Total Posts:107|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Free Will / Determinism / Compatabilism

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...
President of DDO
n7
Posts: 1,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 4:37:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I was a hard determinist for quite a while. More leaning towards compatablism nowadays though. It just seems like the proper conception of free will can coexist with determinism.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Tokamak
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 5:41:00 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

I think that determinism makes sense because I haven't gotten a good idea of what free will even is ontologically.
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."
-Voltaire
jsmill
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 6:06:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

Soft determinist
Biodome
Posts: 138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:35:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

Hard determinism. Are you familiar with Sam Harris' works on this? He convinced me of it a couple of years ago. I was a compatibilist then.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 10:45:21 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

I had the impression most atheists frequenting this forum are determinists.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
famousdebater
Posts: 3,938
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 2:26:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

Determinism (though I don't know much on the topic tbh).
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 6:40:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Out of those three, determinism I guess. I considered free will a few months ago but would just come to indeterminism.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:13:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 4:37:13 AM, n7 wrote:
I was a hard determinist for quite a while. More leaning towards compatablism nowadays though. It just seems like the proper conception of free will can coexist with determinism.

Really? Compatabilism seems fundamentally flawed to me.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 8:13:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/20/2016 10:45:21 AM, Fkkize wrote:
I had the impression most atheists frequenting this forum are determinists.

Interesting. That's news to me.
President of DDO
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 3:33:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

With you on this. There is no room for free will of any sort except the illusion of it due to ignorance.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 6:32:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 3:33:18 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

With you on this. There is no room for free will of any sort except the illusion of it due to ignorance.

It's not easy to think of anything new to say about free will, so for novelty let me say Point 1: While a lot of people say they are hard determiniists and don't believe in free will, they are still pleased with themsleves if, for example, they, beat the computer at chess or get a pay rise for doing some good work - and yes, I am talking about me. A man from Mars who watched how we behave rather than what we say would conclude we defintely believe in free will !

So, we might reject the reality of free will on paper, but not to the extent of letting it affect our behaviour in any way.

Point 2.
Hard determinists (yes, me again) tend to define free will as something that operates independently of determinism, which automatically defines it into non-existence and that can pretty much end the debate. But suppose we loosen the defintion of free will to be whatever goes on in our heads when we make a choice? How do our brains take into account past experience? How can it produce projections about the future? How does the brain make logical inferences? How does it compare alternatives? Why are certain logical principles axioms while other need a proof to be accepted?

That free will is an illusion shouldn't be considered the end of the matter but the beginning - sadly the debate never seems to get our of first gear.
NinaZarechnaya
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 6:35:48 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

I am! :)

I feel like the soft variety is more common. Most of the hard determinists I've spoken to are Marxists, or at least influenced by Marxian sociology and philosophy (I'm definitely the latter).
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 7:01:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 6:32:34 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/21/2016 3:33:18 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

With you on this. There is no room for free will of any sort except the illusion of it due to ignorance.

It's not easy to think of anything new to say about free will, so for novelty let me say Point 1: While a lot of people say they are hard determiniists and don't believe in free will, they are still pleased with themsleves if, for example, they, beat the computer at chess or get a pay rise for doing some good work - and yes, I am talking about me. A man from Mars who watched how we behave rather than what we say would conclude we defintely believe in free will !

But it's precisely because of determinism that we can't control our emotions. If we could choose to be disappointed instead of happy for getting a promotion, one could argue that free will exists.

So, we might reject the reality of free will on paper, but not to the extent of letting it affect our behaviour in any way.

Thats because our behaviour is already predetermined.

Point 2.
Hard determinists (yes, me again) tend to define free will as something that operates independently of determinism, which automatically defines it into non-existence and that can pretty much end the debate. But suppose we loosen the defintion of free will to be whatever goes on in our heads when we make a choice? How do our brains take into account past experience? How can it produce projections about the future? How does the brain make logical inferences? How does it compare alternatives? Why are certain logical principles axioms while other need a proof to be accepted?

That free will is an illusion shouldn't be considered the end of the matter but the beginning - sadly the debate never seems to get our of first gear.

Pick a number between 1 and 10.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 8:07:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 7:47:17 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Um, 4?

