m not “refusing” to believe that we have free will. It is “evident” to me that we don’t because of what I can observe. The above argument makes it evident. I would like to believe in free will, but I am unable to. Just as you have lacked the free will to accept determinism.
—

“Even if the teacher understood the binary system he could still refuse to accept the answer (maybe because he feels that the student should have known that the decimal system is the default system for tests… or some other reason).”

Exactly. If there is a “reason.” A determined cause to reject the answer. Without this determined reason, he would not reject it.

“a debate like this could continue forever until one party accepts the other party’s premise – whether that premise is valid or not.”

Absolutely. That’s why some court cases go on and on and on. Because a debate will go on forever until a judge or jury is persuaded by the evidence they have observered to go one way or the other. Again, you lack the free will to simply agree with me as I lack the free will to simply agree with free will. You can only do what you believe you should. This is a fact. And Kravenhead, you’ve gotta pay attention to this.

@Kravenhead said: “The case for Determinism isn’t proven, unless we can unfailingly determine a succeeding event. Since that can’t be done, without error, especially when there is an intellect involved, there is evidence that Determinism is flawed.”

We can unfailingly determine a succeeding event. Especially when an intellect is involved. We’ll start with you. Specifically, it is predictable that every single “voluntary” action that you will take will be an action that you believe ought to be taken above all other possible actions that very moment.

Correct me if I’m wrong. You would know.

Well… now we’re a step ahead of the decision process. Your statement addresses the fact that I have to have a choice in place before I can act, but not the decision process itself, or whether I made a free will choice. If we consider a scenario from a point in time moving forward, lets see what we can determine. Let’s say Jeff is a law student that found himself a member of a jury in a murder trial. Bob is on trial. Jeff decided to study law because he is a firm believer in the letter of the law. He knows that if we take it upon ourselves to ignore the law, or if we take the law into our own hands, the system will break down. Jeff is a true believer. During the course of the trial a video tape is played for the court, that clearly shows Bob committing the murder for which he’s charged. The only other evidence against Bob, that’s presented, is circumstantial. The defense discovers that the video was obtained via an illegal search and seizure. The video is then disallowed, and the jury is instructed disregard the video evidence. Upon deliberation, Jeff not only believes in the letter of the law, but he equally believes with as much conviction, that Bob is guilty. Will Jeff deadlock the Jury, or will he sacrifice his principles and find Bob guilty based on what he saw on the video, or not guilty, based on the inconclusive circumstantial evidence? To prove Determinism, we can’t wait until after Jeff decides. If he truly has no choice of his own, we should be able to predict his verdict. Since we can’t, that casts doubt on Determinism’s validity.

The cat issue is problematic for this reason. The logic works quite well within the confines of that microcosm: cat, feline, Muffins. But if we expand upon that microcosm ever so slightly, the simple logic breaks down. For example: The cat Muffins has an owner. The two of them are sitting on a bench, listening to music, watching a marina attendant back the owner’s boat into the water (Muffins loves to go sailing). OK… here’s the fun part. The music playing is Cat Stevens, the boat is a catamaran, the tractor the attendant is using is a Caterpillar, and the wheeled jack the owner keeps in the trunk of his car has an instruction sheet, written in both English and Spanish. The instruction sheet designates the jack as a gato. (cat in Spanish). So using all of the common nicknames; the the musician is a cat, the boat is a cat, the tractor is a cat and the jack is a cat; non of which are feline, nor called Muffins. We can’t apply simple logic to even slightly complex issues.
Now lets look at just how complex our issue is. The human brain consists of more circuits, by a very great margin, than there are atoms in the entire universe. Considering that complexity, the simple logic of Determinism shouldn’t be applied, unless we can predict Jeff’s verdict without the possibility of error. :)

haha, I can accurately predict what his verdict will be. but even if i got it right, how would you believe me? i think the experiment should be about someone real and objective so we can verify the answer. Maybe, pull up a court case that I don’t know about and learn the verdict. I will predict it without knowing what the verdict is. Then you can post the answer and see if I’m right.

Go for something where the juror had a chance to comment about his verdict after the fact. I’ll leave it up to you because if i pick it, obviously, i’ll peek at the answer and the experiment will be spoiled.

@Kravenhead as for the “cat” example.. i was just illustrating the way a syllogism works in a simple way. Now I’ll show you how to dismantle one appropriately if need be:

Because you’ve shown a number of “cats” which are not considered felines, the first premise: “All cats are considered feline” is proven to be false. What that means is that the syllogism loses the quality of being “Sound” because at least one of the premises is untrue. The syllogism is still Valid however because:

if all cats were considered feline and
if Muffins is a cat
then Muffins would be considered a feline.

As long as the conclusion is necessitated by the premises, regardless of whether they are true, the argument is valid.

But a valid argument of course isn’t good enough for me. :) I like all my arguments to be both Valid and Sound. I won’t settle for anything less.

So, when I make the argument:

P1) At moment T in time, your beliefs are unchosen.
P2) All actions at moment T are determined by your beliefs
Conclusion: Therefore, all actions are determined by your unchosen beliefs.

What I’m saying is that Both of the premises are True.
AND the conclusion is necessitated by those true premises. Hence:

if in a given moment, you cannot control whether you believe something and
if all actions at that moment happen to be determined by what you believe or disbelieve
then necessarily, all your actions are outside of your control at that moment.

.. and yes, this happens to be the case every single moment of your life. there are no moments where you can control what you belive and there are no moments where your actions aren’t determined by what you believe.

