The Indeterminacy of Free Will

Hi ferrous -- welcome to A2K. I love to think about impossible things. Your opening quote "God Does Not Play Dice" really caught my attention. I wasn't aware of the Stephen Hawking quote that opposed Einstein's quote. I also love the Alice In Wonderland quote. Unfortunately, I'm not well-read in the Physics area, although it was one of my favorite college courses. We discussed motion and energy. And magnetism. I started to type "the laws of", but then deleted the phrase. It didn't seem to fit with "randomness".

JL, I hope you can retrieve your post. I don't have a clue about finding the clipboard.

JL,

The copy post to clipboard button performs the CTR A (select all) and CTR C (copy) functions.

This will save the text to your computer clipboard.

To use what's saved just press CTRL V (paste) where you want to use it.

In this case you paste it in the reply form and resubmitt.

I doubt it's still saved in your clipboard but maybe this will help for future reference.

free will
Craven de Kere, thanks for a more detailed instruction. It STILL is too ambigious for me to use. What I cannot understand is why the "post to clipboard" opportunith says that we could EASILY retrieve the information lost. Frankly, this is more difficult than answering the debate regarding determinancy and free will. I just try to rewrite the opinion and not use the clipboard option in the future.
This is not to criticized the programmers of this program. I think they are good enough to be hired by SD6.

free will
O.K., I give up. The simple message which I lost twice (once without clipboard assistance and once with it) is that I do not feel that a discussion of the validity of quantum mechanics theory is likely to be fruitful given that the subject involves tremendous technical preparation. The "free will vs. determinism" issue, on the other hand, is, for an old codger like myself who has argued for free will at least 45 years now, a false issue. It's no more empirically verifiable (i.e, each argument is no more falsifiable) than the question "which way is the earth going, up or down?" I personally have always FELT free in making my choices, even with Freud's revelation (actually they are Dostoyevski's and Nietzsche's) of the dominance of unconscious forces in human behavior. All that matters to me is that I FEEL free. Determinism rests on certain notions of the reality of "causation", an idea ontologically refuted, I think, by David Hume. Determinism (causation) is a set of assumption supporting notions of how to "explain" existing phenomena as "effects" of antecedent conditions ("causes"). That's fine and useful--working useful fictions--but to convert it into a metaphysics of determinism is going too far. And, on the other side, free will is a notion, nothing more, that describes our feelling of autonomy, whether or not justified. Besides, how would a society such as ours function if it could not hold people responsible for their actions. If the Devil of determinism makes us do what we do, then we'll simply have to get rid of our penal system and put up with all kinds of disruptive actions. If Einstein failed to construct his unified field theory after 30 years of effort, he, as a determinist, should not be surprised: he should know that it was meant to be, just as his futile effort was meant to be. I hope this gets posted.

JL, I hate to admit that you now have me hooked on a part of this question. Can you site chapter and verse where Hume discusses the reason why the law (if I may use that term) of causation cannot be converted into a metaphysics of determination. I've read as much before, but have never read Hume on the subject. If you don't know the exact location of his remarks, that's okay, don't fret. I will still continue to exercise, with total abandon, what I take to be my freedom to think and choose as I please.

free will
Hazlitt, I'll have to get back to you on the precise source. It is probably in Hume's book "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding." As I recall he used an example of billiard balls. He said that when one ball "strikes" another, causing it to move, we call the FORCE transferred from ball 1 to ball 2 the causal force or determinant of ball 2's movement. But, as I recall, he said that we do not actually SEE that force, we THINK it. It's a theoretical not an empirical conclusion. What we actually SEE (empiricism) is ball 1 move up to ball2 and stop. THEN we see ball 2 move. We did not see cause we hypothesize it as an explanatory determinant . When I said that it is useful to "explain" things (effects) in terms of preceding things (events, conditions, etc.) or causes, this does not justify expansion of this methodological procedure into a metaphysical feature of the universe. That was my notion, although who knows what influenced me to come to that conclusion.

JL, Thanks. Please don't take the time to look this up. I think I know how to find it. It strikes me that you are probably right in your conclusion, but I still want to read Hume.

The Devil of Determinism
To quote: "The sun isn't going down, the horizon is moving up." (Firesign Theater)

Excellent points. You have moved the argument from the physical to the ethereal. In the realms of thought, there are no boundaries. To deny "Free Will" is to dismiss man's capacity to conceive and his ability to make decisions.

"Love is blind," or so the quote says. Do we consider the complexities of "Love," determined?

Is it our "Free Will," that allows us, each to accept our own beliefs?