Thanks. So did 4 just pop into your head or is there a reason you picked 4?

If it just popped into your head, can you call it a choice?
If there is a reason, can you say it was undetermined?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2016 9:00:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

I identify as an anti-libertarian. Determinism commits you to the idea that nothing can be random (a position at variance with quantum mechanics -- so I'm told). You don't need to go that far to show that freewill is a preposterous concept.

The majority of philosophers are compatibilists... although I think this position, like agnosticism, is evasive. Compatibilists generally redefine freewill as the ability to act according to one's motives/desires, while granting that those motives and desires may be determined. This is just determinism with a diplomatic attitude.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 4:19:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I never really understood what philosophers mean by free will. Suppose my boss tells me to do something and I do it, that action stems from my understanding of her intention. I could refuse to do it, but only if I had reason to, which would be a function of the configuration of my mind, memory habits etc. That configuration is myself, though, so the consequence of the configuration in those circumstances is the same as me choosing to refuse. That's why it depends on definitions.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2016 11:30:23 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

I ascribe to the B-theory of time, which I think entails hard determinism.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 12:51:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I'd suppose they are similar in that they both suggest that what happens in the future is already 'set in stone'.

But they are also very different psychologically. Determinism is based on regular cause and effect and suggests choice s illusory. Fatalism is based more on the notion that some end point will be reached and all that our choices do is change the route to that end point.

In other words, determinism is 'causal' and the past and present determines the future but fatalism is 'teleological' and a future end-point determines the present and the past.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 6:52:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 12:51:25 AM, keithprosser wrote:
I'd suppose they are similar in that they both suggest that what happens in the future is already 'set in stone'.

But they are also very different psychologically. Determinism is based on regular cause and effect and suggests choice s illusory. Fatalism is based more on the notion that some end point will be reached and all that our choices do is change the route to that end point.

In other words, determinism is 'causal' and the past and present determines the future but fatalism is 'teleological' and a future end-point determines the present and the past.

That's a common misconception. Fatalism in a philosophical sense has nothing to do with our future but actually refers to our current actions being determined by fate. In other words, we do exactly as we are meant to do. This view may be argued for in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
keithprosser
Posts: 1,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 8:01:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
To be honest I can't see how hard determinism differs from fatalism.

Well, if you don't like my take on It, you might have chosen a better article to support the equivalence of determinism and fatalism that the SEP one you linked to:

"... in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism. When argued for in the first way, it is commonly called "Logical fatalism" (or, in some cases, "Metaphysical fatalism"); when argued for in the second way, it is commonly called "Theological fatalism". When argued for in the third way it is not now commonly referred to as "fatalism" at all, and such arguments will not be discussed here."

But I'm not all that interested in quibbling over 'isms' - what are the actual issues?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 8:37:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 8:01:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
To be honest I can't see how hard determinism differs from fatalism.

Well, if you don't like my take on It, you might have chosen a better article to support the equivalence of determinism and fatalism that the SEP one you linked to:

"... in various ways: by appeal to logical laws and metaphysical necessities; by appeal to the existence and nature of God; by appeal to causal determinism. When argued for in the first way, it is commonly called "Logical fatalism" (or, in some cases, "Metaphysical fatalism"); when argued for in the second way, it is commonly called "Theological fatalism". When argued for in the third way it is not now commonly referred to as "fatalism" at all, and such arguments will not be discussed here."

But I'm not all that interested in quibbling over 'isms' - what are the actual issues?

No real issues. I just find it interesting that both theists and atheists can be hard determinists.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,920
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 8:49:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I didn't mean issues as in 'what's your issue, man?' but what are the issues raised by the free-will determnism debate. For instance, suppose free will is real and not just an illuson - could we tell the difference? Indeed, what would be the difference?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 11:02:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 8:49:45 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I didn't mean issues as in 'what's your issue, man?' but what are the issues raised by the free-will determnism debate. For instance, suppose free will is real and not just an illuson - could we tell the difference? Indeed, what would be the difference?

From our perspective there would be no difference except that guilt would be a wasted emotion. If a creator exists then there is a purpose behind it all. If not, we're on a road to nowhere and there are no off ramps.
n7
Posts: 1,356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 2:21:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/22/2016 3:33:44 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
To be honest I can't see how hard determinism differs from fatalism.