@ninjacolin – How thick is the skin on the end of your fingertips!.......=)

From www.TED.com -

Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions—motion, speech, self-awareness—shut down one by one. An astonishing story.

Brain researcher Jill Bolte Taylor studied her own stroke as it happened—and has become a powerful voice for brain recovery.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

If conciousness is seperate to the brain, then we have free will.

My example regarding the cat or cats is sound. What I was showing in my example was, if you expand the parameters of the environment in which your cat Muffins exists, premise 1 or 2 may no longer be correct. If one or both of the premises are incorrect, then the logic chain is broken and the conclusion isn‘t sound. I guess I should have been more clear on that point.
In your example: “(P1) At moment T in time, your beliefs are unchosen.)”
you’ve either made an assumption, meaning you’re assuming the belief wasn’t chosen at the time of its establishment, or you’ve jumped ahead of the decision process, to the point in time when the belief has already been established, and the thinker is acting on that belief. The thinker doesn’t choose and act simultaneously. The belief has to be in place before he can act. So while its true that the belief isn’t of free will at the moment of initiating action, it’s already established, and we’re not choosing at that particular moment, in an expanded perspective, the truth of your premise fades, as we’ve included the moments in time when we’ve established the belief. So your premise is true in the collapsed version, but doesn’t hold up in an expanded one. The logic of your statement is far too exclusive. And once again, does not prove Determinism. The logic relies on time exclusivity and or an assumption to be true. :)

@Kravenhead.. Now we’re getting down to the meat of it. :) But I have to note..

I’ve posed a number of challenges that have gone unanswered. As I mentioned earlier, by refusing to take on those challenges, you are denying yourself the full experience of evidence that I’m providing for you to examine.

As you’ve noted, my argument is very exclusive. If you dodge every opportunity that I’ve presented for you to be persuaded then your conviction is predictably going to remain the same as it has been so far: opposed.

If however, you can meet my challenges and perhaps show where they fall flat, then progress can be said to have been made. Do you understand what I’m saying?

Why is this so hard to understand?

It is almost as if people cant let go of the idea that they are not in control.
Like it is a bad thing. So they will debate in circles to prove otherwise.

It is just that it is too simple?

people don’t understand the pertinence of logic.
logic isn’t just “cool” it’s representative of reality.

if you have a valid and sound argument, it will convince anyone who knows what a formal logic proof can mean. for example, when i took this to my philosophy professor (a libertarian) and showed him, he got it right away. He sat back in his chair, pondered it a bit then said: “Now, that’s a sophisticated thought.” It was so quick and simple to talk to him.

but if people aren’t familiar with it, formal logic even when clearly presented, won’t have the desired affect. it will be considered to have only as much weight as circumstantial evidence. for example, try to make a solid logic proof to a 7 year old who believes in santa that santa clause doesn’t exist. it won’t work until he hears testimony from his mom.

to be fair though, some are arguing that the proof isn’t solid for other logical reasons and i’m happy to talk about that in case maybe i did miss something.
—

also, it’s hard to believe for some that such a major problem that has spanned thousands of years in the philosophical community can be solved in their very own mind. some people are just that humble. :)

@Pazza: Quote: “If conciousness is seperate to the brain, then we have free will”

Please help me understand your argument, as I don’t see how your conclusion follows from it’s premise.

The issue is this: “Does free will exist?”
Your conclusion is this: “Free will exists”

The reasons you provide are:
I) “Consciousness is separate from the brain”
II) “A brain scientist described her own stroke while it was happening.”

I presume you have the following hidden assumption linking II) to I).

A) “If someone can describe what is happening in their brain while they are having a stroke, conscioussness must be separate from the brain”.

However your argument contains nothing that logically links I) or II) to your conclusion.

Could you please elaborate on the following points of your argument:

1) You fail to provide a reason for why the separation of consciousness and brain would necessarily lead to free will. In other words i cannot follow the link from I) to your conclusion.
2) I think your hidden assumption A) is very weak. Could you explain why someone describing their own stroke is proof of I), could it not be that perhaps the stroke had not yet reached the verbal area of the brain and the scientist was still able to verbalize the thoughts of what was happening to her. I don’t see this as very convincing evidence of the fact that consciousness is separate from the brain. If you disagree could you perhaps provide some other reasons that are not in anecdotal form of why you think I) is true.

@Pazza, from that video, the idea that we can “choose” to enter nirvana.. do you think someone could choose to do that who doesn’t know they can choose to do that?

If they know they can choose to do it but do not know how, can they choose to do it?

If they know they can choose to do it and they know how to do it but if they simply know that there is something more pressing on their minds to do and hence don’t want to at the moment… are they able to choose to do it?
—

in brief:
-If you’re ignorant of an option, you do not have the free will to choose it.
-if you’re ignorant of how to access an option, you do not have the free will to choose it.
-if you’re aware of an option and how to access it, but you simply don’t want to.. then you cannot choose to do it.

The last “if” above is a “belief”.. if you believe you ought not choose something, then you lack the free will to do it. The only things you can do, are the things you believe you ought to. Everything else, you do not have the free will to do. That is, you do not have free will to do anything but what you happen to believe you ought to do.

(i do feel like i’m repeating myself though, pazza. i might tire soon)

@Kravenhead the moment that a decision happens is always in “this” moment. Hence, at “this” moment an action happens to be based on an unchosen belief.

@ChazMaz My concern is not so much with the technical nuts and bolts – the formal logic – than it is with the practical “real-person-in-a-real-world” implications of a belief in absolute determinism. I believe it is harmful (and repugnant to me) because it undermines valuable concepts like self-determination as it applies to individuals, cultures, societies and nations.

