Our actions: "Free Will" or "Determined?"

[Aedak]

A philosophical question...

Do you think our actions are a result of free will (free will = a choice, given the exact same circumstances we could choose differently)?

Or, do you think our actions are determined (determinism = choices are decided by our collective experiences: heredity, environment, biology, and education)?


I also pose another separate statement followed by a question.

When we perform subconscious daily habits such as brushing our teeth or holding a spoon/fork when eating, our brain subconsciously makes a choice (or decision) to use one hand instead of the other. Then also, there is an example of using the same fork in a different hand when also using a knife. When our brain subconsciously makes these decisions time after time, are these acts of free will? Or are they determined by our heredity and environment (our upbringing and collective experiences up to this point); subconscious choices hard-wired into our brains due to billions of years of evolution instead?

Edit: List your position and reasons why please. I'll just say I consider myself a determinist and I'll explain why later.

[User6773]

RE: Our actions: "Free Will" or "Determined?&

Free will.

If we had no control over our actions there wouldn't be consciousness, in my opinion. It'd be a state more like sleepwalking, or being drunk, or whatever.

And if we have no control over our own actions, then what is the difference between sleepwalking or not, etc.?

[Aedak]

Determinism isn't saying we do not have control over our actions. It is saying we do make choices, but these choices are based on our experiences (based on a cause), and we are not capable of free will..

Given the same situation, our same mental state, determinism states that we could not choose differently (given the same exact circumstances and situation) because our experiences up to that point would cause us to choose one way.

Let me give an example: Let's say you have always wanted to go the Caribbean for a vacation, in fact you're passionate about visiting there. One day, you win a free trip to the either one of two locations: Jamaica or Japan. Someone who supports free will might say, "Well there is always a choice, they might choose either." I would have to disagree as a determinist and say that the collective experiences influence, shape and ultimately make the decision; which in this case would be to choose the trip to Jamaica over the trip to Japan.

Let me make it clear determinism should not be confused with predestination (the belief that events are predetermined by some personal power) or fatalism (the belief that events are predetermined by some impersonal cosmic force or power). It refers to the idea that all events are caused.

[blahblah18]

Well just so you know, you're confusing 2 issues aedak.. there's the determinism vs free will issue here and you're overlapping it with free will vs instincts, which is quite a different story... Having actually taken a course on this subject, basically I still can't offer any better opinion then I did before taking it (oh those philosophy departments)... but still, you can go to psychology to see that instincts and subconcious (not unconcious I hate you Freud) drives exist but those are outside of the realm of what I think you want to discuss here. john Locke posed this question back in the day (220 years or so about), and I'll update it a drop to use telephones .... Ok, so a man is trapped in a house, and he's supposed to make a phone call at 5 PM, but unbeknownst to him, at 4:59 someone cut his phone line... Does he still have the "choice" to call the person at 5:00 or not?
If he decides he doesn't feel like calling them anyways, did he actively make that choice? I know thats a kinda subtle example but its a great starting point for any conversation about free will vs determinism.. and Aedak, determinism definately says we have no control over our actions, by definition it means that since the Big Bang, everything has been predeteirmend, and its root is in physics... Basically the main logic behind it these days is that everything is made up of particles, and whether or not we can track the motion of said particle, we do know that it has a specific motion... and then there is nothing beyond these particles that make up who we are, that make up the synapses in our brain, etcetera...So since the big bang, the motion and position of all these particles (be they atoms, quarks, what have you) is a constant, so that covers that.

Thats enoguh for now, but I can also go into the Time Travel argument, which though maybe absurd soudning if one hasn't done the research, is quite valid. Basically, time trave is technically possible, its been proven that wormholes exist theoretically, and since time is just another axisx of movement, it should have no inherent property, but if we're given knowledge of our future, then there really is no choice to change it...

There are also a billion arguments on the free will side, but they're not as fun

[Tasselfoot]

i don't see much of a difference.... EVERYONE makes decisions at least somewhat off of past experiences. if i slept with a girl with VD, and then later was faced with a similar situation, i think its pretty obvious that i wouldn't make the same mistake twice. also, jamaica vs japan is a matter of personal preference. some people would rather one over the other, and OF COURSE ones past experiences play a factor in the decision. if i went to jamacia last year it will influence my decision. if i hate yellow people, that would influence my decision.

there is no such thing as a 100% unbiased opinion, unless you are blindfolded and throwing darts at a wall of choices, and even then, one could argue that certain choices are more likely than others based upon their location on the wall. say the ones near the ceiling are less likely to be hit, due to gravity.

i don't get the point of this debate, as i don't see any possible way for there to be "free will" under your definition. and i sure as hell don't see a need to create a word to describe me deciding to buy 2-ply vs 1-ply TP. 1-ply makes my rectum bleed.... and yea, i learned that through experience.

