Determinism vs Freewill

[horaciocs]

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a fierce defender of scientific thinking (he declares himself an atheist) and another friend brought up the subject of freewill. My atheist friend promptly said there's no such thing as freewill, he said we're all programmed to respond to stimuli based on our past experiences.

At first, I tried to defend (in my mind) my previous notion that freewill exists and gives us freedom to do whatever we choose to do. However, soon I realized I couldn't deny the fact that his ideas made sense. I mean, our actions are indeed a result of all our past experiences being put face-to-face with all stimuli our current situation presents us.

I think there are tons of variables involved in decision making (not infinite, though, but probably dating back to when we were born), but when looking back into all I've ever done, given the circumstances involved in each of my actions, there was no way the outcome could have been any different in any of them. It's as if it was meant to happen that way.

The thing is, there are soooo many variables involved, it is practically impossible to predict how a person is going to react to a certain set of stimuli, which creates the impression that our actions are unpredictable. However, I can't say it is, theoretically, impossible to. Can you? Doesn't that kind of take away all the joy we get from thinking we're being able to control our lives and make our own decisions?

This is quite disconcerting, for if all there is is determinism, our fates are sealed! I often catch myself wondering what it is that commands my thoughts. Are they commanded only by the external stimuli I'm subject to? What is it that injects these thoughts into my mind? Or aren't they "injected" at all, but a mere product of the environment I'm in?

Exerting real freewill may consist of freeing your mind from the cage that being caught up in the physical loop of "conscience" may represent. Do you see the loop here? We're determined to respond to stimuli based on all we've been exposed to previously. Since our thoughts and actions are a product of previous experiences, we will keep on acquiring new experiences based on our previous ones, but exerting no real control over our actions! Think of the way pidgeons react when you feed them popcorn. We behave just like that, but in a scale thousands of times more complex! Automatically, just like a computer would! (Maybe it's better to think of the loop not as a loop, but rather as a never-ending chain of thoughts)

There is a chance that this might be what the so called "awakening of conscience" is all about. Freeing yourself from this chain of events. Awakening the commander that lies within  each of us and allowing it to take control of our minds. Now how do we do that?


*Maybe this belongs to the Integral Philosophy forum, I don't know.

[CFTraveler]

Why does it have to be 'all or nothing'?  Why is it that most people think freewill means being able to do anything and everything one wants to do and be able to? If freewill really meant this, it wouldn't exist, because in the act of being alive there will always be something you can't do- you can't stop breathing, you can't jump off the grand canyon and expect to fly, etc.
So why does having your biology determine some of your reactions to some of the things that may possibly happen to you sometime mean there is no freewill?
Argh.

[Stillwater]

Many contemporary philosophers think free will and determinism might be compatible, so they are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. The reason for this comes from a common reading of the concept of determinism to read as, "Everything happens for a reason" ie., a determination. So if you viewed most of nature to be inanimate, and mechanical, under this view of determinism, there could only be one possible outcome for any given event that does not have conscious agency involved in it. But any event involving conscious agency would also be determined, but determined by the choice of those making decisions, and furthermore, it would not have been a necessary choice, unlike the necessary results of mechanical events in nature. I don't necessarily agree with this viewpoint, but it is one that several notables hold.

The major problem people trying to defend free-will outside a determinist framework face is explaining why things involving choice happen at all. It is simple when you are dealing with a pre-determined event, as under most deterministic theories, since the reasons are all spelled out, they are the laws of nature and the current state of the universe. But when you are dealing with choice... why did one thing happen, and not another? What caused you to make that particular choice? There could be no cause, or you would be back to determinism. But if there was no cause, then why did it happen?

The thing is, once you have been in philosophy long enough, you start to lose your own views, lol. You just start to think of possibilities, and alternatives. You favor some, and shy away from others, but never really have definitive veiws. This was true of most of the philosophers I have known, at least.