I contend that when you believe yourself not to be in control you are correct because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You abandon any serious attempt at controlling your behaviour and your destiny. For example if someone sitting at the steering wheel of a car believes that they have no control of that car, they probably will make no attempt to control that car and they will therefore be at the mercy of the other forces and factors that naturally affect a moving car. Conversely, if you believe that you are able to control that car, you are also correct. A change occurs in the person’s thought-processes and they take action to control that car, they make pro-active attempts to influence the outcome. This attitude towards life can make all the difference between spending your life as a victim and spending your life as a someone who takes responsibility and initiates positive changes.

Ninjacolin says: ”people don’t understand the pertinence of logic.”
”logic isn’t just “cool” it’s representative of reality.”

Nay.

Reality is always logical in retrospect (Retrospective Determinism) but believing that logic is always representative of reality is wrong. A statement can be perfectly logical and still be untrue. Even a good lie is logical. Logic has it’s uses but we should never forget that it is merely a tool we use to attempt to predict or reconstruct reality.

If you focus too much on the logical process then you can’t see beyond the validity of the logical process. You lose sight of the forest because you’ve been staring at the tree. (This might explain a philosophy professor accepting a logical statement without appreciating the ethical and psycho-social implications and consequences of a certain philosophy). It has been said before that Logic in retrospect is always spot-on. My dear mother was a kind of Retrospective Determinist (altough she had never heard of the term). She was the type of person who worries about everything and she would spend time considering the probable outcomes of every situation. Then when one of them inevitably happened she would say something like “I knew it all along. I could have told you… it was bound to happen.” I never bought it. Retrospective Determinism is a fallacy.

** i’m worried that this post may come off as antagonizing and annoying to some. please don’t be offended, it’s just for argument sake. i do stand behind the ideas being said and i mean for this to help you appreciate my position further, not to annoy or patronize. i do mean for it to be a little fun though, so bare with me. **

@ChazMaz said: “Why is this so hard to understand?”

@ninjacolin said: ”[some] people don’t understand the pertinence of logic. [...] if people aren’t familiar with it, formal logic even when clearly presented, won’t have the desired affect. it will be considered to have only as much weight as circumstantial evidence.”

then @MarkyMark said: “believing that logic is always representative of reality is wrong.”

so now @ninjacolin says to @ChazMaz: told you. ;)
—

And with that last feat, I hope that it has been clearly demonstrated how processed evidence (in this case “logic as processed through @MarkyMark‘s understandings of it”) determine beliefs (in this case, @MarkyMark‘s beliefs about logic as well as his beliefs about the conversation he is apart of) and how beliefs coerce actions (in this case, @MarkyMark‘s action of writing the above reply). No free will required!

His belief in the unreliability of logic is coercing him to discount a valid and sound argument about his own animal nature. He even contrasted his individual processing against that of a philosophy professor indicating that the philosophy professor has an entirely different appreciation for the weight of logic.

And I’m not saying that @MarkyMark is wrong about his opinions at all. (I happen to believe he is wrong, but that’s not the point) I’m simply showing how his brain calculates conclusions such as: “logic isn’t the end all and be all of all reality” and how his actions manifest in such a way that happen to be perfectly inline with those beliefs.

—

and the last and first and most crucial point to keep in mind: @MarkyMark and everyone else who disagree with this determinism stuff have proven themselves unable to agree with determinism purely by choice alone. This proves that they do not have the free will even to believe whatever they want, let alone act on it. Evidently, they can only believe things that are evident to them according to their logical faculties. Such as, the notion of free will.

@MarkyMark I have to jump on that “Retrospective determinsim” fallacy call. Ouch, man! I don’t think it was intentional but that particular fallacy in the middle of a discussion on determinism is sooo confusing.. soooo fallacious! but i forgive you already. As I said, I don’t think you did that on purpose, but it’s something you have to look out for. Always remember, folks, we’re on the same side seeking truth together though we start from different ends of the problem. Our goal is to meet in the middle where everyone wins by everyone learning whatever it is that makes the most sense.

Just to be clear: My argument relies on the present moment only. It references beliefs that exist now and actions that occur now… this moment… the present moment… any one of the present moments that happen to be going on sometime around… now. my argument does not rely on the past for its punch.
—

@MarkyMark said: “My concern is not so much with the technical nuts and bolts – the formal logic – than it is with the practical “real-person-in-a-real-world” implications of a belief in absolute determinism. I believe it is harmful (and repugnant to me) because it undermines valuable concepts like self-determination as it applies to individuals, cultures, societies and nations.”

First of all, I’m going to show you the fallacy you’re committing with this. (I love fallacies, by the way. it’s a runner-up favorite topic for me.. right after determinism, of course) I’m curious if you knew that I was going to say this. Let’s assume for a moment that both you and I are absolutely right about some things: Me, being 100% right about determinism as “the way of things”.. and you being 100% right that it is harmful and that it undermines valuable concepts like self-determination as it applies to individuals, cultures, societies and nations.

Now, have a look at this lovely logical fallacy here. Scroll down too! She’s a beauty. :)

See there? Just because the outcome you imagine is horrendous and “repugnant”.. it doesn’t mean the argument isn’t valid and sound. And it certainly doesn’t mean that you aren’t a deterministic creature yourself.

Think about it: If you are a deterministic creature, your feeling of repugnance is just a part of your programming! That feeling in a strange way indicates that you’re functioning normally! :) And that’s a good thing to know!

