Determinism and Free Will

Does science leave room for "free will"?

Does man have a "soul," separate from Nature, that is "responsible" for his actions? When, in the 14 billion year history of the Universe, did this "soul" arise?

Do animals have "free will"?

To what extent is legal and moral responsibility justified and to what extent is it an outgrowth of our primitive desires for retribution and vengeance?

How does our nature and nurture factor into our decision making? What about mental defects? Are we responsible for the inner mechanics of our brain?

Discuss.

 

There are some things that we are responsible for, and there are some things that just come naturally. There has always been a huge debate about nature v. nurture, however I honestly think that we humans have a balance of both, kind of like ying and yang. One can not exist without the other.

 

I would say yes. We all have first hand empirical evidence regarding the existence of free will, since in our everyday lives we are faced with a large number of choices to take. Then I'm not sure specifically what 'science' would say, but perhaps cause-effect, etc etc, therefore our choices are an illusion. To me it's just not conclusive enough, but if you framed the question by saying the question by saying 'Science has absolutely destroyed the concept of free will', then I would say no, so clearly some room must be left for it, not matter how slight that room may be.

If by that you mean a non-physical entity, or something to that extent, I don't believe in a non-physical world due to lack of evidence. It's possible but, even if it were true, we have 0 understanding about this non-physical world so your latter question is impossible to answer.

If you think free-will is derived from mans faculty of reason, and you agree that certain animals have at least this faculty to a far lesser extent, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that they have free will, but to a lesser extent. This question kind of requires a definition of free will.

The real question is, if someones reprehensible actions are entirely out of their control, should they still be held accountable? In any other scenario, the answer would seem no. If Y holds a gun to your head, and tells you to shoot X, to me you really didn't have any other choice, but the responsibility is not on you, but on Y, since they were the ultimate cause of your action. The ultimate cause of your action if you do not have free-will however, can't be attribtued to anyone else this way. You can't say that environmental factors are to blame, as you would be then blaming everyone else, including the victim, but not the person doing the act. So then, what is to blame is your genetics etc. If you accept that you had no control over your actions, but your internal factors are to blame, then you should be held responsible, if for no other reason than the fact you are deterministically immoral, and your existence wouldn't be conducive to the society we want to live in (generally speaking).

Cbf discussing.

 

Isn't the biggest factor in determinism the effect of the beta-principle?

That if you are being controlled/influenced by something else, you are not truly in control? It reads almost irrefutably, but when put into practice it gets a bit hazy.

If you are influenced by your previous decisions and things that have happened to you, are you truly, 100% in control? No, you can't really say you are. Makes arguing against determinism really, really hard.

These aren't your essay questions, are they..?

 

'these aren't your essay questions' he says haha . this topic is too much for me. interesting read though

 

Just watch this and get shrekt if you think there is no free will.

 

I think it's much more likely to suggest that you are simply unaware of the influence that your unconscious mind has over your conscious decision making. Your behavior and psychology derives from physical law.

But isn't any "faculty of reason" contingent upon the physical faculties and natural operation of the body? If all entities are physical, then isn't our brain programming (reason) derived from immutable physical law? How can any will be free if it the consequence of physics/computation?

This is based on the dualist philosophy that you are separate from your surroundings. But science says this is false, as did you when you said you don't accept non-physical explanations.

No, I'm just a big fan of the Socratic method.

Physics doesn't say whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic.

Bohmian mechanics is purely deterministic, with particles existing in a single state at every instant, whereas quantum mechanics (in particular, sum over histories and many worlds) says the universe exists in an indeterminate (superposition) state at all times.

I have no problem with either option. But I don't see how your idea of "free will" (personal causality and responsibility) can be in either universe. The video you posted seemed to be missing the point--dark matter has nothing to do with free will.

Any biologically-conceived notion of "you" as separate from your "environment" is necessarily contrived because biology is an emergent phenomenon of chemistry and physics. If the biological notion of "you" as an "organism" is physically and chemically incoherent, then from where can free will arise?

 

I prefer to think I have free will. Of course, I'm sure it can be reduced to neurological processes or judgment values that basically form a giant equation for how I act. Despite all this, I like to think there is something that is powering my brain; something that provokes my various faculties into action. In a word, something that is myself.

The questions you posed are far too difficult for me to answer. Still, I wanted to share that.

 

Well then I guess you missed the point. The dark matter point was that since we know ~2% of what the universe is made of, the other 98% is dark matter ( might aswell call it muscle power, since we know nothing about it). People actions might be affected by the rest of the 98% of the universe (dark matter). 1 of the counter argument was that if the universe is deterministic then we are no different from a rock that would always land on the same spot when thrown at the same speed,angle etc. For me twins are enough to proove that point as 2 genetically identical twins can end up as 2 very different people. We have free will and for me it sounds a bit stupid to argue that we don't. Watch the whole vid to understand why, or atleast the 1st 20-30min of it.

 

I don't think so. You have an enormous amount of empirical evidence that suggests you are making choices of your own volition. Then you have strong empirical evidence that argues to the contrary. At every step of the way however, it is impossible to deny the existence of free will without first denying the immediate introspective evidence you are receiving.

It is abundantly clear that we are deliberating about the topic of free-will. We are thinking about it. In order to think about something however, one must have the capacity to think. One cannot hold their breath for 10 minutes of one does not have the capacity to do so. The fact that we are thinking implies that we therefore have the capacity to do so. The concepts of should and should not, and finding out whether something is true or not are the same. Action cannot be completed without capacity. Thus if you ask the question whether one should believe in free-will or not, you are invoking the existence of free-will, since free-will is a precondition to your capacity to do that act. Similarly, if we attempt to find out whether free-will is true or not, you are also invoking the existence of free-will. (An attempt to do something implies that you are deviating from your previous course of action.) You invoke the existence of free-will because you have to make a choice to engage in the act of attempting to discover the existence of free-will. To deny free-will in these instances is to deny the capacity that grants you the ability to do these actions. This is an absurdity, if you think about whether you should go to the supermarket or the gym, and simultaneously reject the existence of free-will your thoughts and 'choices' are entirely meaningless and laughably absurd. It is no different from a rock thinking about whether it wants to travel to Mount Everest, or Mont Kilimanjaro. This is an absolute absurdity to consider, because rocks don't have the capacity to think, therefore they cannot possibly make choices. Yet, if humans do not have free-will then the same must be said about humans. Yet your everyday actions presumably contradict this consequence of your presumed acceptance of the non-existence of free-will. When your friends ask you do you want to go out tonight, you would surely not laugh at them for their stupid question since your capacity to make choice is no more than a rocks, ergo, 0. Everyday life only makes sense under a model that embraces free-will, to deny free-will yet continue to live everyday life as if you didn't deny free-will is no more than a contradiction between your actions and belief. Though, I guess there is always consolation in the fact that you had no choice in the matter.

This presupposes a certain view on free-will, so see above. If free-will doesn't exist then your analysis is absolutely right. If free-will does exist, then my analysis seems plausible.

I'd say its more an issue of personal identity, which is rooted in the philosophy of mind. To expand, if we talk about criminal or moral responsibility, would it make a difference if we somehow extracted the consciousness of the murderer and placed him on another body? Who would we be better off punishing? The extracted consciousness, or the murderers original body?

 

I've reversed my position since pilot-wave theory, I now believe, leaves room for free will. Some sources if anyone wants to further debate this point:

I therefore defer to this line of superior reasoning.

And I fully agree with this, although I still have qualms about punishment vs. rehabilitation.