Current state of the debate between free will and determinism in philosophy and neuroscience

[martillo]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Once more:

Sorry, no more...

[iNow]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Sorry, no more...

I’m curious whether you simply can’t answer, or if instead your existing narratives and baseline understanding of the workings of your mind has been challenged so deeply that you simply won’t or are too afraid to.

Edited October 31, 2023 by iNow

[martillo]

47 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m curious whether you simply can’t answer, or if instead your existing narratives and baseline understanding of your kind has been challenged so deeply that you simply won’t.

That topic about our consciousness being a "post-dictive" illusion of the mind  and we being just a spectator of what is happening in our reality, as you agreed, is another topic for me. May be you should open a new thread for that but even in a new one I don't know if I could give a positive contribution...

One thing I'm sure: that is a very strong determinism, total determinism, absolutely.

Edited October 31, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

One thing I'm sure: that is a very strong determinism, total determinism, absolutely.

Given this, in your opinion, why isn’t “spectator” an accurate description of our experience? 

[martillo]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Given this, in your opinion, why isn’t “spectator” an accurate description of our experience? 

I would ask you which is your experience? Do you experience your entire life just as an spectator of yourself in the reality you live? I mean remembering Hawking citation: useless to think at some time about what to do because the future is predetermined and you can do nothing to change anything? Then, useless to think about anything in your entire life?

I would also ask: why are you discussing with me then? Wouldn't it be because it could at lest be useful to solve some problem? Problem yours, mine or whoever could read this thread?

I don't experience my life that way. I feel as I'm driving my life as I can confronting problems I find in my way. Problems I could solve thinking and doing something about. For me the future is not predetermined and I can think and do things towards some things I would like in that future.

That would be in summary my experience. Which is your experience? Please answer this appropriately.

 

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, martillo said:

I feel as I'm driving my life

Why, though?

If, as you say, you’re “sure of very strong, total, absolute determinism,” are you not better described as a passenger than as a driver?

Just trying to better understand you, yet you deflect my questions with irrelevant new questions back to me. 
 

28 minutes ago, martillo said:

For me the future is not predetermined

Now I’m really confused… which is it? Are you sure of total absolute determinism or is the future not predetermined? Unless I’m missing something obvious, these two positions cannot both be simultaneously true. 

28 minutes ago, martillo said:

Which is your experience?

My experience, just like your experience and the experience of all others, varies and it is contingent upon the current configuration of the universe… with a special focus on the current configuration of me with all my bits and microbiota in my belly and bacteria being attacked by my immune system and whatever bad air I may be breathing or beautiful vistas I may be viewing… all of which contribute to my evolving neural aggregate… my experience in the present moment: iNow’s MyNow

28 minutes ago, martillo said:

Please answer this appropriately.

I don’t know what this means. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by iNow

[martillo]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Why, though?

If, as you say, you’re “sure of very strong, total, absolute determinism,” are you not better described as a passenger than as a driver?

You got confused. I was referring to your ideas when I said:

4 hours ago, martillo said:

One thing I'm sure: that is a very strong determinism, total determinism, absolutely.

I tried to mean you are a total determinist. Mot me.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Now I’m really confused… which is it? Are you sure of total absolute determinism or is the future not predetermined? Unless I’m missing something obvious, these two positions cannot both be simultaneously true.

I see you as a determinist. I'm not.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I don’t know what this means. 

Just for you to give a good answer.

 

If you are an spectator you are not an actor of your life. You can't be both at the same time.

Spectators can't do anything about what is happening. If you consider everybody as spectator you are a determinist. Nobody can do anything to change what is going on and so a predetermined future. That is determinism.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by martillo

[iNow]

1 hour ago, martillo said:

If you are a spectator you are not an actor of your life. You can't be both at the same time.

Why does it matter if in the end it changes nothing? If the experience is exactly the same, who cares? We’re following the same “software” as we always have, it’s just now we understand it more completely.

 

1 hour ago, martillo said:

Spectators can't do anything about what is happening.

What makes you think there is any other possibility? 

[martillo]

Many questions at the same time. I will answer them one by one:

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Why does it matter if in the end it changes nothing?

What doesn't matter because changes nothing is discussing with you.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

If the experience is exactly the same, who cares?

The experience is not the same, I care.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

We’re following the same “software” as we always have, it’s just now we understand it more completely.

You don't understand the "software" at all.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

What makes you think there is any other possibility? 

Because I know I am an actor and I can do something about what is happening: I will stop discussing with you because this discussion has no sense at all for me.