Okay, I’m teasing a bit. ;) but really, just for fun. You can get me back. But in all honesty, imagined consequences are not a good enough reason not to accept the conclusion of an argument as true. that’s fallacious hardcore.

Secondly, you’re wrong about the consequences. In fact, a consequence of not understanding the argument I gave you is that you lack the understanding of what it means to be a deterministic creature. It’s nothing like what you imagine. You’ve got an old school idea going on in your head that just isn’t relevant or reflective of reality for real world deterministic creatures.

“I contend that when you believe yourself not to be in control you are correct because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You abandon any serious attempt at controlling your behaviour and your destiny.”

I’m a case in point. Look how long this post is! For the love of god what’s wrong with me?! Obviously, I’m not someone who lacks ambition or even optimism that others should and can learn about this concept that thrills me so much. And I agree with @nisse that my approach is a “no-bullshit” one. In my mind I’ve dashed away all mythological concepts from my beliefs. I truly represent the most atheistic an atheist can possibly be! (although, i do believe there’s a panentheistic argument that necessarily follows but anyway) and i’m pretty happy with it, no joke!

ANYWAY, as I was saying.. you’re wrong. The way it actually works is this:
First, people believe things that they can’t help believing. Second, people act on those beliefs.

So, if given the choice between doing nothing and doing something that is more fun than nothing.. as long as the person believes that more fun is better than no fun.. (which we all do, and we can’t help it!) we will act on those beliefs and pursue the fun over the nothing.

We can’t help it. This is true for all virtues. If a person believes that virtue would produce a more enjoyable result than a vice, he will always choose the virtue. As long as the belief is there.

We do not seem to have any control over this. The only time someone chooses to do something stupid.. is when they are ignorant of something smarter to do. (eg. stubbing your toe on a desk or buying a mac when you could have gotten a pc or investing your money with Madoff or staying with your abusive significant other) That is the nature of all humanity. It’s not harmful.

Yes, it kinda undermines all kinds of libertarian values. But it doesn’t only do that it also replaces them with BETTER deterministic ones. :) Better is always better. You have nothing to fear. Just start thinking about it. You’ll see.

@ninjacolin I KNEW I was in deep doo-do when you said ”it’s hard to believe for some that such a major problem that has spanned thousands of years in the philosophical community can be solved in their very own mind.”

:-D

test your determinism: sit back and stop making decisions. make a decision right now to not make anymore decision for the next 12 hours. neither decisions to do anything special nor decisions to stop yourself from acting on your beliefs. just let the next 12 hours unfold on its own.

eventually as you sit there, a belief will enter your mind that you’re wasting your time.. or maybe that you’re unbearbly hungry.. whatever the case.. you’re going to get up and go about your day. the full 12 hours will pass and you’ll find life pretty much just went on as normal.

ism… how elegant. As a mathematician might describe a seemingly perfect formula. One that seems to provide an undeniable progression of steps in answer to a complexity. Damn… this feels so good. I mean… good grief!… In this one concept; this uncomplicated perspective… while everyone else is floundering in complexity, I’ve found truth. How blind… Why can’t they see? It’s so simple. The path I took to find this truth was right in front of me.. right in front of them. A secret that’s never been secret… it’s been there… it’s been there all along…. so obvious, I’m surprised I didn’t see it sooner.
If this sounds even remotely familiar… the drawing board is still open… and will continue to be so.

@ninjacolin – The brain is very complex. We don’t fully understand it. For certain functions we know for sure that there is no free will. For example when people try to stop breathing. They can think about this or say it aloud, yet their free will will let them down. At some point they will take another breath. You’d need a second person strangling you.

@Kravenhead really really?! haha, welcome to the club then. :) have a martini on me!

@mattbrowne that’s another good example. regardless of how complex it is, we really don’t have good reason to believe any part of it can defy the causal laws of physics.

@mattbrowne i guess what it comes down to is that there doesn’t seem to be a “decision” making part of the brain. instead the brain just calculates logic and probability just like it calculates simple math. once a calculation is complete, any relevant actions that must take place will only take place according to the conclusions the brain has reached. one of those conclusions might be that action is necessary. just like how our brain makes us perform the action of breathing or swallowing, or coughing, for example. a logical conclusion itself (aka. a belief) seems to be stimulus enough for an action to occur.

@ninjacolin – The experiments done by Libet are really interesting.

Every action needs reason, even if that reason is unreasonable.
That reason comes from a compilation of information that eventually creates action.
Even action of thought is part of that compilation of information.

Are we not back to the question of something coming from nothing.

What caused the action was a previous action of a previous action.
So what do you think jumped started the process? What cranked the motor?

A bunch of receptors that just needed stimulus to get them going? Get that chain reaction under way?

You’ll probably find this article cute but it explains my layman’s “belief in the unreliability of logic” better than I can. ;-)

The Uses and Misuses of Logic

Extract:
“Formal logic was invented in Classical Greece and integrated into a `system’ of thought by Aristotle. It was, for him, a tool for finding truth, but it didn’t keep him from making the most profound errors of thought. Nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science was wrong and misguided. Any tool can be misused, and in these pre-scientific days logic was misused repeatedly.”

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm

@mattbrowne, libet? link? I think you showed me that some time ago.

@ChazMaz you’re talking about the beginning of the universe there. I have no idea what the first mover was. Thomas Aquinas of course dubbed the term “the first/prime mover” in an argument attempting to prove the existence of God. He spoke of god being the being who would first have to get the chain reaction that caused everything else. When I get home from this trip, i’m going to read that again, it’s been years.

