POLL: Do you believe in free will, determinism, or both?

[Onno]

Free will.

[senecadawg2]

Great song

[Chino]

Your brain is nothing more than a difference engine. Every decision your brain makes is a result of the computation of an unfathomable number of variables. Nothing is random. From the moment your brain develops, it starts firing electrical impulses. Each impulse is triggered by one before it. You can't choose which neurons you want to fire, nore can you magically initiate a firing sequence. Even when you think you've come to a difficult decision, your brain went with the option is did due to a series of predetermined events. You could rewind the clock to as many times as you want and the result would still be the same.

[MykeHavoc]

Rewinding the tape wouldn't change anything. You would have to interject something to create different results.

I picked both. I certainly think we make choices and all choices have consequences. Actions reverberate and create ripples, effecting our surroundings. That essentially "pushes" things in a certain direction. I think that looking at it like a math equation, eventually the numbers will add up and you may be able to predict the end result. But variables periodically dropped in change the overall outcome.

If you want to use the VCR analogy, imagine having a TV show recorded. It has a determined beginning, middle and end. If you rewind it and make a change by recording something else halfway through, you have now altered the rest of the tape. Continually doing the same thing at various points will make for a very interesting result. Another interesting thing to note is how if you go to a random point on the tape and say record a segment that is shorter than the remainder, the rest then switches back to what was previously recorded. That raises the question about whether dropped in "variances" would ultimately alter the end result. This reminds me of a time-travel theory I read about in one of the Terminator books, that changing the past creates a split. Both strands might over time attempt to combine again and return to a single linear stream... but that gets into a whole deeper discussion.

So yeah, in short, I picked both... just because.

[Ħ]

Your brain is nothing more than a difference engine. Every decision your brain makes is a result of the computation of an unfathomable number of variables. Nothing is random. From the moment your brain develops, it starts firing electrical impulses. Each impulse is triggered by one before it. You can't choose which neurons you want to fire, nore can you magically initiate a firing sequence. Even when you think you've come to a difficult decision, your brain went with the option is did due to a series of predetermined events. You could rewind the clock to as many times as you want and the result would still be the same.

Based on this, determinism seems like the only option. But if there is more to this world than physical objects (such as minds and souls) that don't respond to concrete laws, then that kind of messes determinism up.

[Ruba]

I believe in free will. It makes no sense for me, that at the start at the times, something has decided that I post to DTF on September 14 about how I don't believe in determinism.

[Adami]

I believe in free will.


Not that I have a choice in the matter.

[jasc15]

But if there is more to this world than physical objects (such as minds and souls) that don't respond to concrete laws, then that kind of messes determinism up.

The "minds and souls" you talk about are still events in the brain, which are governed by physical laws.  These sequences are chaotic (which are still deterministic), like weather, and weather is governed by a few basic physical laws.  I suppose this question is another form of asking if there is a god or not, since if you believe that these "minds and souls" exist outside of physical law, then its the same as believing in supernatural forces.

[hefdaddy42]

I believe in free will.


Not that I have a choice in the matter.

[XJDenton]

Neither. We are not deterministic as our brain chemistry no doubt has a stochastic element, but our decisions ultimately obey the laws of physics.

[Chino]

Neither. We are not deterministic as our brain chemistry no doubt has a stochastic element, but our decisions ultimately obey the laws of physics.

So doesn't that mean that physics dictates our brains?

[Ħ]

But if there is more to this world than physical objects (such as minds and souls) that don't respond to concrete laws, then that kind of messes determinism up.

The "minds and souls" you talk about are still events in the brain, which are governed by physical laws.  These sequences are chaotic (which are still deterministic), like weather, and weather is governed by a few basic physical laws.  I suppose this question is another form of asking if there is a god or not, since if you believe that these "minds and souls" exist outside of physical law, then its the same as believing in supernatural forces.

Yes, I'm not talking about our brains (which are governed by physical laws which are deterministic) but minds which are immaterial. I suppose you could call that a "supernatural force". But if immaterial objects like souls and minds exist, we'd have no way to know if they are governed by deterministic laws.

[XJDenton]

Neither. We are not deterministic as our brain chemistry no doubt has a stochastic element, but our decisions ultimately obey the laws of physics.

So doesn't that mean that physics dictates our brains?

Yes.

[bout to crash]

Both, but determinism more in the Skinner way than the God way.

[ehra]

If someone believes that people ultimately have no choice in how they react to any particular situation then wouldn't it be unfair for them to get upset at someone being an asshole to them. It's impossible for them to act in any other way, so it's not their fault. But then I guess they have no choice but to react the way they do, despite supposedly knowing better. That's convenient, I guess.

[HarlequinForest]

If someone believes that people ultimately have no choice in how they react to any particular situation then wouldn't it be unfair for them to get upset at someone being an asshole to them. It's impossible for them to act in any other way, so it's not their fault. But then I guess they have no choice but to react the way they do, despite supposedly knowing better. That's convenient, I guess.

Just because one recognizes that they're essentially a sophisticated organic robot doesn't mean that they can detach themselves from their emotions like an inorganic robot.