 

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, iNow said:

Not really related to free will though, IMO. The decision still occurs before we even realize it was a decision. 

I think the direction of freedom is almost, but not quite, that of Descarte; I think that that last decision was wrong, because it could damage my soul (not the magic one)...

4 hours ago, martillo said:

8 hours ago, iNow said:

We’re following the same “software” as we always have, it’s just now we understand it more completely.

You don't understand the "software" at all.

All you can say, with any certainty, is "you don't understand my software at all"; almost everyone can write an algorithm... 

[iNow]

9 hours ago, martillo said:

If you are an spectator you are not an actor of your life. You can't be both at the same time.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Why does it matter if in the end it changes nothing? If the experience is exactly the same, who cares? We’re following the same “software” as we always have, it’s just now we understand it more completely.

4 hours ago, martillo said:

What doesn't matter because changes nothing is discussing with you.

Yet again, you are either unwilling or unable to answer my question directly. Why is that?

It was a genuine question. I understand if it makes you uncomfortable, but that makes it no less valid nor no less deserving of a thoughtful response. 

Will you please help me better understand your position? That's all I'm trying to do here, is understand you better. Why does it matter whether we call ourselves spectators versus actors if nothing changes by doing so?

4 hours ago, martillo said:

The experience is not the same,

In what ways do you believe they are different (in context of my position that it all occurs before conscious awareness / before the parts of our minds usually considered as "self")?

4 hours ago, martillo said:

You don't understand the "software" at all.

Okay, now you're just being childish and silly. Of course I have more to learn, as do we all, but to suggest I don't understand our minds at all is borderline ad hominem, and 100% untrue. 

4 hours ago, martillo said:

I know I am an actor and I can do something about what is happening:

And my question to you is: HOW do you know this? You keep claiming it, yet have not even once explained.

4 hours ago, martillo said:

I will stop discussing with you because this discussion has no sense at all for me.

Or is it because I've challenged your worldview and you're uncomfortable considering different viewpoints? If I truly make "no sense at all" for you, then ask me to clarify my stance so you may better understand it. Don't run away like a child. 

[martillo]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

If I truly make "no sense at all" for you, then ask me to clarify my stance so you may better understand it. Don't run away like a child. 

I have already perfectly understood your deterministic position. I think you also have understood mine near to the "free will". As @studiot mentioned some time ago we reached an impasse where no part is going to give an inch. Is the "eternal" impasse between (the mutually exclusive) "free will" and "determinism" and you know, we are not going to solve it here in this thread as I could realize. I find it to be an endless discussion that I don`t have the intention to follow. 

The only thing I will do is to clarify some things about my point of view near to the "free will". I will not try to solve the impasse.

What I say is that what really exist sometimes is a "will" defined as "the possibility to make choices/decisions sometimes".

My position actually agrees with the "free will" except that I make the observation that actually, in reality, it is not so free as the given name and the dictionaries definitions determine. It exist but no so free because there are always some conditions present. That's why I tried to give just a corrected name and a just corrected definition. The name just "will" without any qualifiers seems possible since I have found it in some searches of definitions I have made and it is adopted in some places as in the article I mentioned. The unique problem is that popularly, like in the @studiot conception, the term "will" without qualifier is more associated to want, intention, desire, etc. and seems something difficult to change. I think my position can be well understood by you and anyone else now so, end of the discussion for me.

Seems to me that the unique way to solve the impasse is if you can accept that the "will" I mention does exist sometimes but only sometimes. Other times it does not exist when we have no possibility to make a choice/decision.

I must also point out that the conflict cannot be solved with just one example. There are examples for both cases.

 

By the way I would mention that in Spanish exist a specific name for that "will" I'm considering and so there's no conflict, it is called "albedrío".

Edited November 1, 2023 by martillo

[AIkonoklazt]

On 10/26/2023 at 10:50 PM, Eise said:

 

Of course we are. Everything that can partake in causal relationships is a causal agent. What you mean is that we, as causal agents, are not caused ourselves: that is the illusion of libertarian free will. The point compatibilists are making is that our personal motivations are part of the causal network. And if we, so to speak, can play out our motivations in our actions, then these actions are free. 