One thing that seems important, don’t exclude time as a part of the universe.

Yea, I did not want to go that far. :-)
Just to the beginning of the thought process.

@MarkyMark – Why are you making a mountain out of a mole hill?

It almost seems to me you are trying to find fault in the grammar of the discussion.

:-)

Oh! lol, well, let me climb back to the present then. haha, i don’t know of course but it seems to me the brain works by associations. a non-lucid dream seems like a perfect example, the way we have no control over them. they just kinda do what they want. one idea turning into the next.

it’s as if whatever we think of, our brain-cursors can’t help but make us think of peripheral ideas too. so, anything you take in via the 5 sense will uncontrollably trigger a peripheral thought.

but in any conscious (present) moment, we don’t seem to be able to control what it is we happen to be thinking about in that moment. it’s like a brain version of the uncertainty principal.

@MarkyMark what can I gleam from a logic paper about the worthlessness of logic? am i suppose to believe it’s arguments that arguments aren’t pertinent? lolol. I read it anyway. well, lots of it.

What I’ll say about it is that misuses of logic already have a name: “fallacies.” It can be discovered over time that some piece of logic isn’t logical. It can be discovered that some facts are not facts. Regardless, whatever you happen to Believe is a fact and whatever you happen to believe is logical, will affect you as if you believe that fact or bit of logic.

I’ve been saying all along: It seems like there is no free will. Maybe one day a piece of evidence will come along that can discount this argument. But that piece of evidence certainly isn’t available to me right now. And without it, I’m incapable of believing that we have free will. I’m affected, as above, by what seems logical and factual at this moment.

And those most apparent facts are:
– It is not possible to act contrary to how I believe I ought to act in a given moment.
– It is not possible for me to decide what I believe.

Hence, it seems that we have no free will.

@ninjacolin Ha! Thanks ninja… just a little rewording of an old saw. :)

@ChazMaz Not at all, my friend. Not at all. Grammar are the least of my concerns. :-) I love watching (and sometimes throwing a spanner into) an interesting debate. I’m just trying to inject a little constructive doubt into an argument that seems to be a bit heavy on logic and low on ‘real world’ proof and experience. Else we’re just building castles in the air. I’ve been alive long enough to know that reality cares not a rats-ass about the beauty of your and my logic.

;-)

constructive doubt is important. however, i don’t find this claim realistic: an argument that seems to be a bit heavy on logic and low on ‘real world’ proof and experience.

in what way is the argument lacking in real world proof and experience?

I think the discussion itself is proof enough.

@Kravenhead at what point did it become evident to you exactly? what made it easier to grasp?

@MarkyMark why do you think you still disagree? what is causing you to disagree?

@ninjacolin To recap in a nutshell, what you are saying may make logical sense (1+1+1=3, and YES, people are influenced by gathered and stored information), but… MOVING ON.. regarding your conclusions about changing the behaviour of people – That (from my experience and common sense) is not the way things work in the real world. People are not ONLY influenced by gathered and remembered information. People have the capacity to filter and process information from past experiences, memories and beliefs. It’s called reasoning capacity or rationality. (Filtering: accept, reject, modify [separate the wheat from the chaff then grind the wheat into flour]). It does not have to be 1+1+1=3. It can be 1+1+1–1+3=6 with the subtraction of the 1 and the addition of the 3 representing the input from the thinking, applied mind – the reasoning capacity.

(Whether people actually use this reasoning capacity or not is the difference between a person who is a slave to their past experiences, superficial perceptions and indoctrination [e.g. religious fundamentalists and racist bigots] on the one hand and a fully functioning, intelligent human being – open to new ideas and in control of their lives on the other hand.)

You are not going to convince me with any tricks or personal challenges so maybe you should let go of that and really try to understand what people are saying instead of merrily repeating yourself over and over again. What may help is if you can come up with some ‘real world’ proof or case studies, maybe something like “Studies at XXX Institute indicate that people when presented with evidence will change their behaviour…..” or even an honest “in my experience I have noted that people…...blah,blah”. Until then (maybe) I will remain unconvinced of what you are saying, especially the practical value thereof.

@MarkyMark said: “You are not going to convince me with any tricks or personal challenges so maybe you should let go of that”

sigh.. well, just watch out for the appeal to authority fallacy as you go about your logical meanderings. (eg. You shouldn’t need a doctor to tell you that you have a headache.) Fallacies are the devil, sneakily always trying to keep us away from truth.

In defense, I have to say that those “tricks” I offered are good evidence meant to help you see how things work internally for yourself. For me, I was concerned whether or not I functioned deterministically or not. Once I concluded for myself how I am I then asked others if it’s the same for them. It was. So the arguments that I’ve been merrily repeating were figured out and I only grow more and more confident in their usage since (so far) everyone i discuss them with seems to have the same conclusion as I do, whether they be philosophers or laymen.
—

anywho, sorry if i seem not to have been listening to you. does this suffice as a case study in filtering? i’m unable to respond to anything that doesn’t register as needing attention. that is, anything that I don’t believe needs to be responded to, I won’t respond to it. Anything I don’t believe needs to be said, I won’t say.

Regarding filtering

Filtering is an action. As such it can only occur based on your beliefs. There seem to be two instances where filtering happens:
– due to a belief that a piece of evidence ought to be omitted or
– due to a mistaken belief that you have accounted for all pertinent evidence.