I do disagree with you on your idea of "the Devil of determinism. What ever our beliefs, to live in a civilized society, we must abide with the accepted social morals. Not through anarchy, but social evolution, can we accept change.

Our "Free Will" determines whether we live an honest life or one of deceit. It is our choice. To deny this, is only us, not accepting responsibility for our actions.

Again, thanks for your response. It's fun, to sit around once in awhile and think of some of these impossible things.

Sometimes, they seem to make perfect sense. (Isn't that a frightening thought?)

free will
Ferrous, thanks for an interesting spread of ideas (although you misunderstood my use of "devil of determinism"). When I think further on the matter of free will and bring into it some notions taken from the Eastern perspective--as far as I understand it; and I refer to Asia, not New York--I come up with something a bit better than my: "whether or not we are free, the important thing is that we feel ourselves to be free."

In Taoism, a basic principle is that we are spiritually well when we act in accordance with our true nature, when our actions are "natural" not forced or artificial (whatever that means). In the Gita this principle provides a recipe for preventing "bad karma." Karmic consequences result from un-natural actions especially actions with ulterior motives or attachments. When we behave in accordance with our true nature, are we free? Consider that "our nature" is a set of conditions that governs our actions when they are "natural," and that when our actions are not natural they are governed by external or alien conditons. Either way our behavior is determined. BUT, when my action is determined by MY nature, not that of external things, I consider that a form of freedom.
But--to take a major step foward--mystical thought can only be expressed paradoxically: for example that thought (as I understand it) tells us that -our TRULY true nature is that of the Cosmos. Therefore even when my actions are forced by external conditions, they still reflect my nature, but at a universal level of being. So, even when I am suffering the karmic consequences of "un-natural" behavior I am still spiritually well. I just don't know it, because I feel suffering and do not want (my ego doesn't want) to suffer. When I accept ("amor fati") and understand my suffering for what it is, I am a "liberated" person. I have come to see all the contradictions in this position to be merely subtle paradoxes. I once heard that the zen master, Shunryu Suzuki, told some students, when he was dying of cancer, that they should not feel bad when they see him wincing from the pain of his cancer--He said something like: When you see me suffering, "I" am not the one who is suffering; it is the Buddha [his--and our--true Cosmic nature] that is in pain. At least that's my understanding for the time being.

oxide;
ferrous; greetings, I'm sure we will soon get this all "ironed" out!
Oops sorry.

Let's face it Einstien was wrong; being a genius just means you're right more often than most, not always. Actually he was rather simpleminded on some subjects (take god for example).

Current science has now realized that chaos reigns, and determinism was a wet dream.

To me this implies totally free will; free, that is to defer to the myriad influences of modern society; the spiritual 'flavour' of the month, the need to appear "chic", the "not standing out in a crowd" syndrome, etc., etc.,........... Being "IN"!

Actually a rather scary thought;..........or somewhat empowering, your choice.

determinism
BGW, a wonderful (sophisticated) pun; I DO wish you had had the confidence in us not to have put IRON in quotes. I love also your "wet dream" reference, but is it not also possible that, on the other side of the issue, Einstein's heirs think the quantum mechanics perspective is also a wet dream? By the way, chaos is not a requisite of free will, at least they do not necessarily imply one another. I'm going to be away for about 4 days. This will give me time to (re)consider this.

Current Science?
Which current science, the one that has recently claimed to have cloned a baby?

As to call Einstein wrong, I wouldn't be so presumptuous. Do we really know that much about the nature of things to exude confidence that we now know all of the answers?

As for Einstein's views on religion (ie: God)

Here's a little quote from the old guy"

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."
- Albert Einstein

JL
Now you have me thoroughly confused.

More like throwing a Monkey wrench into the middle of this argument…

If we are to argue for "Free Will," then we must hold on to the concept of our own determinacy in the passage of our "Self."

If we now accept "amor fati", must we not abandon our wants and desires? Where is our "own" determinacy of "Free Will," once the self is gone, and we set upon the path to "Nibbana?"

I was confused by the time I got to the second sentence of the first post.

I don't know whether I joined this forum out of free will or not. I resisted the temptation for a while, but eventually a mind shaped by genetics, education and years of experiences reacted to a combination of circumstances, and I was impelled to read and respond. Could I have done otherwise, given who I am?

I'm not sure that I can even be held responsible for being the person I am, if "I" was determined by biology, the circumstances into which I was born, critical events and choices which may have been inevitable.

