Yes, they are an integral part of what you are. However, those desires are caused by things that are out of your control, such as your genetics, your environmental factors, the spin of the elections in your cells, and your biochemistry.
www.nature.com
Brain makes decisions before you even know it - Nature
Brain activity predicts decisions before they are consciously made.
How do you know that we are in a deterministic universe, not a probabilistic one? And your repeating the mantra about what compatabilism proposes does not show that what it proposes is true. For both compatablism and incompatablism, there are arguments.
Determinism is correct. However there is no puppet master pulling our strings. That's the hard determinist's delusion. An argument by analogy, you know, one of those things we would call "bad reasoning".
My brain controls itself. Both the conscious and unconscious processes are run within and by the same brain. And, like I pointed out before, whatever my brain has decided that I will have for dinner, I have decided. There is no dualism. "I" am just another process running on my neural architecture.
Ah! So, now we have choices actually being made! That's progress from your prior claim that there are no choices.
And, we also have my own brain making these choices, which is even more progress, because it is really me deciding things for myself.
Brain makes decisions before you even know it - Nature
Brain activity predicts decisions before they are consciously made.
And we also have conscious awareness of the choice showing up 10 seconds late, but still in plenty of time for me to tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".
The evidence continues to support our conclusion that choosing is actually happening and we are actually doing it.
Did you have anything else?
The thing is, things aren't predetermined. They're just determined. It's no more predetermined that when I type in some seed in a deterministic engine that it's going to end up with Urist locked in a room after slaughtering 12 dwarves. That's a result, but it still takes all the cogitation through determinism to get there.
So, I can field this one.How do you know that we are in a deterministic universe, not a probabilistic one? And your repeating the mantra about what compatabilism proposes does not show that what it proposes is true. For both compatablism and incompatablism, there are arguments.
Determinism is correct. However there is no puppet master pulling our strings. That's the hard determinist's delusion. An argument by analogy, you know, one of those things we would call "bad reasoning".
My brain controls itself. Both the conscious and unconscious processes are run within and by the same brain. And, like I pointed out before, whatever my brain has decided that I will have for dinner, I have decided. There is no dualism. "I" am just another process running on my neural architecture.
Ah! So, now we have choices actually being made! That's progress from your prior claim that there are no choices.
And, we also have my own brain making these choices, which is even more progress, because it is really me deciding things for myself.
Brain makes decisions before you even know it - Nature
Brain activity predicts decisions before they are consciously made.
And we also have conscious awareness of the choice showing up 10 seconds late, but still in plenty of time for me to tell the waiter, "I will have the Chef Salad, please".
The evidence continues to support our conclusion that choosing is actually happening and we are actually doing it.
Did you have anything else?
In fact, there is bell's theorem, which shows on the quantum level , there is indeterminism. The quantum level effects the macro level too. Bell showed how to perform that experiment in his paper 'on the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox'. and the experiment he proposed to see if there was determinism vs indeterminism has been done hundreds upon hundreds of time.
Ok. We've established that when you talk about a chosen outcome you actually mean a random outcome.
So, this seems fun, so I'm going to tackle this.
I don't think the supernatural escapes reliable cause and effect. Even God will have his own goals and reasons that causally determine his actions.
Yes, which is why I am pointing out that this is contextual and how the apparent paradox resolves.
But that's not what Bell's Theorem and the EPR experiments show. Those are demonstrations of entanglement and nonlocality, not indeterminism. There are deterministic interpretations of QM; they predict the same Bell violations as the indeterministic interpretations.
THere isn't. That means that it is not deterministic, but probabilistic. Therefore, determinism is flawed.
reknew.org
...
Here is an article that points out the flaws
Three Arguments Against Determinism - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from...
Why, I disagree. Determinism precisely means there is no free will. It also relies on the 'chain of causality' , which either goes to infinite regression, or goes to the logical fallacy of special pleading, where it points to an 'uncaused cause' Of course, if there is one uncaused cause, there can be multiple uncaused causes, If you have an event that is uncaused, then it falsifies determinism....