[Jarrod]

Maybe mechanical things in nature are determined.  So the question is what sets us apart and allows us to use this "free will"?  Everything that we have is a part of the system of nature; our bodies, and also our minds.  If you wanted to view everything in nature as predetermined then the only thing that could operate out of free will would be something not in the system of nature, i.e. something that does not really exist: You, the observer, the consciousness itself.  When you engage in your mind you're being a part of nature and are thus bound by it's determinism.  The only way to be free of that is to free yourself from your mind, become enlightened.  Philosophy is fun Haha. but usually ultimately pointless.  I like to play with it but not really care about the "truth."

[Pauli2]

We are all at least controlled by our I-Theres, so free will is with great modifications.

[horaciocs]

After posting here, I had a conversation at home that gave me another perspective on that. You take a child, for instance. The main difference between them and adults is the extent to which their conscious, rational mind is developed. They have their dreams, their wishes, and behave in the natural way children are known to behave. As they grow old, they tend to over-develop their rational mind and put aside that dreaming portion of it, having it buried deep inder their controlling minds.

On other posts, I have talked about our true intentions and desires. I refered to them as being hid under the several layers of fears and conditionings made up by our rational mind. Now, however, I see those true desires ("what your heart has to say") and the rational mind as two separate things. There is the rational and the "emotional", and we tend to stick to the rational only.

I think freewill might come down to being able to choose to live your emotions or to set them aside and stick to the rational only. It is the right balance between both, though, that provides us with an optimum experience.


Edit: Let me put it in a different way. Think of the rational mind as if it were a computer. It receives numerous variables from its environment and ponders all of them in order to decide upon its next action. We receive different kinds of inputs that lead us, in a general way, towards the rational model or towards the "spiritual", or intuitive model. It is the influence from the environment (other people's actions we perceive) and our impressions on it that direct our behavior. My experiences have led me to these forums, where I receive a great amount of influence towards the intuitive model. I, then,  have become progressively more prone to consider that this is a path worth pursuing, as long as my experineces confirm that. I end up being caught up in a chain of thoughts that lead me to considering that leaving the rational experience behind can give place to a valuable experience.
Eventually, I think I'll reach a point where I'll honestly think that I can let my rational mind rest for a while while I live my emotions, free of the constant analysing and judging done by the rational mind. I think that this is what the awakening of the conscience means. To be able to step outside the rational mind process and to introduce the intuitive mind into our day-to-day lives.

[grzazek]

Our universe is constrained by a strict set of laws, which appear to have not changed since the time our universe came into existence. There are patterns which occur repeatedly all throughout nature, such as the Fibbonacci numbers. Stereotypes exist because similar people do similar things. Free will simply does not exist. It's like a plane flying autopilot. The plane might spend 5% of the time actually on course, the other 95% of the time is spent correcting itself, but it ends up at the same destination. In that way the 'free will' we possess is simply an illusion. Sure we have the freedom of choice, but on a large scale that choice would have always been the same.
Sad but true..?

[CFTraveler]

Horacio, I seem to be objecting to your posts in this thread.  Not sure why, but here goes-

After posting here, I had a conversation at home that gave me another perspective on that. You take a child, for instance. The main difference between them and adults is the extent to which their conscious, rational mind is developed. They have their dreams, their wishes, and behave in the natural way children are known to behave. As they grow old, they tend to over-develop their rational mind and put aside that dreaming portion of it, having it buried deep inder their controlling minds.

I disagree.  I'd say 'as they grow older', because the dance between the rational mind and the emotional mind are not linear and progressive- I'd say it's more like a curve.  In your twenties you become 'more rational' but in your forties the trend starts go go a different way.  I can say that in my case I have become more dream-driven and emotional after I hit my forties, and in my family at least, old people are not rational at all.  In both good and bad ways, old people overcome the lessons learned and go back to not caring that much about consequences, which are a function of the 'rational' mind.

On other posts, I have talked about our true intentions and desires. I refered to them as being hid under the several layers of fears and conditionings made up by our rational mind. Now, however, I see those true desires ("what your heart has to say") and the rational mind as two separate things. There is the rational and the "emotional", and we tend to stick to the rational only.