I do not believe that the exact makeup of the universe or any individual was predetermined since they depend on quantum interactions which are not predictable, but I suspect that our reactions to events are constrained by programming that we do not fully understand or control. The ability to make good decisions can be impaired by psychosis, mental defects, brainwashing, drugs, disease, injury, and age. It can be enhanced by education, experience, exercising self-discipline, feedback and reinforcement.


JLNobody, you asked "how would a society such as ours function if it could not hold people responsible for their actions. If the Devil of determinism makes us do what we do, then we'll simply have to get rid of our penal system and put up with all kinds of disruptive actions."

We would hold self and society jointly responsible for the actions of each individual. Disruptive action would not be tolerated, but treatment of the causes of negative behavior, reeducation to provide internal motivation for positive behavior, and incentives to rejoin society as a productive member would replace the pointless incarceration of people for an arbitrary amount of time.

Whether or not we have truly free will, the belief (instilled by secular education or religious tenets) that we have an ethical obligation to act for the common good may be sufficient to elicit that behavior, with rewards, threats of punishment, and other behavioral controls used as necessary.

free will
Terry, thanks for an interesting post. I do think that whether or not determinism or indeterminism is the proper model of the world, we will continue to behave AS IF we were free and responsible to make choices--and take personal and legal consequences involved. What interests me is that we seem to have two models working at the same time. Most people "feel" (relatively) free, and feel that a free-will model is necessary, either on religious or legal grounds. At the same time I know of noone who is willing to say that ANY behavior can possibly be uncaused or that any action we make is a PRIME cause, meaning an action that has no ANTECEDENT determinants. This suggests to me that we humans are able to live quite well with the contradiction between two opposed working models (causation/determinism and free-will/indeterminism) simultaneously. Yet we also seem to be philosophically obligied to CHOOSE between them as the "realistic" model of life. I try avoid this debate because if determinism is the realistic model there is no reason to debate: our respective conclusions have been pre-determined. And if indeterminiam (in the form of free-will) is the realistic model there is also no reason to debate, because each of us is (freely) "choosing" to take one position or another.

free will
One more thing. I suspect that causation is a notion that reflects more the nature of our minds than that of the world. Just because we cannot imagine the world of events as being "uncaused" does not mean that the events of the world ARE all caused. This is what I meant earlier when I suggested that the logic of causation is a way we have of organizing our thoughts about the world, not the organization of the world itself. Quantum mechanics has provided observations that contradict this assumption, and many of us have been scandalized by them. Someone earlier even branded the indeterminism of that school of thought as a "wet dream." I would suppose further that causation is a particularly HUMAN way of perceiving and understanding the world. Fundamentalists who assume that this is also the way God thinks are blasphemous, shrinking God to the size of our brains. If grasshoppers could see for a second into the minds of birds, they would be scandalized and shout out: quantum mechanics!

Although I am not conversant with quantum theory or with Einstein I had numerous discussions about the freedom of the will when I was an undergraduate philosophy major thirty-five years ago.

To me the key to free will is self consciousness ie. our ability not merely to be aware of ourselves in some general way as I imagine higher animals do, but rather to be aware of ourselves in the fullest sense, to be both self and observer of self.

Then, in the agony and anguish of choice, in the struggle with ambivalence, in the act of choosing, we experience our human freedom.

free will
Jjorge, you've introduced an important dimension to the discussion. But I fear it does not free us from the trap. If I'm very self-conscious, that is to say aware that there's a "me" who is trying to weigh factors to come up with a desireable outcome (for ME), that certainly accounts for our feeling of being a free agent who is choosing, and that's exactly how I/we do feel, unless we're suffering from serious psychological problems. Nevertheless, the determinist will simply argue that the self-consciousness itself is caused, and therefore, determined by something outside of the self. Descartes said "I think therefore I am." Someone answered "I think that I'm thinking therefore I think that I am''--and this illusion is "caused" by something outside of the thinking and the self. I don't know. I feel that there is the experience of thinking and there is the experience of a self that is thinking. I am only aware of experience. Nothing else.

JLNobody interesting post.

you say;

"I feel that there is the experience of thinking and there is the experience of a self that is thinking. I am only aware of experience. Nothing else."

If there is the experience of a self that is thinking and you are only aware of experience then the "self" is an experience, not the experiencer.

The experience cannot be the experiencer because it is being observed and the experiencer is the observer. The experiencer is never the experience.

Whatever experience I have it is never the experience of the awareness or consciousness.

Awareness is in a subject--object relation in which the awareness is never an object to itself.

So who has or does not have free will if we never encoumter the subject?