[Aedak]

Well just so you know, you're confusing 2 issues aedak.. there's the determinism vs free will issue here and you're overlapping it with free will vs instincts, which is quite a different story...

Not really. I separated it into two different questions as topics for discussion, not to confuse issues.

Ok, so a man is trapped in a house, and he's supposed to make a phone call at 5 PM, but unbeknownst to him, at 4:59 someone cut his phone line... Does he still have the "choice" to call the person at 5:00 or not?

Yes, if he has made the choice to call the person, he has still already made that choice at 5:00. However, the option to call is no longer available to him. He may then (depending on his education and such) decide to use a cellphone or make another choice or decision; possibly to not make the call. However, I can see how you might see this as both free will, or lack thereof. I do like the example however.

Aedak, determinism definately says we have no control over our actions

Actually it doesn't. Determinism says we are responsible for our actions, our mind is still making the decision and making a choice based on all the combined experiences of our life. This doesn't mean we have no control over what we do; as that would be absurd. This isn't about whether or not the choices made are our own. It's about whether or not the choices are made by free will or are determined by our (once again) combined experiences. Meaning, we are going to make a decision based on our experiences and knowledge of both the current situation and those in the past.

by definition it means that since the Big Bang, everything has been predeteirmend, and its root is in physics... Basically the main logic behind it these days is that everything is made up of particles, and whether or not we can track the motion of said particle, we do know that it has a specific motion... and then there is nothing beyond these particles that make up who we are, that make up the synapses in our brain, etcetera...So since the big bang, the motion and position of all these particles (be they atoms, quarks, what have you) is a constant, so that covers that.

Determinism is completely separate from predestination and predetermination. They are two totally different concepts, so please don't confuse the two.

There are also a billion arguments on the free will side, but they're not as fun

True, but I'd like to hear some of the opinions of other determinists too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

i don't see much of a difference.... EVERYONE makes decisions at least somewhat off of past experiences. if i slept with a girl with VD, and then later was faced with a similar situation, i think its pretty obvious that i wouldn't make the same mistake twice. also, jamaica vs japan is a matter of personal preference. some people would rather one over the other, and OF COURSE ones past experiences play a factor in the decision. if i went to jamacia last year it will influence my decision. if i hate yellow people, that would influence my decision.

Of course it is a matter of personal preference! That is the whole idea behind determinism! That's exactly what I'm saying here. It is that depending on your experiences, you are going to make a decision based on those experiences, not of on free will. If it were free will, you could disregard your feelings and experiences aside and choose objectively.

there is no such thing as a 100% unbiased opinion, unless you are blindfolded and throwing darts at a wall of choices, and even then, one could argue that certain choices are more likely than others based upon their location on the wall. say the ones near the ceiling are less likely to be hit, due to gravity.

This is true, but it helps to support determinism as well. Based on your experience (with knowing how a dart should be thrown, whether or not you are skilled at it), you will make a choice where and how to throw the dart.

i don't get the point of this debate, as i don't see any possible way for there to be "free will" under your definition. and i sure as hell don't see a need to create a word to describe me deciding to buy 2-ply vs 1-ply TP. 1-ply makes my rectum bleed.... and yea, i learned that through experience.

Well it's not my definition...

Free will: The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

This basically says that your choice is made without regard to anything else. Personally, I find it hard to swallow. The definition I gave was from one of my philosophy professors.

[Tasselfoot]

fine... in summary... i see no way that your definition of free will is possible. it is not possible for someone to completely ignore everything they have learned and experienced in their life when making a decision. and, the fact that if that was the case... we would spend our entire life deciding, because we make millions of decisions every day.

the main thing is, i don't see an argument. free will, based of your definition, is impossible. therefore, you can't argue for it.


as far as the time travel and wormhole topic... i'm an astrophysics minor, so i know that area pretty well. and its amazingly fascinating, although unrelated to this thread. the fun thinkings of wormholes needing anti-matter with the energy of the planet Jupiter just to keep a man-sized hole open. i definately don't see any hyperspace travel happening in our lifetimes, since by our current physics, its impossible. and until we can prove that c isn't the fastest anything can travel, we can't go chill with the Marklars.

[aleco]

I say both.

Humans are weak. We can't understand anything at all. I really don't think there is one definite way we are made.