Also disagree.  I believe the choices are different at every moment- the problem is that most of the time the rational is remembered because of the outcome.  Who knows how many dreamers jumped off the plane and didn't come back to tell the tale.  You get my drift.

I think freewill might come down to being able to choose to live your emotions or to set them aside and stick to the rational only. It is the right balance between both, though, that provides us with an optimum experience.

Here I agree with you 100%

[horaciocs]

Read the edit! Just posted it!

[CFTraveler]

Free will simply does not exist. It's like a plane flying autopilot. The plane might spend 5% of the time actually on course, the other 95% of the time is spent correcting itself, but it ends up at the same destination.

There's that all or nothing thing again.  

Sure we have the freedom of choice, but on a large scale that choice would have always been the same.

Disagree.  Freedom of choice is freewill, on an individual level.  Free will is about individual experience, not large scale experience.
We all end up dead anyway doesn't mean no freewill- it just means we have x amount of choices until we die- I guess my idea of freewill and your idea of freewill are vastly different.

[CFTraveler]

Read the edit! Just posted it!

Gotcha.  And now I feel like doing the same and going for a walk.  Cheers!

[Stillwater]

Philosophy is fun  Haha. but usually ultimately pointless.

I would say that this is very far from the truth. Probably the greatest fruit of philosophy in history has been to disabuse people of the notion that they know particular things for certain. When certain ideas, particularly religious ones take hold of a society, they can direct the course of its history, as the Abrahamic ones have done for more than 2000 years. Philosophy gives the tools for showing people they cannot conclusively prove things they thought they knew, and would have acted on. Descartes, Hume, and others provided ideas about uncertainty regarding the senses as a source of information, and the innability to use induction as valid tool for argument, and these ideas led directly into the scientific enlightenment.

I am not at all saying that this religion or that is untrue, but I am saying that holding the conviction that what you believe is proven beyond doubt is a dangerous notion, and philosphy has helped us break free of that position.

I disagree.  I'd say 'as they grow older', because the dance between the rational mind and the emotional mind are not linear and progressive- I'd say it's more like a curve.  In your twenties you become 'more rational' but in your forties the trend starts go go a different way.  I can say that in my case I have become more dream-driven and emotional after I hit my forties, and in my family at least, old people are not rational at all.  In both good and bad ways, old people overcome the lessons learned and go back to not caring that much about consequences, which are a function of the 'rational' mind.

I agree with this CFT, I have observed this to be the case too. Old people and children have much in common- children live in a word before ration, and older people have sometimes, with effort or experience, learned to look past ration the guiding principle of the world. I guess a few dreamy artist-types may maintain this position all along.

[horaciocs]

Horacio, I seem to be objecting to your posts in this thread.  Not sure why, but here goes- I disagree.  I'd say 'as they grow older', because the dance between the rational mind and the emotional mind are not linear and progressive- I'd say it's more like a curve.  In your twenties you become 'more rational' but in your forties the trend starts go go a different way.  I can say that in my case I have become more dream-driven and emotional after I hit my forties, and in my family at least, old people are not rational at all.  In both good and bad ways, old people overcome the lessons learned and go back to not caring that much about consequences, which are a function of the 'rational' mind.

I meant to grow older, in the sense you are using it, actually. My English let me down over there    I can see how people tend to get less rational as they go old, becoming more and more receptive towards life. That's grandpa described on a sentence  

Also disagree.  I believe the choices are different at every moment- the problem is that most of the time the rational is remembered because of the outcome.  Who knows how many dreamers jumped off the plane and didn't come back to tell the tale.  You get my drift.
Here I agree with you 100%

I think that could be so, but then I guess those dreamers you're talking about are the ones who have already gone through the awakening of the conscience, possibly without even noticing it.

I think freewill only presents itself to us when we awaken our consicences to our intuition, our true self. We get, then, to choose whether we want to keep that experience or to dismiss it. I think that is freewill.

[blis]

If we were just physical entities then free will would be imposible. So you can never win the argument with a hardcore atheist.

I totally agree that you need to be aware of your true self to be able to regularly excerscise free will. So many of us are slaves to our minds, emotions and instincts because thats what we identifiy our selves to be.