Here is an article that points out the flaws
Three Arguments Against Determinism - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from...
Very nice article, thanks for the link. I believe there is both truth and falsehood in determinism.
The core belief in determinism is that every event is reliably caused by prior events that were themselves reliably cause by earlier events. We imagine this to be a "causal chain" (or web) in which every event is causally necessitated by prior events, such that the actual future will turn out exactly one way.
How does this change things? It doesn't!
Consider the author's section on Refuting Determinism by Action. He addresses the process of deliberation. He says, "I’d like to suggest that everyone who deliberates believes in free will, even if they think they do not, for its impossible to deliberate without acting on the conviction that the decision is up to you to resolve." And I certainly agree with that.
But I also believe that the mental events within this decision making process, the identification of our options, the certainty that we can choose any one of these real possibilities, the evaluation of each option, and our final choice, are all included within a chain of events that goes back before we encountered the issue to be decided, and will continue forward into future events that will inevitably follow upon our chosen actions.
Does this deterministic view of events change anything? No. It is still us encountering the issue. It is still us considering our options. It is still us choosing the option that we will act upon. And it is still us that will be held responsible for our deliberate action.
The view that determinism somehow implies that it was not us, but something else that decided what we would do, is contrary to the empirical facts. And it is that irrational view that must be combated.
When viewed rationally, determinism changes nothing. And it is poses no real threat to free will.
Unfortunately, those most fervently championing determinism often hold irrational views about what causal necessity actually means.
But what causal necessity actually means is that not only was our choice inevitable, but it was equally inevitable that we would be making that choice ourselves, for our own reasons, according to our own beliefs and values, our own interests, our own genetic dispositions, and our own prior life experiences. In other words, we would be making the choice of our own free will.
Under no current understanding of cosmology.is there such a thing as a necessity of first cause. It is not a sensible thing in any such case.regression, or
Why, I disagree. Determinism precisely means there is no free will. It also relies on the 'chain of causality' , which either goes to infinite regression, or goes to the logical fallacy of special pleading, where it points to an 'uncaused cause' Of course, if there is one uncaused cause, there can be multiple uncaused causes, If you have an event that is uncaused, then it falsifies determinism....
Here is an article that points out the flaws
Three Arguments Against Determinism - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from...
Very nice article, thanks for the link. I believe there is both truth and falsehood in determinism.
The core belief in determinism is that every event is reliably caused by prior events that were themselves reliably cause by earlier events. We imagine this to be a "causal chain" (or web) in which every event is causally necessitated by prior events, such that the actual future will turn out exactly one way.
How does this change things? It doesn't!
Consider the author's section on Refuting Determinism by Action. He addresses the process of deliberation. He says, "I’d like to suggest that everyone who deliberates believes in free will, even if they think they do not, for its impossible to deliberate without acting on the conviction that the decision is up to you to resolve." And I certainly agree with that.
But I also believe that the mental events within this decision making process, the identification of our options, the certainty that we can choose any one of these real possibilities, the evaluation of each option, and our final choice, are all included within a chain of events that goes back before we encountered the issue to be decided, and will continue forward into future events that will inevitably follow upon our chosen actions.
Does this deterministic view of events change anything? No. It is still us encountering the issue. It is still us considering our options. It is still us choosing the option that we will act upon. And it is still us that will be held responsible for our deliberate action.
The view that determinism somehow implies that it was not us, but something else that decided what we would do, is contrary to the empirical facts. And it is that irrational view that must be combated.
When viewed rationally, determinism changes nothing. And it is poses no real threat to free will.
Unfortunately, those most fervently championing determinism often hold irrational views about what causal necessity actually means.
But what causal necessity actually means is that not only was our choice inevitable, but it was equally inevitable that we would be making that choice ourselves, for our own reasons, according to our own beliefs and values, our own interests, our own genetic dispositions, and our own prior life experiences. In other words, we would be making the choice of our own free will.