Regarding Reasoning Capacity

There are courses on formal logic where you can learn to form conclusions with more accuracy. Hence, your reasoning capacity is limited to what you know. If you don’t know anything about computers, how well can you reason on the best way to program an application in Windows compared against someone like Bill Gates?

What you “know” = What you believe. And what you believe determines your actions. And lastly, your actions = your ability/capacity since everything you don’t do (in this view) is what you were unable to do or what you were incapable of doing.

does this make sense? I hope so. If not, then I think you may have to make your point another way so that I can understand it better.

@ninjacolin :
Hey… still slapp’n this thing around I see. :)

Let’s toss this into the air and see what happens. :)

There are a number of respected labs around the world, that have done studies on precognition. What they found was; people, under laboratory conditions, are proven capable of “seeing” three seconds into the future. This was shown to be the case, time after time, in various laboratories. That “seeing” knowledge, or belief if you like, isn’t derived from past experience. It’s knowledge of an event yet experienced. The knowledge materializes independent of experience, and I might add, defies logical explanation. This phenomenon more than strongly suggests, that consciousness is greater than the sum of its generating parts… it’s more, and transcends circuitry and chains of firing neurons. You can apply what ever terminology you like to this aspect of consciousness, but this phenomenon has been observed throughout history, and has now been proven, albeit in a very conservative time frame, under laboratory conditions. The chain of logic that is paramount for the “theory” of Determinism to be true, is missing a crucial link, regarding this phenomenon. This being the case, the premises supporting the argument for Determinism are suspect, to say the very least.

Once caught up in the loop, that these assumed to be correct premises create, it’s difficult to find an exit. Any deviation from the “loop” leads you right back in, due to the conditioning imposed and the pattern of the loop itself. If you change your mind for a moment, in light of new data, you then deduce that the added information caused the change of mind, that the data was convincing due to your conditioning of experience, changing your perspective, which once again leads to the apparent affirmation of Determinism, and the lack of control… a self perpetuating belief and nothing more. These “loops” in logic are common. For example: The problem of traversing the distance between points A and B; with which I’m sure you’re familiar. Logically it appears to be impossible. There is a midpoint between A and B that must be crossed, before one can continue on to get to B. There is also a midpoint, between the midpoint just established and point A, that must be crossed before reaching the midpoint between A and B. Since there are an infinite number of midpoints presented between A and B, that must be crossed before one can arrive at point B, it would seem that we can never arrive at point B. Calculus provides a solution to this problem… consciousness, in its transcendence of brain circuitry, provides a solution to the “loop” of Determinism… an exit ramp.

I would also suggest, that ego is fueling this discussion to some degree, on both of our parts. Ego is a chameleon, and can be difficult to recognize as a participant… it protects itself in that very covert way. I guess the only thing that I can offer you, in the above information, that might be deemed an addendum or an aside to the motives of my ego is, freedom, and the ensuing responsibilities of that freedom…. and wishes for a Happy New Year. =0b..

@Kravenhead I took some time to think about what you’ve said here before I replied. There seems to be some issues with what you’re saying. According to this wiki page on Precognition: “no replicable demonstration has been achieved.[4] Scientific investigation of extrasensory perception (ESP) is complicated by the definition which implies that the phenomena go against established principles of science.[5] Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause.[5] However, there are established biases, affecting human memory and judgment of probability, that can create a convincing but false impression of precognition.[6]”

So, I would need to have a look at these studies that you mentioned. I’ve never really believed in ESP. Besides, even if it did exist, wouldn’t it mean that there was some way that people could know in advance of an event rather than no way? if there’s a way to know, a rule or law in place that makes it happen, then I don’t see why anyone would assume it meant determinism was impossible. Is there still not a cause for the effect of precognition?

@Kravenhead said: Once caught up in the loop, that these assumed to be correct premises create,

@MarkyMark has also been questioning the validity of the premises. I’ve asked you both directly without a response though. Which of these premises do you find to be incorrect? that your actions are always based on the belief that they ought to be committed? or that your beliefs are ever voluntarily chosen? These premises aren’t “assumed” true. They are true. Unless I’m mistaken, and if I am then we ought to be able to produce a single example to the contrary for either.

@Kravenhead said: Since there are an infinite number of midpoints presented between A and B, that must be crossed before one can arrive at point B, it would seem that we can never arrive at point B. Calculus provides a solution to this problem… consciousness, in its transcendence of brain circuitry, provides a solution to the “loop” of Determinism… an exit ramp.

This was a very cool illustration, @Kravenhead. However, it seems more like “consciousness” provides a label for determinism, but not an exit ramp. It’s a word we can use to define this deterministic process, but it doesn’t negate it. Just as Mathematics doesn’t negate the fact that “approaching 0” doesn’t = “0.” It’s practical to an extent but when it counts it mustn’t be assumed to be the same.

For example, if someone tries to attack me, it would be silly for me to assume that no one is at fault for the attack and just continue trying to drink my beer. I have to assign blame to a practical extent. Ultimately, I can zoom in though and figure out more details such as that he is attacking me because of a false belief in his head that I was the one who threw a chair at him first. If I don’t address him and let him know that it was someone else, not only will I be harmed but he may be harmed also.
—

Ego – I dunno. I’m happy to be proved wrong. But my saying so won’t prove anything i guess. Essentially, I don’t think either of us need our egos in a debate. My philosophy is that we can simply go with whatever makes the most sense at the time. We don’t have to worry about being wrong because if we are wrong, someone will correct us later.