 

I know you're responding to TheVat, but it seems what I said to him also applies here:

1. Infinite regression of mental events presumes a mechanistic conception of the mind
2. Influences do not make determining factors. There can be competing influences of comparable strengths at play. I think you asked for (generic) "real world" example from another user. I suppose we can think of a prospective shoplifter. One influence would be the physical surroundings and the person's judgement of it. There may be very little monitoring, no cameras, and/OR the law is not so harsh so if you're caught you're in for a long jail sentence (e.g. what happened in San Francisco... but I digress). Such "easy target" practically serves as encouragement. On the other hand, if the person's caught, it's a pain to deal with people coming after you, someone stopping you at the door, shame (of being outted by a security guard, if shame is even a factor) and the aversion of such situations, or even deal with a police offer and a ride inside a police car (who knows, some people may not like the inside of a police car) et cetera.
3. If the aforementioned influences takes any amount of time to consider, even just for a second, what is happening during that time? Isn't effort expended, no matter how small, point to an active will instead of a passive reaction? Are all rational thoughts simply to be categorized as passive reactions?

[martillo]

13 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I know you're responding to TheVat, but it seems what I said to him also applies here:

1. Infinite regression of mental events presumes a mechanistic conception of the mind
2. Influences do not make determining factors. There can be competing influences of comparable strengths at play. I think you asked for (generic) "real world" example from another user. I suppose we can think of a prospective shoplifter. One influence would be the physical surroundings and the person's judgement of it. There may be very little monitoring, no cameras, and/OR the law is not so harsh so if you're caught you're in for a long jail sentence (e.g. what happened in San Francisco... but I digress). Such "easy target" practically serves as encouragement. On the other hand, if the person's caught, it's a pain to deal with people coming after you, someone stopping you at the door, shame (of being outted by a security guard, if shame is even a factor) and the aversion of such situations, or even deal with a police offer and a ride inside a police car (who knows, some people may not like the inside of a police car) et cetera.
3. If the aforementioned influences takes any amount of time to consider, even just for a second, what is happening during that time? Isn't effort expended, no matter how small, point to an active will instead of a passive reaction? Are all rational thoughts simply to be categorized as passive reactions?

That remembered me Galileo Galilei dilemma he would had when he retracted in front of the church...

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by martillo

[AIkonoklazt]

37 minutes ago, martillo said:

That remembered me Galileo Galilei dilemma he would had when he retracted in front of the church...

 

Unless a blade was already upon his neck, I'd say that it still left time to consider just how horribly unpleasant the process of dying would be...

[iNow]

7 hours ago, martillo said:

the "will" I mention does exist sometimes but only sometimes. Other times it does not exist

Yeah, sadly I don’t actually understand your position at all. When would it exist, and when would it not? Will you please elaborate?

5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Are all rational thoughts simply to be categorized as passive reactions?

What else would they be when viewed at the level of chemistry in our nervous systems? 

The very label of them as “rational” or “passive” is itself an arbitrary narrative being applied AFTER the creation and awareness of the thought. 

[martillo]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Yeah, sadly I don’t actually understand your position at all. When would it exist, and when would it not? Will you please elaborate?

I have already said time ago that it all depends on the conditions that are always present. Depending on the conditions there is more or less degree of freedom in the possibility to make choices/decisions. Sometimes the conditions allow the possibility to make choices/decisions. In this cases the "will" exist. Sometimes the conditions don't allow any choice/decision and in this case the "will" is null (zero degree of freedom) and we can say it is not available or that it doesn't actually exist as you wish. 

[iNow]

What I suspect you’re still missing is that you’re calling something a “decision” when it’s just chemistry and a narrative the story-telling parts of your brain applied after mostly unconscious neural machinery has already led to it

[martillo]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

What I suspect you’re still missing is that you’re calling something a “decision” when it’s just chemistry and a narrative the story-telling parts of your brain applied after mostly unconscious neural machinery has already led to it

Now you bring into place the consciousness subject...

Well, sometimes we make unconscious choices decisions as well. For instance sometimes we are so convinced of something that we not need to think about anything before making a choice or decision. May be in this case I agree in that "the neural machinery has already led to it". But sometimes we have enough time to think about some subject and be totally conscious while making a choice or decision. In this case I would say that the conscious neural machinery led to it.

The "conscious neural machinery" of course would be what let us think and rationalize about some subject.

Wouldn't that be right for your way of thinking about?

Edited November 2, 2023 by martillo

[Eise]

On 11/1/2023 at 4:12 AM, martillo said:

I see you as a determinist. I'm not.

Well, at least that is a clear position, but still very much in the abstract. However it still very unclear what exactly is not determined. 'Sometimes it is' and 'sometimes it is not' is a bit vague, don't you think? 