I presume that there is no "first" cause, but instead an eternal state of matter in motion and transformation. The most significant transformation is the accumulation of matter into a super condensed black hole that reaches some tipping point and explodes into a new universe with a Big Bang. Most galaxies contain smaller black holes near their centers which we observe consuming material from nearby stars. Over time the accretion will accelerate as the black hole increases in mass and gravity, producing a Big Crunch effect, and we're back to the form of a super condensed black hole once more. Rather than a single Big Bang, I assume a cosmology something more like a Big Bounce.regression, or
Why, I disagree. Determinism precisely means there is no free will. It also relies on the 'chain of causality' , which either goes to infinite regression, or goes to the logical fallacy of special pleading, where it points to an 'uncaused cause' Of course, if there is one uncaused cause, there can be multiple uncaused causes, If you have an event that is uncaused, then it falsifies determinism....
Here is an article that points out the flaws
Three Arguments Against Determinism - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from...
Very nice article, thanks for the link. I believe there is both truth and falsehood in determinism.
The core belief in determinism is that every event is reliably caused by prior events that were themselves reliably cause by earlier events. We imagine this to be a "causal chain" (or web) in which every event is causally necessitated by prior events, such that the actual future will turn out exactly one way.
How does this change things? It doesn't!
Consider the author's section on Refuting Determinism by Action. He addresses the process of deliberation. He says, "I’d like to suggest that everyone who deliberates believes in free will, even if they think they do not, for its impossible to deliberate without acting on the conviction that the decision is up to you to resolve." And I certainly agree with that.
But I also believe that the mental events within this decision making process, the identification of our options, the certainty that we can choose any one of these real possibilities, the evaluation of each option, and our final choice, are all included within a chain of events that goes back before we encountered the issue to be decided, and will continue forward into future events that will inevitably follow upon our chosen actions.
Does this deterministic view of events change anything? No. It is still us encountering the issue. It is still us considering our options. It is still us choosing the option that we will act upon. And it is still us that will be held responsible for our deliberate action.
The view that determinism somehow implies that it was not us, but something else that decided what we would do, is contrary to the empirical facts. And it is that irrational view that must be combated.
When viewed rationally, determinism changes nothing. And it is poses no real threat to free will.
Unfortunately, those most fervently championing determinism often hold irrational views about what causal necessity actually means.
But what causal necessity actually means is that not only was our choice inevitable, but it was equally inevitable that we would be making that choice ourselves, for our own reasons, according to our own beliefs and values, our own interests, our own genetic dispositions, and our own prior life experiences. In other words, we would be making the choice of our own free will.
I presume that there is no "first" cause, but instead an eternal state of matter in motion and transformation. The most significant transformation is the accumulation of matter into a super condensed black hole that reaches some tipping point and explodes into a new universe with a Big Bang. Most galaxies contain smaller black holes near their centers which we observe consuming material from nearby stars. Over time the accretion will accelerate as the black hole increases in mass and gravity, producing a Big Crunch effect, and we're back to the form of a super condensed black hole once more. Rather than a single Big Bang, I assume a cosmology something more like a Big Bounce.regression, or
Why, I disagree. Determinism precisely means there is no free will. It also relies on the 'chain of causality' , which either goes to infinite regression, or goes to the logical fallacy of special pleading, where it points to an 'uncaused cause' Of course, if there is one uncaused cause, there can be multiple uncaused causes, If you have an event that is uncaused, then it falsifies determinism....
Here is an article that points out the flaws
Three Arguments Against Determinism - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from...
Very nice article, thanks for the link. I believe there is both truth and falsehood in determinism.
The core belief in determinism is that every event is reliably caused by prior events that were themselves reliably cause by earlier events. We imagine this to be a "causal chain" (or web) in which every event is causally necessitated by prior events, such that the actual future will turn out exactly one way.
How does this change things? It doesn't!