As for the argument and it’s premises, I don’t think it’s a senseless endless loop. I think it just makes fairly simple sense. And that doesn’t scare me in any way. I’m happy about it.

happy new year to you too! and to all!

Once again I find a really good question really late. I may as well put my 2 cents in anyway.

I don’t believe in fate but I’m on the fence when it comes to free will. I think that everything that can happen in the universe has already happened. In other words the future has already occurred.

So what this means is that technically I don’t have free will. If I decide to eat that or visit that city, it’s already been chosen. It’s different to fate in that fate is a plan or destiny designed by a creator. Where as what I think is that any decision I make, the universe has already made it. This probably isn’t going to make sense, as you read it, it does in my head though.

Another reason why I don’t think free will exists is because everything that we say, do, hear, think, see and feel is the result of the neurons in our brains. There really isn’t such a thing as a “self” in the sense that our minds are separate or immaterial from our bodies. Every single thing I experience and my thoughts are generated from the processes in my brain, not from my “self”.

“If I decide to eat that or visit that city, it’s already been chosen.”

So since you can deduce the outcome of something, by default, its pre-determination?

@ChazMaz I can’t personally pre-determine what happens next, nor deduce the outcome of something, no one can, but I think whatever it is it’s already occurred in the universe, the past, present and future have taken place. Humans exist only at this point in time so we only know the present and are fortunate enough to have memories which allow us to look into the past. But just because we can’t see into the future doesn’t mean it doesn’t already exist.

It gets a little confusing and will take a lot of time to explain properly and in detail but this is just a theory. I’m not 100% sure, obviously I can’t really prove it, but it makes the most sense to me.

“just because we can’t see into the future doesn’t mean it doesn’t already exist.”

wow, that’s really cool.

“just because we can’t see into the future doesn’t mean it doesn’t already exist.”

Well, it’s a very intuitively satisfying thought, and i’m with you all on the idea of soft-determinism, but I think your use of the word exist is pretty sloppy. In my mind existence is not the same thing as predetermination. If time is linear (or atleast flows from past to future, to satisfy Einsteinian physics) then the future doesn’t exist yet, although it may still be predetermined.

In my head existence implies that something is present at this time. And the future is not present now.

If someone was knitting you a sweater, and you knew it would be finished by thursday, would you say the sweater existed on monday?

“In my head existence implies that something is present at this time. And the future is not present now.”

I would say that is pretty right on.

okay, for language sake, i think @nisse is right. things that “exist” are things that are present now.

the funny thing is though.. it’s kind of always now. even right now, for example. no matter what day or minute you’re reading this it’s still now. it always will be. anyway, this is all tricky stuff of little value, but in this sense it could be said that the future/past/and pesent all exist.. right now.. and also that @HumourMe is contradicting himself since in this view, fate is real. ;)

@MarkyMark said: “People are not ONLY influenced by gathered and remembered information. People have the capacity to filter and process information from past experiences, memories and beliefs. It’s called reasoning capacity or rationality. (Filtering: accept, reject, modify [separate the wheat from the chaff then grind the wheat into flour]). It does not have to be 1+1+1=3. It can be 1+1+1–1+3=6 with the subtraction of the 1 and the addition of the 3 representing the input from the thinking, applied mind – the reasoning capacity.”

@MarkyMark, I wanted to reiterate that I agree with you about this.
Processing of beliefs (memories and stored information) can create new beliefs. However, said-processing only seems to occur based on existing beliefs about how and when and why to process information.

@ninjacolin To try to move this discussion forward, I’ll say that your underlying logic and for that matter, anyone’s reasons why they think determinism is or is not compatible with free will, is almost irrelevant because, for me at least, it’s all idle chat unless it has merit and practical value in the real world.

You’ve drawn certain conclusions about human behaviour and motivation which I happen to disagree with. Maybe you should test them in the real world and let us know the results. That would be interesting. Until then, it’s really all just a “sophisticated” theory.;-)

Hmm.. but I thought I’ve already provided many real world examples.
Both premises of the argument are real world, demonstrably true premises.

I don’t understand what you’re looking for.

@MarkyMark another real world free will problem:

The free will myth makes people believe that their opponents have the ability to “choose” freely to disagree with them. That’s what fuels a lot of impatience when it comes to debates between evolutionists and creationists. Atheists especially have a hard time understanding why creationists don’t agree with commonly held scientific views such as evolution. Because such atheists still believe in the mythological power of free will, they are deceived into thinking that creationists are able to agree with them but simply refuse by choice alone. Meanwhile, the reality is that creationists don’t agree with atheistic conclusions because they are unable to agree. Atheists often fail to recognize that they in turn are unable to agree with creationist views. They fail to recognize in themselves that they have no free will to agree with creationists given the evidence they’ve been exposed to at this point in their lives. They are under the delusion that their beliefs are freely chosen and they expect creationists to do the same. The free will assumption prevents the progress of communication between rivals all over the world across many different issues.

@ninjacolin

There are parts of what you are saying that I agree with and parts that I disagree with.

I agree with you if what you are saying is that free will does not come into the equation when talking about people’s ability to agree with someone else or to change their beliefs. For people to agree or change their beliefs they have to be convinced. Being convinced is not a conscious decision someone makes. I cannot choose to be convinced. Agreed. No free will involved except possibly (VERY IMPORTANT) the decision to listen with an open mind and really try to understand.