[Eise]

@iNow:

If 'we' are just spectators, then 'we' have no causal impact: our nervous system can perfectly do without. Having no causal impact, natural selection cannot make a difference between organisms that are spectators, and organisms that are not (i.e. do not have consciousness).

From a '3rd party view', given your worldview that everything is determined, all our behaviour can be explained from the biological level. Not necessary to posit something like awareness, consciousness or 'spectatorship'.

That means we can just be as well 'philosophical zombies'. But the idea of philosophical zombies is inherently inconsistent.

With other words, there must exist something like 'conscious behaviour', otherwise evolution has no way to select for conscious organisms: consciousness would have no evolutionar advantage.

[martillo]

2 hours ago, Eise said:

Well, at least that is a clear position, but still very much in the abstract. However it still very unclear what exactly is not determined. 'Sometimes it is' and 'sometimes it is not' is a bit vague, don't you think? 

The future. 

In Determinism the future is always completely determined by the past and the current conditions. We are actors of some things but as our actions are completely determined by the past and current conditions everything in Determinism is determined by them. There's no possibility for us to make choices or decisions and so the "will" does not exist at all ever.

In my position that is not the case. The future is not always completely determined by the past and the current conditions only. We do have the possibility sometimes to make conscious choices or decisions with some degree of freedom and so the "will" does exist sometimes. But sometimes only. Other times that possibility does not exist and everything is determined by the past and current conditions and the "will" is null, not available or does not exist as you prefer to say it.

 

35 minutes ago, Eise said:

@iNow:

If 'we' are just spectators, then 'we' have no causal impact: our nervous system can perfectly do without. Having no causal impact, natural selection cannot make a difference between organisms that are spectators, and organisms that are not (i.e. do not have consciousness).

From a '3rd party view', given your worldview that everything is determined, all our behaviour can be explained from the biological level. Not necessary to posit something like awareness, consciousness or 'spectatorship'.

That means we can just be as well 'philosophical zombies'. But the idea of philosophical zombies is inherently inconsistent.

With other words, there must exist something like 'conscious behaviour', otherwise evolution has no way to select for conscious organisms: consciousness would have no evolutionar advantage.

I can perfectly agree with that (just marking a little correction).

By the way, as you mentioned Hume I took a look at Wikipedia about him. As I said, I agree with some things about some philosophers while not agreeing in other things. I agree with the rationalism of Descartes but without the concept of innate ideas and knowledge agreeing with Hume in his "blank slate" analogy of our mind being completely empty in our birth. We birth with the faculty of reason but not with any previous idea or knowledge.

For me Rationalism and Empiricism complement each other. But this is another topic...

Edited November 2, 2023 by martillo

[Eise]

36 minutes ago, martillo said:

(just marking a little correction)

From your viewpoint? I definitely meant "i.e. do not have consciousness". 

38 minutes ago, martillo said:

We do have the possibility sometimes to make conscious choices or decisions with some degree of freedom and so the "will" does exist sometimes. But sometimes only. Other times that possibility does not exist and everything is determined by the past and current conditions and the "will" is null, not available or does not exist as you prefer to say it.

I would like you to work out this 'sometimes'. In what situations does, in your vocabulary, 'will' exists (and we are not completely determined, and in what kind of situations is everything determined, leaving no room for 'will'.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, martillo said:

Wouldn't that be right for your way of thinking about?

Perhaps I should not have introduced the outdated idea of unconscious versus consciousness. In terms of my position, this arbitrary distinction isn't very relevant. It's all the same biological hardware and all the same chemically induced electrical signals, and all of them occur before reaching the parts of our brain considered "self" and before we are even aware of it. Once these signals reach our awareness, we then apply a story to explain them, but that occurs after, not during nor before. 

[martillo]

4 minutes ago, Eise said:

From your viewpoint? I definitely meant "i.e. do not have consciousness". 

Who do do not have consciousness" Spectators or non spectators?

8 minutes ago, Eise said:

I would like you to work out this 'sometimes'. In what situations does, in your vocabulary, 'will' exists (and we are not completely determined, and in what kind of situations is everything determined, leaving no room for 'will'.

There are always conditions present in any situation, right? The conditions are constraints for our actions. I can say that there are always conditions present with some degree of freedom but the degree of freedom is zero sometimes. Sometimes there is not zero degree of freedom and we are able to make choices or decisions. We can say "will" does exist. Sometimes there is zero degree of freedom and actually no choice or decision is possible. We can say the "will" is null or that it doesn't actually exist.