Fatalism is the view that everything is fated. But determinism has subsets that include randomness (i.e. adequate determinism). Basically, it allows for non-free randomness to be factored into the decision making processes and therefore negating fatalism.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:30:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/21/2016 7:01:34 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 6:32:34 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/21/2016 3:33:18 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

With you on this. There is no room for free will of any sort except the illusion of it due to ignorance.

It's not easy to think of anything new to say about free will, so for novelty let me say Point 1: While a lot of people say they are hard determiniists and don't believe in free will, they are still pleased with themsleves if, for example, they, beat the computer at chess or get a pay rise for doing some good work - and yes, I am talking about me. A man from Mars who watched how we behave rather than what we say would conclude we defintely believe in free will !

But it's precisely because of determinism that we can't control our emotions. If we could choose to be disappointed instead of happy for getting a promotion, one could argue that free will exists.

So, we might reject the reality of free will on paper, but not to the extent of letting it affect our behaviour in any way.

Thats because our behaviour is already predetermined
Lol, really I assume you can prove this.Psychologists disagree. Someone may have a predisposition to homosexuality but their environment as a child is also a determining factor. How is what their childhood is going to be like predetermined? What predetermined it? What scientific evidence do you have as to how I'm going to behave on Wednesday? It's currently Sunday, how should I go about knowing what my predetermined behavior will be?
Point 2.
Hard determinists (yes, me again) tend to define free will as something that operates independently of determinism, which automatically defines it into non-existence and that can pretty much end the debate. But suppose we loosen the defintion of free will to be whatever goes on in our heads when we make a choice? How do our brains take into account past experience? How can it produce projections about the future? How does the brain make logical inferences? How does it compare alternatives? Why are certain logical principles axioms while other need a proof to be accepted?

That free will is an illusion shouldn't be considered the end of the matter but the beginning - sadly the debate never seems to get our of first gear.

Pick a number between 1 and 10.
76
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 10:18:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:30:47 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 7/21/2016 7:01:34 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 7/21/2016 6:32:34 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 7/21/2016 3:33:18 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 7/19/2016 9:11:40 PM, Danielle wrote:
Which do you ascribe to? I'm a hard determinist and was just wondering if anyone else here was, but I doubt it. I don't think I know any...

With you on this. There is no room for free will of any sort except the illusion of it due to ignorance.

It's not easy to think of anything new to say about free will, so for novelty let me say Point 1: While a lot of people say they are hard determiniists and don't believe in free will, they are still pleased with themsleves if, for example, they, beat the computer at chess or get a pay rise for doing some good work - and yes, I am talking about me. A man from Mars who watched how we behave rather than what we say would conclude we defintely believe in free will !

But it's precisely because of determinism that we can't control our emotions. If we could choose to be disappointed instead of happy for getting a promotion, one could argue that free will exists.

So, we might reject the reality of free will on paper, but not to the extent of letting it affect our behaviour in any way.

Thats because our behaviour is already predetermined
Lol, really I assume you can prove this.Psychologists disagree. Someone may have a predisposition to homosexuality but their environment as a child is also a determining factor. How is what their childhood is going to be like predetermined?
Like the child, it's parents are products of their childhood. Every action and decision they make is determined by factors over which they have no control.
What predetermined it? What scientific evidence do you have as to how I'm going to behave on Wednesday? It's currently Sunday, how should I go about knowing what my predetermined behavior will b
Predetermined does not mean predictable. It means there is only one option available.
Point 2.
Hard determinists (yes, me again) tend to define free will as something that operates independently of determinism, which automatically defines it into non-existence and that can pretty much end the debate. But suppose we loosen the defintion of free will to be whatever goes on in our heads when we make a choice? How do our brains take into account past experience? How can it produce projections about the future? How does the brain make logical inferences? How does it compare alternatives? Why are certain logical principles axioms while other need a proof to be accepted?

That free will is an illusion shouldn't be considered the end of the matter but the beginning - sadly the debate never seems to get our of first gear.

Pick a number between 1 and 10.
76
324