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.
I consider myself a physicalist, so determinism makes more sense to me.
Quote from: "jduster"I believe in determinism, though I am not a fatalist.
I don't understand. You're an atheist...and you
believe?
Quote from: "i_am_i"Quote from: "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
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.
Quote from: "jduster"Quote from: "i_am_i"Quote from: "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
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.)
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.
Quote from: "i_am_i"Quote from: "jduster"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?
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.
i added the definitions
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.
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!
Quote from: "ablprop"Fuzzy Navel!
I knew you were going to say that.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.
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?
Quote from: "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?
I'm not sure how a druggie's will and desire to get off drugs would be different from any other will or desire. Our will can change but I don't think that's ever fully under our control. In the case of the druggie, there are some underlying beliefs and concerns in the subconscious (or conscious) about his or her drug addiction which makes it undesirable.
The poll constitutes a false dichotomy, which may be why some peeps are having trouble answering. The universe is most definitely not deterministic, although a degree of determinism is allowed* through probability**. This actually has little to say about free will, however. I have good reason to suppose that free will is no more than an illusion, not least because of the robust evidence of unnoticed phenomena that affect our day-to-day decisions without our ever being aware of them:
[youtube:2qh35tma]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1OVhlRpwJc[/youtube:2qh35tma]
In reality, determinism doesn't rule out free will, it rules out will altogether. Lucky that there's no reason to think that the universe s deterministic then, eh?
* Allowed, not certain.
** Quantum uncertainty rules out determinism, but quantum events are highly predictable through probability distributions, which is what allows a degree of determinism.
Quote from: "hackenslash"In reality, determinism doesn't rule out free will, it rules out will altogether. Lucky that there's no reason to think that the universe s deterministic then, eh?
How so? Determinism is pretty much viewing all events as cause and effect. Nothing effects your will? It is driven entirely by itself, free of influence? Wouldn't that require we be born with a blank slate?
There's an interesting article in the Times (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/the-end-of-knowing/?hp) by a humanities professor about, as Jerry Coyne had summarize it: 'when monkeys make a “decision,†their neurons register it before they’re conscious of it. That implies that the “decision†isn’t really a conscious oneâ€"that is, it doesn’t conform to our notion of free will." If their decisions are an
effect,
caused by something out of their control how is this freewill? And how does this defy Determinism?
Quote from: "Sophus"How so? Determinism is pretty much viewing all events as cause and effect. Nothing effects your will? It is driven entirely by itself, free of influence? Wouldn't that require we be born with a blank slate?
In that case, there are examples of non-determinism: virtual particles and radioactive decay, both of which seem to occur spontaneously.
Quote from: "Sophus"Quote from: "hackenslash"In reality, determinism doesn't rule out free will, it rules out will altogether. Lucky that there's no reason to think that the universe s deterministic then, eh?
How so? Determinism is pretty much viewing all events as cause and effect. Nothing effects your will? It is driven entirely by itself, free of influence? Wouldn't that require we be born with a blank slate?
There's an interesting article in the Times (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/the-end-of-knowing/?hp) by a humanities professor about, as Jerry Coyne had summarize it: 'when monkeys make a “decision,†their neurons register it before they’re conscious of it. That implies that the “decision†isn’t really a conscious oneâ€"that is, it doesn’t conform to our notion of free will." If their decisions are an effect, caused by something out of their control how is this freewill? And how does this defy Determinism?
Perhaps have another read od my post. What I said was that it rules out will altogether. If the universe is deterministic, in the Laplacian sense, then there is no will, free or otherwise.
BTW, what you described was not determinism, but causality. Determinism is pretty much viewing everything as fixed, with only one outcome. That is definitely ruled out at the quantum level, and bear in mind that, in QED, uncertainty extends to macroscopic levels.
I don't believe in free will or determinism.
Due to truely random events like atomic decay, the universe cannot be deterministic. What appears to be the case is that the universe is mechanical, yet accommodates random input. In other words, without such random input the universe would be deterministic.
What this means is that yes, we are machines devoid of free will, but the future is not written in stone. It is wide open, and we are free to explore it.
So you need to include a poll choice called Stochastic.
I do believe in determinism and free will in a modified sense. I am a believer in compatibilism. The universe is usually deterministic which allows for us to weigh options but causation is NOT the same as compulsion.