Consider the author's section on Refuting Determinism by Action. He addresses the process of deliberation. He says, "I’d like to suggest that everyone who deliberates believes in free will, even if they think they do not, for its impossible to deliberate without acting on the conviction that the decision is up to you to resolve." And I certainly agree with that.
But I also believe that the mental events within this decision making process, the identification of our options, the certainty that we can choose any one of these real possibilities, the evaluation of each option, and our final choice, are all included within a chain of events that goes back before we encountered the issue to be decided, and will continue forward into future events that will inevitably follow upon our chosen actions.
Does this deterministic view of events change anything? No. It is still us encountering the issue. It is still us considering our options. It is still us choosing the option that we will act upon. And it is still us that will be held responsible for our deliberate action.
The view that determinism somehow implies that it was not us, but something else that decided what we would do, is contrary to the empirical facts. And it is that irrational view that must be combated.
When viewed rationally, determinism changes nothing. And it is poses no real threat to free will.
Unfortunately, those most fervently championing determinism often hold irrational views about what causal necessity actually means.
But what causal necessity actually means is that not only was our choice inevitable, but it was equally inevitable that we would be making that choice ourselves, for our own reasons, according to our own beliefs and values, our own interests, our own genetic dispositions, and our own prior life experiences. In other words, we would be making the choice of our own free will.
The point is that something must be eternal, because if it were not, then everything would already be gone by now. Yet, we look around, and we see stuff all around us, and we know that things were not always in the form that we find them in today. Stuff, moving and transforming, seems to be the constant state of things. And thus there is no "first cause".
Insisting upon a "first cause" would require special pleading. Assuming eternal stuff in motion and transformation avoids that problem.
So then, that brings us to the problem of free will. What do we really mean by "free will"? Do we mean mean "freedom from cause and effect"? I don't think so. Every freedom we have, to do anything at all, implies us reliably causing some effect. Freedom of speech requires the ability to reliably form thoughts and the words to express them. Freedom to go for a walk requires the ability to reliably move our legs and shift our balance. Freedom to choose what we will do requires the ability to reliably reason between alternate options and select the option that best suits our current goals and interests.
Every freedom we have requires reliable cause and effect. So, how can we suggest being "free" from that which freedom itself requires? It is a paradoxical notion, and therefore false.
Is there perhaps some other definition of "free will", one that actually makes sense? Yes, there is a very practical meaning of "free will" that nearly everyone understands and correctly uses. Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence, such as insanity, manipulation, hypnosis, authoritative command, etc. There is a universal human desire to exercise some control over our own lives, and to avoid being subject to control by others. And we teach out growing children to make good choices, because we know that soon enough they will be in charge of their own lives.
Good choices are important, because we will hold each other responsible for any deliberate acts that cause unnecessary harm to someone else.
So, there we have it, a meaningful and relevant meaning of the term "free will". One that everyone already understands and correctly applies to practical human scenarios. One that does not require freedom from cause and effect, but simply freedom from coercion and undue influence. One that is consistent with a world of reliable causation.
As has been discussed, to understand "free will" and "choice" one must be fully willing to make sure that these concepts interact fully with "unfalsifiable" models.I presume that there is no "first" cause, but instead an eternal state of matter in motion and transformation. The most significant transformation is the accumulation of matter into a super condensed black hole that reaches some tipping point and explodes into a new universe with a Big Bang. Most galaxies contain smaller black holes near their centers which we observe consuming material from nearby stars. Over time the accretion will accelerate as the black hole increases in mass and gravity, producing a Big Crunch effect, and we're back to the form of a super condensed black hole once more. Rather than a single Big Bang, I assume a cosmology something more like a Big Bounce.regression, or
Why, I disagree. Determinism precisely means there is no free will. It also relies on the 'chain of causality' , which either goes to infinite regression, or goes to the logical fallacy of special pleading, where it points to an 'uncaused cause' Of course, if there is one uncaused cause, there can be multiple uncaused causes, If you have an event that is uncaused, then it falsifies determinism....