What I do not agree with is this.You seem to be saying that convincing people is a simple case of “exposing them to evidence”. I think that this is an unacceptable over-simplification because if this were true then what about people who, having been “exposed to the same evidence”, still hold opposing views. This happens in debates – obviously. Another common occurence: Two siblings growing up in the same society, same upbringing, same education, same evidence – still one is a creationist and the other an atheist. A mere presentation of evidence is not enough to convince someone. There are more factors involved. Factors that cannot be dismissed. Human factors. In order to convince, the evidence should be compelling and resonate with the individuals own perceptions of reality which comes from their own experiences (memories), beliefs, intelligence and character.

There’s another way that they might be convinced; If they see the other person as an authority and simply take their word for it (whatever “it” is). But that’s not likely to happen unless they are satisfied with the other person’s credentials and of their own ignorance on the particular subject. In this instance, some free will might be involved in the decision to accept the other person’s word for it. This is possible – and even desirable in a training environment – but it is obviously not the ideal attitude a person should have in everyday life. It is better to encourage a healthy skepticism and independent thought.

What I’m saying is that while free will has little or no relevance in actually convincing people, it does come into play in how we approach challenges in our lives. The atheist/creationist can choose to listen with an open mind and they can choose to make a sincere attempt to understand each other. The question is; will they? Will they give it a serious attempt or will they shrug and go “What’s the point trying. It’s all predetermined.”? This is a mistake that people who don’t believe in free will make. They never try. They make no attempts to rectify a situation because they believe that they are powerless. That’s called apathy or indifference and we know that a apathetic attitude towards life never helped anyone. There’s enough of that going around and we certainly don’t need more of it.

@MarkyMark said: The atheist/creationist can choose to listen with an open mind and they can choose to make a sincere attempt to understand each other. The question is; will they? Will they give it a serious attempt or will they shrug and go “What’s the point trying. It’s all predetermined.”?

Okay! :) I believe what you are neglecting is that that “choice” of whether to listen with an open mind or not, is actually what I’ve been defining as an “action.” Yes, In a given moment, you either Will take the action of listening with an open mind or you Won’t. And it will be processed within a split second in your brain this way:

—If in that moment you happen to believe that “listening with an open mind” is accomplished by paying close attention, by examining the evidence and arguments presented by your opponent, and weighing them honestly in your mind against all your other beliefs.. AND

—If in that moment you happen to believe that “listening with an open mind” is an act that is in your own best interests to do for this opponent.. THEN

—You will take the action of listening with an open mind. No choice involved.

Notice the formula? Your many beliefs available to you in that moment are what will coerce your actions in all cases that I’m aware of. Your beliefs in every given moment that you are alive equate to your “choice.”

Unfortunately, knowing how to “try” to listen or reason is a skill (a set of practiced beliefs) that some people have learned well and others have learned not at all. If they lack the necessary beliefs about how to listen or reason well, they will act on whatever shoddy beliefs they happen to have about how to do so. And if they don’t happen to be very intuitive, then the result will fallacy:

1) The actions of someone who does not know how to listen well or how to reason well, will be affected by their false belief that they are good listeners and/or good reasoners when they actually aren’t: Ignoratio elenchi
Example: “yea, yea, I’ve heard about you evolutionists. you guys believe man came from monkeys, which is laughable!”

2) The actions of someone who does not believe you ought to be trusted will be affected by their belief. In general this is known as a fallacy of relevance and it takes many forms: ad hominem and ad populum (or bandwagon fallacy) are the ones that apply most.
Example: “you aren’t my priest so I’m not going to listen to anything you have to tell me about evolution.”
—

Apathy is the utter lack of belief that a given action will produce a worthwhile result. If you don’t believe taking an action will benefit you, you won’t do it. You will be apathetic towards it. And of course if you believe not doing the action will benefit you, then you are “opposed.”

@MarkyMark said: Will they give it a serious attempt or will they shrug and go “What’s the point of trying. It’s all predetermined.”

They will only do this if they don’t understand determinism: This is a strawman.

If you want your kids to learn math, according to determinism, what needs to happen for them to learn math? Can they just learn it by choice alone? No! They need sufficient events to occur to provide them with the knowledge of math. Hence, they need to go to school. Education is the consequence of going to school. If they don’t go to school, the consequence will be that they will remain ignorant. Determinism doesn’t stop. There is always a consequence for every action including the action of standing still.

Our belief in those consequences forces us to take the action of putting our kids through school. Our belief in the consequence of not paying attention forces us to take the action of paying attention when crossing the road. Our belief in the testimony of our parents when we are young, forces us to take the action of putting cookies out for Santa Clause… so on and so on.

Apathy does not exist where knowledge and awareness exist.

it’s important to understand what i mean by Evidence:

Data presented to a [person] in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, objects, experience, and/or arguments.

“Data presented to a [person] in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, objects, experience, and/or arguments.”

And, even with that information you might not come to the same conclusion.

BUT the conclusion you do come to is a product of the data given (now in your head) and that which your noggin already contained.
Funneling together and causing an action/reaction.

^exactfully! :)

@MarkyMark have a look at this story about twins and how their lives diverged
Note the causes for their divergence throughout their life.

Two twins growing up in the same religion, schools, and even basketball teams will end up living separate lives simply because they’re still going to take in different evidences throughout their lives. They will meet different people, have different conversations, they’ll even have different perspectives of the same dinner table at meal time depending on where they are sitting.. all of this means that while they have similar memories and beliefs, they still will have different memories and beliefs. And those subtle differences in belief and memory will create very noticeable differences in their behavior.

The only way for 2 people to take in and process the exact same evidence is if they are looking through the exact same pair of eyes, using the exact same brain while doing so: You would have to be the same person in order to observe the exact same evidence.