Free Will vs. Determinism

[jduster]

I believe in determinism, though I am not a fatalist.

Determinism is the universal belief that all events are inevitably caused by preceding events determined by natural law and that there is no such thing as chance.

Free Will is the ability of humans to sometimes make choices that are not determined by prior causes.

[Will]

I consider myself a physicalist, so determinism makes more sense to me.

[i_am_i]

I believe in determinism, though I am not a fatalist.

I don't understand. You're an atheist...and you believe?

[jduster]

I believe in determinism, though I am not a fatalist.

I don't understand. You're an atheist...and you believe?

Yes, that's correct.  I am an atheist and I believe in determinism.

I do not know for sure, which, free will or determinism, is correct, but since there is no consensus or strong evidence against determinism, I have a good reason to believe it.

All one needs to do to be an atheist is to not believe in the existence of a deity.  That's it.

So me believing in determinism does not conflict with me not believing in a deity

[Sophus]

I've been a Determinist since being introduced to the works of Schopenhauer. Now it seems neurology is constantly pulling toward that direction as well.

[i_am_i]

I believe in determinism, though I am not a fatalist.

I don't understand. You're an atheist...and you believe?

Yes, that's correct.  I am an atheist and I believe in determinism.

I do not know for sure, which, free will or determinism, is correct, but since there is no consensus or strong evidence against determinism, I have a good reason to believe it.

All one needs to do to be an atheist is to not believe in the existence of a deity.  That's it.

So me believing in determinism does not conflict with me not believing in a deity

Well, okay, I can see that.

Determinism, that's the belief that the universe is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time, correct? (I confess that I had to look it up.)

[DropLogic]

I think a lot of people get confused with the concept of free will.  Some argue that free will doesn't exist because you can't do whatever you want.  What they're missing is the concept of cause and effect, and consequences. Certainly you can forgo paying all your bills, neglecting your health..but there are consequences.  So free will does exist...it just isn't realistic as a philosophy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I believe in determinism, though I am not a fatalist.

I don't understand. You're an atheist...and you believe?

Atheists hold many beliefs.  What they lack is faith.  The two are different things.

************

I'm unsure where I stand on this question.  I'm not well-read enough in philosophy to know the arguments in-depth, but it seems to me that with our ability to reprogram our brains, even from a physicalist's point of view we seem to have the ability to change the conditions in our brains, giving us at least an indirect form of free will.  How else to explain a druggie in the throes of addiction who decides to quit, struggles for half-a-year, and then turns the corner?  Isn't he rearranging the molecules in his brain to bring about a desired result?  What about the placebo effect?

[Asmodean]

Free will up to a certain scale. On a large enough scale, many, if not all of our actions are pre-determined by past actions of ours and those of our surroundings and plans for future actions. On a personal scale, though, free will works well enough.

[jduster]

i added the definitions

[Moses]

I think what is very helpful in this debate is the book "Freedom Evolves" by neurscientist Daniel Dennett. He is a friend of Dawkins and Sam Harris. He is also a determinist but is a believer in free will but of a physical variety and not a soul based version.

[ablprop]

I remember as a kid, before encountering Heisenberg and the idea of uncertainty, having a long, drawn-out argument with several friends about the nature of randomness. My argument was that randomness didn't exist. Even rolling a die, I argued, was deterministic if we could know everything about the details of the toss. They never really got what I was trying to say.

My argument fell down for me when I considered a human in the equation. Surely I could alter how hard or soft I threw the die, and no one could predict that. Then I started to think, or at least wonder, if even that was determined by something. I mean, something would cause me to throw the die with a particular speed in a particular direction. Could that something be the result of chemical reactions (thoughts) all day long in my brain leading me up to that particular moment?

Later I did encounter the idea of quantum uncertainty, that there were certain "dice" (radioactive nuclei would be one example) that really couldn't be determined. The information literally did not exist. The question is, can this indeterminacy be extrapolated to the macroscopic world?

At any rate, it doesn't really matter, because life feels like free will, whether it is or isn't. I can choose a course of action that is totally - booger! - totally unpredictable. See? Of course, maybe that was just building up this whole time, and if I had enough knowledge of myself - artichoke! - I could have seen that coming.

Estes Kefauver!

Fuzzy Navel!

Lake Titicaca!

[The Magic Pudding]

Fuzzy Navel!

I knew you were going to say that.

[Sophus]

I'm unsure where I stand on this question.  I'm not well-read enough in philosophy to know the arguments in-depth, but it seems to me that with our ability to reprogram our brains, even from a physicalist's point of view we seem to have the ability to change the conditions in our brains, giving us at least an indirect form of free will.  How else to explain a druggie in the throes of addiction who decides to quit, struggles for half-a-year, and then turns the corner?  Isn't he rearranging the molecules in his brain to bring about a desired result?  What about the placebo effect?

Placebo effect is the brain tricking itself, not you tricking your brain. During the time the person would have a will, say to get better, but how much control do they really have over the belief that the meds they're getting aren't real? Anyone who starts to really suspect it, or simply entertain the idea, may not get better. And once they learn it was a placebo can they "choose" to get better by taking it then? The way I see it, they're still being controlled by factors they have no control over.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fair enough, I can see your point.  Any thoughts about the druggie quitting?  I'm not talking about one in court-ordered diversion, but one who simply decides he's had enough?