Here is an article that points out the flaws
Three Arguments Against Determinism - Greg Boyd - ReKnew
There was an interesting article in the NY Times yesterday by John Tierney entitled “Do You Have Free Will? Yes, It’s The Only Choice.” The article reviews research that suggests that everybody intuitively believes people are morally responsible only for actions they could have refrained from...
Very nice article, thanks for the link. I believe there is both truth and falsehood in determinism.
The core belief in determinism is that every event is reliably caused by prior events that were themselves reliably cause by earlier events. We imagine this to be a "causal chain" (or web) in which every event is causally necessitated by prior events, such that the actual future will turn out exactly one way.
How does this change things? It doesn't!
Consider the author's section on Refuting Determinism by Action. He addresses the process of deliberation. He says, "I’d like to suggest that everyone who deliberates believes in free will, even if they think they do not, for its impossible to deliberate without acting on the conviction that the decision is up to you to resolve." And I certainly agree with that.
But I also believe that the mental events within this decision making process, the identification of our options, the certainty that we can choose any one of these real possibilities, the evaluation of each option, and our final choice, are all included within a chain of events that goes back before we encountered the issue to be decided, and will continue forward into future events that will inevitably follow upon our chosen actions.
Does this deterministic view of events change anything? No. It is still us encountering the issue. It is still us considering our options. It is still us choosing the option that we will act upon. And it is still us that will be held responsible for our deliberate action.
The view that determinism somehow implies that it was not us, but something else that decided what we would do, is contrary to the empirical facts. And it is that irrational view that must be combated.
When viewed rationally, determinism changes nothing. And it is poses no real threat to free will.
Unfortunately, those most fervently championing determinism often hold irrational views about what causal necessity actually means.
But what causal necessity actually means is that not only was our choice inevitable, but it was equally inevitable that we would be making that choice ourselves, for our own reasons, according to our own beliefs and values, our own interests, our own genetic dispositions, and our own prior life experiences. In other words, we would be making the choice of our own free will.
The point is that something must be eternal, because if it were not, then everything would already be gone by now. Yet, we look around, and we see stuff all around us, and we know that things were not always in the form that we find them in today. Stuff, moving and transforming, seems to be the constant state of things. And thus there is no "first cause".
Insisting upon a "first cause" would require special pleading. Assuming eternal stuff in motion and transformation avoids that problem.
So then, that brings us to the problem of free will. What do we really mean by "free will"? Do we mean mean "freedom from cause and effect"? I don't think so. Every freedom we have, to do anything at all, implies us reliably causing some effect. Freedom of speech requires the ability to reliably form thoughts and the words to express them. Freedom to go for a walk requires the ability to reliably move our legs and shift our balance. Freedom to choose what we will do requires the ability to reliably reason between alternate options and select the option that best suits our current goals and interests.
Every freedom we have requires reliable cause and effect. So, how can we suggest being "free" from that which freedom itself requires? It is a paradoxical notion, and therefore false.
Is there perhaps some other definition of "free will", one that actually makes sense? Yes, there is a very practical meaning of "free will" that nearly everyone understands and correctly uses. Free will is when we decide for ourselves what we will do, while free of coercion and other forms of undue influence, such as insanity, manipulation, hypnosis, authoritative command, etc. There is a universal human desire to exercise some control over our own lives, and to avoid being subject to control by others. And we teach out growing children to make good choices, because we know that soon enough they will be in charge of their own lives.
Good choices are important, because we will hold each other responsible for any deliberate acts that cause unnecessary harm to someone else.
So, there we have it, a meaningful and relevant meaning of the term "free will". One that everyone already understands and correctly applies to practical human scenarios. One that does not require freedom from cause and effect, but simply freedom from coercion and undue influence. One that is consistent with a world of reliable causation.
So you don't assume a first cause. Ok. one thing I am not seeing is actual evidence that determinism is correct, rather than things being probabilistic. There are many varieties of QM that are not deterministic. If everything is deterministic, there is no such thing as actual choice, because your 'choices' are preprogramed and predetermined.