It's damn hard to constantly excercise your will. Our conditioned minds are so used to running the show that most of the time we're just back seat passengers. But we have a Will, and our minds and bodies will obey it. We just need to train them to obey.

The teachings and excersices in this free ebook on raja yoga have greatly helped me in realising my true self and excerscising my will over my mind. I can easilly silence my mind now(something I used to struggle with).

The book is rather old fashioned and dated at times, it was written at the turn of the century by William Walker Atkinson under the pseudonym of yogi Ramacharaka. I'm sure there will be much better books on raja yoga out there but it's free and has much wisdom in it.

[horaciocs]

Hi there, I'm reviving this thread. There are updates on my theories. I'm becoming speculative, you were warned. But it fits my way of thinking at the moment. Here it goes:

If all there was to life was an automated routine, there wouldn't be much point in living, would there? Pretty boring, right? However, I can't think of a way the rational mind can escape it. The only way for new information to be brought in would be through the unconscious mind. Where does that information come from? I say it comes from different non-physical sources, be it a entity that happens to be accompanying you, your spiritual guide or, in the ideal scenario, your higher self (I mean the ideal scenario because that's who you are, it's your true essence)

Now take the reincarnation system: our higher selves, our true conscience, planned this incarnation of ours in order for us to go through determined experiences so that it could learn something through them.

My idea is: When we plan our incarnations, things work much like when you create a character at a "The Sims" game (Remember that? You choose many different attributes and then throw your character into the world, controlling its actions from "above").

Just imagine it: your higher self created this character that is you and put it inside this world we live in under predetermined circumstances. Then, it kept watching you from above, TRYING to control you through your intuition. I say "trying" because the great majority of people are totally oblivious to its commands due to this world's rational culture which takes intuition totally for granted.

If one trusts his intuition enough, though, I think he might feel what it is his true self wants him to do. What actions to take, decisions to make, and so on. I don't think our physical egos are supposed to evolve spiritually. I think our physical egos must trust their intuition (meaning to hear their higher selves) and behave the way they feel  they are supposed to. That way, our higher selves are the ones who will learn through controlling their physical egos' experiences.

** I came up with a nice analogy of how it all unfolds on a giant scale: take the whole universe and shrink it to a table-sized game board. The board contains all physical structures and creatures that exist. Your higher self walks up to the board and throws in his character after carefully assembling it. After that, all variables are set and the game begins. Your higher self will keep on trying to direct you to do what it originally meant for you to do, but it can't just push his character towards something, there's no touching the board. He will direct it through its intuition, and if his character is assembled properly and is in condition of listening to its intuition, it will behave accordingly, doing as his higher self ordered him to. That way, things will go as your higher self planned and he will learn from the experiences he is living through his character. Otherwise, his character will go on as it was programmed to and there won't be any real-time control over its actions, making its experience much poorer that it should be. Will you listen to your coach or will you keep on going full-automatic? **

I've come up with a blog I'll be using to keep track of my ideas. It'll be nice to look back and see how my way of thinking changes.

[Stillwater]

Yeah, that is a common approach to the problem- saying we can still have determinism, but the thing making determinations in the case of rational creatures is an immaterial mind. But that, in a way, might be begging the question, since the problem simply rises to the next level, and we then have to consider if these immaterial minds or substances are free or pre-determined; because if they are pre-determined, the answer is simple, they just do what they do because their actions are shaped by immaterial laws; but if they are free and able to make multiple choices, then the problem is back, and just as massive. If immaterial minds were free and able to make choices, then what would cause them to make one choice over another? If nothing was forcing them to, how would you justify what happened?

[bluremi]

An "immaterial mind" is not a good explanation for the free will question. Try explaining the concept of an immaterial mind to someone who's suffered a stroke and now has a completely different personality because of physical changes to their brain.

I guess it depends on what spiritual beliefs you subscribe to. If you're dead set on believing in a conscious soul that is somehow thinking thoughts separately from your physical mind, you're forced to believe in free will. There's no way to prove or disprove this theory so it's somewhat of a show-stopper if you're trying to have a discussion.

