Because it’s still deterministic (even if it’s not predictable) – that is, given the events leading up to that time, the environment, etc., a person will can only make a certain decision.
The whole concept of free will is a little incoherent, as has been discussed many times on this board. Maybe what @Babale described is free will according to your definition?
If your definition of free will is “I can do whatever I want, recognizing that I don’t choose what I want, it is determined by my past and present” then sure, you have free will, and there is no conflict with determinism. There also isn’t anything special, insightful, or meaningful about either that statement or free will as a concept.
I find statements like these to be at least self-contradictory if not incoherent.
Determinism is undermined by the lack of known pathways that lead from atoms to human choices, made far worse by the lack of understanding of the middle step of consciousness. All is handwaving. Introducing science into philosophy without an absolutely solid platform of scientific fact makes for bad scientism and worse psychology. If some rando on Reddit were to make such sweeping conclusions based on foundations this hazy we would all be mocking.
I didn’t really follow all of that, but if not determinism, then what? What is making a free-will choice if it’s not the chemical and physical make-up of the brain at that moment?
I don’t know. Nobody else knows either, from all I’ve read.
But even assuming the chemical and physical make-up of the brain is the immediate determiner, positing a chain back to the beginning of the universe in which each of the gazillions of steps are determined by an unknowable “something” has no rigor. Simply repeating “it must be true” in ever louder voices doesn’t convince me. Give me the science.
I didn’t say it didn’t have an effect on you. But you have an effect on it as well. It may strike you as so immeasurably small as to be worthy of discarding from all consideration, but let’s start with the mere fact of it.
Say what?
What unknowable something are you talking about?
Yes, absolutely. You impact the sun in some small immeasurable ways. As you walk around you shift the Earth’s center of mass, for one, and that has minute orbital implications.
No one here posited that. In fact, that’s not even right – there will be quantum effects that throw real randomness into the mix along the way. Fast-forwarding to the existence of life on Earth, some isotope breaks up at random (literally, within statistical parameters) and causes a mutation in some early life form that becomes dominant, etc. There is no set of steps that you can predict from the big bang to now that would have me typing the previous sentence. I have no idea what that unknowable “something” is that you’re talking about.
However, I suppose all of that is off-topic for this thread. This thread says, assume there’s no free will. In that case, are fatalism and nihilism the only ways to go. To that I say “No!”. As a pleasure-seeking organism, I would derive no pleasure from those viewpoints, and in fact, they would likely interfere with my enjoyment of life.
nods Philosophically — for me at least — there’s an immense difference between “mutually causing each other” and “being caused by”.
I responded to
What I see is you calling something determinism without a strict definition that anyone can use to counter it. We are atoms, true. We also have consciousness. Is that mere atoms? If so, which and when and where? We cannot flap our arms and fly because our histories veered in a different direction yet we can build machines to fly and even decide when and how to use them. Saying that we are determined by that history is a meaningless truism unless there is a pathway, a connection, a “something” that acts upon the brain to allow us to do what we want and appear to choose it in the slice of present that exists between past and future.
If the concept of free will is incoherent, this usage of determinism is to me incoherence taken to a higher power. I have never read here a defense of determinism that satisfies me.
Not really – there are also electrical signals, basically a brain state consisting of the atoms and the electrical connections and signals. A computer running a program doesn’t just consist of the atoms – a transistor’s atoms don’t change when you flip it on or off, but that state is what makes the computer work.
What are your thoughts on the OP?
You mean other than post #2, the first response to the thread?
Yes, thanks!
I think this answers the OP well:
Morality is a feeling that we grew. Different people respond to their own senses of morality in different ways, but it’s still a “real” thing, in as much as any other feeling is real.
And even shows up in other animals. Seems to be instinctual for many social species.
I basically agree with the OP, except that (as I’ve laid out many times on the Dope) I don’t think the concept of free will is even coherent.
That is to say, sure, we make free choices; we think through situations, and come to a decision. That’s not an illusion, your thoughts are how your decision is made.
However, your decision is also causally linked to your physiology, your prior experiences, the subjective experience you are having right now.
The popular conception of “free will” is desiring an inconsistent set of properties. It’s saying that your decision is indeed linked to things like prior experiences, but it also needs to be the product of some other factor… And that factor has to have the potential to be different given the same inputs from the universe, and also cannot be random, because randomness is not generally considered free.
As I say, it’s totally incoherent, and things like determinism, souls etc are a red herring because I’ve never heard anyone explain how free will would work even assuming a non-determinstic universe, or one with souls.
And it’s a frustrating topic, because it’s almost always presented as you either believe that this nonsense incoherent thing is real, or you must be a fatalist. I vote neither.
This is an excellent and succinct summary, kudos.
Free from God’s direct control. That’s the only context that makes sense - where you have a Creator Deity and you want to separate actions that are His from actions that are anyone else’s.
Note, direct control. If God created the universe and everything in it, and He created souls with different properties, who would lead them to behave differently in different situations - then He is still responsible for tbe situations that caused those souls to act in different ways. But there are enough degrees of separation there to say we are responsible for our own actions - at least, that seems to be the idea.
Thank you. I’ve tried many times in my life to try to land this.
Agreed. Part of the reason many want to believe in a concept of free will is because it is a get out of jail card for all kinds of thorny theological issues e.g. it almost always gets used for the problem of evil.
But yeah, with souls for example, we can just ask whether souls are blank slates…prior to me being born, did my soul have properties that would later have some impact on my decisions in life, or didn’t it? Either answer presents a serious issue for using souls as the basis of free will, and illustrates that it’s really just kicking the can down the road.
Yes, quite. You’re just not supposed to think about that aspect much, I guess.
Or perhaps that’s why this top 5 philosophical question will never die…at some level, most people, even most religious people, have some disquiet that this concept makes sense and has explanatory power.
But because any debate is now framed in the same way, with all the same flawed premises and red herrings, the debate never really gets anywhere. Rinse repeat.
I agree. I always tell people they shouldn’t feel bad about free will not existing because assuming he’s real and follows basic logic even God couldn’t have free will because ultimately he’s limited by his nature despite being omnipotent. You shouldn’t be upset about not having something that would require the worst kind of magic to have.
Yes, we’ve discussed this before, and, as I may well have said before, it seems to me that, if I understand you, maybe the reason you find the concept of free will incoherent is that you’re so philosophically committed to causal determinism and you can’t find a way to work free will into that worldview with which it is contradictory. When you talk about decsions being a product of some factor, or about how free will would “work,” it makes me think maybe you can’t help thinking deterministically.
Anyway, here’s one analogy that may—or may not—help and may—or may not—relate more directly to the topic of this thread. Think of your life as playing a video game. Unless you’re a solipsist, it may be more relatistic to think of it as an MMORPG, but for simplicity you can imagine a traditional one-player game. You make decisions that control what your character does, subject to what the game allows you to do, and influenced by where you are in the game. Everything else works as it’s been programmed to, possibly with some randomness and/or AI built in, but your character’s actions alone are not determined within the program; they’re chosen by someone outside of the game.
But if you don’t have free will, it’s as if you’re watching a demo version of the game, or perhaps playing through a Visual Novel where your responses don’t actually have any effect to influence the outcome of the game. In that case, you might adopt an attitude of fatalism or nihilism toward the game: it might (or might not) be interesting to see how it plays out, but how it plays out is already predetermined and you have no power to influence things in any way that matters.
The analogy may fall apart because in real life we at least feel like we have free will and the ability to make choices that matter. But maybe your character within the game feels that way, even if you playing the game do not?