[blahblah18]

Tass is right... your argument is very flawed... your weird definition of determinism doesn't really clash with the standard notion of free-willl, there's no A vs B...you're just stating that there's no such thing as "randomness" which is very different then free-will... think about the differences for a bit

[Aedak]

Tass is right... your argument is very flawed... your weird definition of determinism doesn't really clash with the standard notion of free-willl, there's no A vs B...you're just stating that there's no such thing as "randomness" which is very different then free-will... think about the differences for a bit

I don't know why you say it's "my" definition. It's straight out of the book. This is the definition of free will...

[Tasselfoot]

no. its A definition of free will. different books will define different concepts differently based upon what they are trying to convey. please don't tell me you assume textbooks are unbiased and all knowing. they are far from either.

if you want the most unbiased opinion, check the dictionary. and even that is not 100% unbiased.

for the heck of it, i checked free will on www.dictionary.com it gave back 3 meanings:

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.



1. A will free from improper coercion or restraint.

To come thus was I not constrained, but did On my free will. --Shak.

2. The power asserted of moral beings of willing or choosing without the restraints of physical or absolute necessity.




the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencie



see... you are referencing the 1st definition.... all the rest of us are using the 2nd. and, i'd venture that the majority of the american populace would give a definition more closely resembling the 2nd than the 1st. so... a definition is not always correct. or, it is correct, but not the primary meaning. like the word "ass". primary meaning is a Donkey.... we all know who personifies the 2nd.


edit: we all say its your definition because you are the one giving us the definition. hence, to us, it is yours.

[jazzmosis]

Free Will - to a point. We, in our minds, have the choice in a situation (for example: someone asks you directions to a place you don't know.. you could give them false directions or tell them you don't know.), and it is our active decision on which course of action (ie: the above example) we can take. Determinists would say that there was no choice, that regardless of the situation we will always only have one course of action that we WILL take. But that's like killing someone and then saying that there was "No other course of action". If we were all Determinialists, the world would quickly dissolve into anarchy based solely on human nature to be barbaric towards one another.

Anyways, the point I'm making here is that fundamentally, Determinism does not work, nor can it exist - because regardless of any situation, we will always have at least two choices. (To live or to die, or to do "task" or to not do "task")... the outcome may be the same for either choice you make, but the fact is you actively made the choice to do whatever it is that you did/didn't do. Just because the outcome can be the same doesn't mean that it didn't matter what you did/didn't do.

In my opinion, Determinism is just like a scape goat for responsibility (like the killing someone example.)

So, we do have Free Will, but it is limited by the physical boundaries we have. For example: We can't jump into the air and fly, no matter how hard we try, or if we jump off a cliff.. that's not flying, that's just stupidity and falling.

-Jazz

[Aedak]

Free Will - to a point. We, in our minds, have the choice in a situation (for example: someone asks you directions to a place you don't know.. you could give them false directions or tell them you don't know.), and it is our active decision on which course of action (ie: the above example) we can take. Determinists would say that there was no choice, that regardless of the situation we will always only have one course of action that we WILL take. But that's like killing someone and then saying that there was "No other course of action". If we were all Determinialists, the world would quickly dissolve into anarchy based solely on human nature to be barbaric towards one another.

Right about the part where there is only one course of action. But, society would not dissolve into anarchy. In fact, instead of putting people in jail, we should be addressing the 'causal' issues, which are the environment people grow up in.
i.e.: Growing up in the slums of Washington D.C. as opposed to the suburbs of FairFax, Virginia. If we can alter the causes, maybe we can alter the choices people will make.

In my opinion, Determinism is just like a scape goat for responsibility (like the killing someone example.)

It's just the opposite. Everyone has an obligation to be more responsible by overcoming their experiences and hopefully learning from them. I wish there were a thing such as free will, but the more I think about it the more it seems free will is nothing more than illusion. I think the topic is much more complicated, and you maybe just brushing it off. Anyway, you're probably right, it's a difficult concept to stomach.

[blahblah18]

damn it this is really annoying me... the term determinism is being interchanged with predeterminism here... Aedak, I"m not sure you even see it, because you just talked about it in last point when it was being used as predeterminism... come on, its kinda obvious and i'm done arguing it

[Aedak]

damn it this is really annoying me... the term determinism is being interchanged with predeterminism here... Aedak, I"m not sure you even see it, because you just talked about it in last point when it was being used as predeterminism... come on, its kinda obvious and i'm done arguing it

I do, and this thread isn't going where I wanted it to go. So I'm done here... The next thread I make will probably involve alcoholism is and why it is an addiction and not a disease (as the ignorant seem to believe).