The problem with many hard determinists is that they keep the original folk psychology of free will as having to be dualistic and then declare that is the end of it. Also blaming our brains instead of ourselves is nonsensical and is aking to blaming our hands for stealing. We are our brains and their is no distinction.
Also as anything in the physical world a scientific Free will is going to be spread over time and space in the brain. The moment your brain (you) make a decision and the time it takes to alert the rest of your brain and know about it takes time hence the lag between decision being made and reacting and "knowing" about it. Our brains make decisions effected by our own reasons and they do deliberate based on our experiences and past thoughts. Of course once a decision is made in the physical world that is our brain it cannot magically be stopped and that is the problem with the old style of a soul based free will.
Again "Freedom Evolves" by Daniel Dennett explains this position well.
QuoteThe universe is usually deterministic which allows for us to weigh options but causation is NOT the same as compulsion.
My nature is something that was thrust upon me without my consent. By definition, I am compelled to follow the dictates of my nature.
There is no free will.
I believe in determinism. Recently, I had a chat with a fellow professor (he teaches philosophy) over a few bottles and I told him that I am an atheist and determinist. He then pointed out that it is incoherent to be an atheist and determinist at the same time. He argued that determinism entails knowledge of the future. Knowledge of the future entails a knower. The knower is god. I never had the chance to reply because my wife called me and when I went back the topic was off.
Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"I believe in determinism. Recently, I had a chat with a fellow professor (he teaches philosophy) over a few bottles and I told him that I am an atheist and determinist. He then pointed out that it is incoherent to be an atheist and determinist at the same time. He argued that determinism entails knowledge of the future. Knowledge of the future entails a knower. The knower is god. I never had the chance to reply because my wife called me and when I went back the topic was off.
He's wrong. Determinism doesn't require foreknowledge, it requires only that the future have only one possible path.
It might be an interesting discussion to have with him, actually. Many amateur philosophers (properly theologians, rather than philosophers) suggest that equating foreknowledge with determinism commits the modal fallacy, and they would be right in most circumstances. The modal fallacy, however, doesn't take into account the impossibility of an entity such as an omniscient deity being wrong. If the foreknower cannot possibly be wrong, then the future is set, and determinism holds, refuting the accusation of committing the modal fallacy, or the modal fallacy fallacy, as I like to call it (it drives the navel-gazers wild).
Perfectly accurate and infallible foreknowledge definitely does entail determinism, but the obverse is not true. It is possible for the universe to be entirely deterministic (it isn't, which is a categorical fact, empirically demonstrated) without the attendance of said foreknowledge.
Quote from: "hackenslash"Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"I believe in determinism. Recently, I had a chat with a fellow professor (he teaches philosophy) over a few bottles and I told him that I am an atheist and determinist. He then pointed out that it is incoherent to be an atheist and determinist at the same time. He argued that determinism entails knowledge of the future. Knowledge of the future entails a knower. The knower is god. I never had the chance to reply because my wife called me and when I went back the topic was off.
He's wrong. Determinism doesn't require foreknowledge, it requires only that the future have only one possible path.
It might be an interesting discussion to have with him, actually. Many amateur philosophers (properly theologians, rather than philosophers) suggest that equating foreknowledge with determinism commits the modal fallacy, and they would be right in most circumstances. The modal fallacy, however, doesn't take into account the impossibility of an entity such as an omniscient deity being wrong. If the foreknower cannot possibly be wrong, then the future is set, and determinism holds, refuting the accusation of committing the modal fallacy, or the modal fallacy fallacy, as I like to call it (it drives the navel-gazers wild).
Perfectly accurate and infallible foreknowledge definitely does entail determinism, but the obverse is not true. It is possible for the universe to be entirely deterministic (it isn't, which is a categorical fact, empirically demonstrated) without the attendance of said foreknowledge.
You could also point out that if the Knower already has everything planned out...it's a pretty cruel plan. Does he have a quota on suffering or something?
Quote from: "hackenslash"It might be an interesting discussion to have with him, actually. Many amateur philosophers (properly theologians, rather than philosophers) suggest that equating foreknowledge with determinism commits the modal fallacy, and they would be right in most circumstances.
That's why I said he only teaches philosophy. I don't consider him a philosopher. He might be a theologian because graduated from a seminary.
Ah, then perhaps it wouldn't be such an interesting discussion after all.