If you're more of a scientific materialist, there's room for an interesting discussion. One place where the rubber meets the road is criminals: if we are really matter reacting to stimuli, no matter how complicated those stimuli/reactions are, then those criminals were destined to commit their crimes at their moment of conception. Should they go free because they didn't choose to be born criminals? Absolutely not. Personally I think we can accept that free will is an illusion but still behave as if it exists.

There's some wiggle room if you think about quantum physics. I hate to bring up a topic I know so little about, but if there is true randomness at the atomic level then there's are possibly true undetermined outcomes in your brain matter, and thus your decision-making process. Whether this rolling of the dice equates to free will is another question altogether.

[Stillwater]

An "immaterial mind" is not a good explanation for the free will question. Try explaining the concept of an immaterial mind to someone who's suffered a stroke and now has a completely different personality because of physical changes to their brain.

The stroke example is a strong argument for materialism, but still not a disproof of other suggested solutions to the mind-body problem. A proponent of mind-monism, for instance, could retort that perhaps the person's mind was participating in a physical simulation-type reality, in which the the mind and brain are intimately tied, but still not insepparable in the greater paradigm.

if we are really matter reacting to stimuli, no matter how complicated those stimuli/reactions are, then those criminals were destined to commit their crimes at their moment of conception. Should they go free because they didn't choose to be born criminals? Absolutely not. Personally I think we can accept that free will is an illusion but still behave as if it exists.

Yes, I have often said this too. One of the reasons I don't believe in concept of punishment qua punishement is that there is no way to be certain that people are infact responsible for their actions, and capable of having done otherwise. I am okay with people being isolated for a time to protect other potential victims, but not in a harsh manner, or as punishment. More like quarantine, I guess, and only for the length of time necessary to know that they are not a likely danger.

I guess it depends on what spiritual beliefs you subscribe to. If you're dead set on believing in a conscious soul that is somehow thinking thoughts separately from your physical mind, you're forced to believe in free will. There's no way to prove or disprove this theory so it's somewhat of a show-stopper if you're trying to have a discussion.

This is not true, since as I have pointed out, immaterialists are also subject to the same problems the materialist faced, just one level of reality higher. They still need to explain how immaterial substance is capable of making choices, since how would they justify the reason for one choice being made, and not another, if there was a possiblity for each to be made?

There's some wiggle room if you think about quantum physics. I hate to bring up a topic I know so little about, but if there is true randomness at the atomic level then there's are possibly true undetermined outcomes in your brain matter, and thus your decision-making process. Whether this rolling of the dice equates to free will is another question altogether.

Yeah, that is a big grey area. I think my reason wants to side with the idea of "Bohmian mechanics", which states that quantum events only seem to have the appearance of randomacity because we do not fully understand all the forces, effects, and phenomena that happen at that level. For instance, say that there are vastly small sub-sub-atomic particles that are always coming into existence from the quantum vacuum, to fulfill some need of equilibrium in mass-energy topography, but then immediately self-annihilating with their anti-particles. This would saturate the sub-atomic landscape with unpredictable amounts of raw energy to be absorbed, and perhaps explain why those quantum events seemed to be occuring seemingly at random. I don't think quantum mechanics has found the finger of God, but rather just stumbled into a realm where our theory is jumping too far ahead of the ability of our current instruments to measure.

But perhaps these events truly are "random", and an insertion point for metaphysical influences. Who knows.

[Jarrod]

I think quantum physics is knocking on the door to where objectivity and subjectivity meet.  I found this article a while back

http://www.integralscience.org/psyche-physis.html

It brings together psychology and quantum physics.  I won't pretend to understand everything it talks about but it was a fairly mind-bending read for me at some points 

[Taoistguy]

Thanks for that link.
It definitely makes sense to me and it's what I've been thinking for the past 20 years. As science tries to discover the smaller and snaller 'stuff' of the Universe, evetually it will sink in to them that It's an 'illusion'. And there are more and more books being published about and around this area with more and more people reading them, it's spread across the internet; the world is slowly 'waking up' to the Reality of What is.