[ehra]

So, like I said, they should know better, seeing as how they recognize that supposedly no one has any choice in any of their actions but, wouldn't you know it, they just just so happen to not be able to change how they react to anything either. Except you'd think if they realize the contradictions in their actions they'd be able to do something about how they react, even if just on an ideological level. Even if we ignore adjusting our own reactions to things that happen to us personally, you'd think people would realize things like our entire justice system become pretty questionable if no one is ultimately responsible or at fault for any of their actions. But even that doesn't happen.

Which raises the question of what the point asking questions like this is if you're just going to then say it doesn't matter and you can't do anything about it. A bunch of people who are self aware enough to conclude that they have apparently no choice in their actions beyond a natural reaction to a stimuli, but that conclusion still doesn't change anything when it comes down to affecting anyone's outlook on life based on that realization. Why even care at that point?

[Sigz]

The entire debate is so poorly defined and recursive that's it's essentially meaningless. I mean, the idea is that no one has any choice in their actions because their actions are determined by the state of their brain at any given point - i.e, you put someone in the same exact place 100 times and they'll make the same decision 100 times. Of course, you're defining that person's will as the consciousness that emerges from the interactions in that same brain, so how can you say they aren't responsible? 

Obviously things in our mind we can't control - instincts, thoughts that just pop up, dreams, moments of inspiration, etc. But that's the  point - there's no solid definition of what constitutes a person's consciousness, and so it's impossible to really say what kind of control we have over ourselves in the end.

[kári]

But of course the VCR thing would turn out the same way. 

Why? Random processes like atom decay could turn out differently and influence people's decisions.

[rumborak]

I would even challenge people to give solid reasons that people's behavior is governed by more than the physical brain. What is special about us that requires a whole new unseen force?
We can talk. Well, so can a lot of other animals. We can reason, but so can others too. We show compassion and empathy, but that's not uniquely human either. Is tye simple combination of those things enough to justify a whole new section? I don't think so.

[Chino]

I would even challenge people to give solid reasons that people's behavior is governed by more than the physical brain. What is special about us that requires a whole new unseen force?
We can talk. Well, so can a lot of other animals. We can reason, but so can others too. We show compassion and empathy, but that's not uniquely human either. Is tye simple combination of those things enough to justify a whole new section? I don't think so.

It's a way for people separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. We get put on a pedestal.

[Implode]

People also failed the Star Wars test.

Nobody truly fails the Star Wars test.  Just sit back, have a drink, and relax. 

Yeah. I guess it's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.

Looks like you failed my Star Wars test.

I had a sinking feeling that would happen.

[Ħ]

I would even challenge people to give solid reasons that people's behavior is governed by more than the physical brain. What is special about us that requires a whole new unseen force?
We can talk. Well, so can a lot of other animals. We can reason, but so can others too. We show compassion and empathy, but that's not uniquely human either. Is tye simple combination of those things enough to justify a whole new section? I don't think so.

Remember this thread is not necessarily from the religious perspective. An easy way out of your objection is that animals' minds are not limited to their brains.

[HarlequinForest]

I would even challenge people to give solid reasons that people's behavior is governed by more than the physical brain. What is special about us that requires a whole new unseen force?
We can talk. Well, so can a lot of other animals. We can reason, but so can others too. We show compassion and empathy, but that's not uniquely human either. Is tye simple combination of those things enough to justify a whole new section? I don't think so.

Remember this thread is not necessarily from the religious perspective. An easy way out of your objection is that animals' minds are not limited to their brains.

What indication is there that this is the case?

[Ħ]

Conceptually, it's coherent and plausible based on my experiences in life. There's no "scientific evidence" if that's what you want. But how could you ever expect to find scientific evidence for something outside the physical world? That seems like too high a standard to set.

Plenty of famous philosophers (Descartes, for example) had arguments for the separation of the mind from physical material. Some limited it to humans, others included animals, some even said all objects have a "mind" of sorts (monads from Leibniz). So it's definitely a viable option.

[theseoafs]

So the evidence for your assertion that animals' minds are not limited to your brains is that some philosophers think that could be the case?

[Ħ]

I'm not asserting that that actually is the case. I'm saying that it is a viable possibility.

[rumborak]

Conceptually, it's coherent and plausible based on my experiences in life. There's no "scientific evidence" if that's what you want. But how could you ever expect to find scientific evidence for something outside the physical world?

Actually, isn't that rather easy? You simply show that the brain does something that is not explicable with physics. That shouldn't be too hard if it supposedly happens all the time in the brain.

[Ħ]

I'm talking about minds, not brains. Brains would clearly operate by physics, as brains are material objects.

[theseoafs]

But minds are brains, scientifically speaking.

[Ħ]

No. Minds are outside the scope of science, so how could science makes any statement about minds being brains?

[theseoafs]

Everything that you might think of as a "mind" occurs within the brain.  Thought, reasoning, emotion, memories, self-ness:  they all happen in the brain.  Minds are brains.

[Ħ]

Do they? There's a shitton we don't know about the brain.

[theseoafs]

Yes, all of these things happen within the brain, and neurobiologists study all of them.

Now, I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that we have a very in-depth understanding of how the brain does all of these things.  We do not; the brain is by far the single most complex thing that humans have encountered.  But just because we don't understand very much of it quite yet doesn't mean we have to default to a supernatural explanation.

[hefdaddy42]

But just because we don't understand very much of it quite yet doesn't mean we have to default to a supernatural explanation.

Rather than that, wouldn't it be better to default to "We don't know" than to insist that something you don't, in fact, know is the truth?