Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do I have a choice? (determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism)
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 1 of 210 (357748)
10-20-2006 1:03 PM


I feel like the character in the Moliere play who discovers that he's been speaking prose all his life. In another thread AdminNWR banned me from discussing 'compatibilism' with messenjah-of-one. Having never heard this term before I immediately went to Stanford (well, the online encyclopedia of philosophy) to find out what it meant, and discovered, to my surprise, that I'd been a compatibilist all my life.
For those of you, like my self of two days ago, who don't know what I'm talking about, here's a brief introduction.
One of the implications of the materialist world view underpinning science is that events are linked by an unbroken chain of physical cause and effect. This implication is known as determinism.
Now some people argue that, if determinism is true, then my sense of having free choices is an illusion, because each act, preceeded by an unbroken chain of cause and effect, could not have happened otherwise. This position is known as hard determinism.
Others, taking the opposite view, argue that it is clear we have free choices, and therefore the assumptions of determinism must be invalid in some way. Someone who holds this position is known as a libertarian.
Those, like myself, who take the third view, that determinism and free will are compatible, are known, unsurprisingly, as compatibilists.
Now before Purpledawn intervenes to complain about all these -isms, let me explain why the question matters.
If the hard determinist position is true, then no-one can really be held responsible for their actions (if you couldn't have done otherwise, then how can you be responsible?). On the other hand, if the libertarian position is correct, then the deterministic model that underlies science must be wrong. That's why much of ethical philosophy is concerned with arguing for one compatibilist position or another.
Now, I don't want to discuss the whole of the determinism/free-will debate here, but there is one particular question that I'm intrigued by and think might be woth pursuing as a thread topic.
The classic compatibilist position on this question is to argue that what freedom means is freedom from coercion not freedom from causation. So, if I can do what I want, then I am free; if I am stopped from doing what I want, then I am not free. This is the position taken by English empiricists from Locke and Hobbes through to Hume and Mill, and forms the basis for liberal political philosophy.
This is a powerful argument in itself, and stands up to scrutiny. But there is a problem that compatibilists have had more difficulty dealing with, and it goes something like this.
In order for my action to be considered free, then there must be alternatives for me to choose from. But if determinism is true then, when I make my choice, that action is caused by an unbroken chain of cause and effect, and if it is caused by an unbroken chain of cause and effect, then it couldn't have been otherwise, and therefore my belief that I had alternative choices must have been an illusion.
My intuition, like that of most people, is that this argument is faulty in some way. I spend a good part of my day putting a lot of effort into choosing between alternatives - it doesn't make much sense to imagine that these choices would have been the same without me putting in the effort to make the choices.
So what's wrong with the argument. My intuition is that the account of determinism in this argument is wrong. It seems to me that the act of making a choice is more complicated than the simple model of cause and effect assumed in the argument. I'll try to address this issue in later posts, but for now I'll just ask this question:
Now that I've got to the end of this essay, am I entirely free to post it or not to post it? Or is my action of posting it (or not posting it) already predetermined as I write these words?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(determinism vs libertarianism vs compatibilism)" to the topic title.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Trump won, posted 10-20-2006 1:23 PM JavaMan has replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2006 2:03 PM JavaMan has replied
 Message 6 by Tusko, posted 10-20-2006 5:06 PM JavaMan has replied
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 10-20-2006 5:56 PM JavaMan has replied
 Message 14 by RickJB, posted 10-21-2006 3:38 PM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 15 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-21-2006 11:22 PM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 10-22-2006 10:12 AM JavaMan has not replied
 Message 50 by JavaMan, posted 10-23-2006 1:05 AM JavaMan has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 210 (357749)
10-20-2006 1:04 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 3 of 210 (357756)
10-20-2006 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-20-2006 1:03 PM


This seems like a fairly good summation. I should have posted something similiar ages ago if my time wasn't so limited.
I happen to believe you were free to post it for a number of reasons but these questions must be addressed first before a real answer can be deduced.
In brevity answer these questions. You do not necessarily have to post the answers; they are for yourself of course.
What area of the world were you raised in: industrial, rural, etc?
What religion did your parents hold?
What culture were you immersed in?
Mention a few qualities or values that you were raised to have.
This should or should not be more comprehensive but before one could decide whether one's action was free one must tell us or remember a little about one's own environment.
If you are a traditional compatibilist you must answer this question for your action is free unless it is externally constrained.
To add, your will must be made by a second-order volition: a second-order desire on which one wants to act upon.
Edited by -messenjah of one, : heirarchal...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 1:03 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by JavaMan, posted 10-23-2006 8:09 AM Trump won has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 210 (357763)
10-20-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-20-2006 1:03 PM


I go into this a bit in the thread about a society without free will.
My answer would be that cause and effect is not simply an external thing - it is an interaction between you and your environment. It is generally accepted that in situations where the choice is dominated by external circumstances that your chocie is not free. Therefore nder compatibilism you do have a choice in that it is YOU that decides. That your nature dictates the choice does not change the fact that you are the source of the decision.
But suppose we abandon that idea. How can we have more "freedom" ? Adding a random element to the decision - which is the only alternative to determinism - makes it possible for you to choose differently, but how can that be called "will" ? And to the extent that the random factor contributes to the choice, it takes choice away from you.
So in my view compatibilism offers the only way in which you can be said to make a choice. Libertarian Free Will necessarily denies will in the name of "freedom", but is that a real freedom, worth having ? I think not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 1:03 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by JustinC, posted 10-20-2006 4:11 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 9 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 6:01 PM PaulK has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 5 of 210 (357800)
10-20-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
10-20-2006 2:03 PM


quote:
Therefore nder compatibilism you do have a choice in that it is YOU that decides. That your nature dictates the choice does not change the fact that you are the source of the decision
But if determinism is true, then what are you deciding between?
It can't be two possible futures, because if determinism is true there is only one possible future (although it is unpredictable).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2006 2:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2006 6:37 PM JustinC has replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 6 of 210 (357810)
10-20-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-20-2006 1:03 PM


Free Willy
How funny - we've both started threads that deal with free will pretty much simultaniously. I'd love you to come over to my thread and have a look at it. If you're interested I'd love you to comment on it.
We have different outlooks on this issue. I'm pretty much at home with hard determinism. I don't see how free will could fit into the picture really, but I'm always open to suggestions.
So in answer to your question, my gut instinct is that it was inevitable that you would post your OP. All you process of deliberation, conscious and unconscious was an unfolding that lead to an inevitable result.
You say that you can't hold people responsible for their actions if hard determinism is true. I think I agree, but you aren't stopped from doing things that you hope will stop them (realising of course that your actions too are inevitable!). The best analogy I can think of is that you don't hold lightning responsible for striking people occasionally - you just take sensible precautions to try to avoid it happening.
I'm just going to wander off topic a moment, I can't resist. I bet you didn't know that I lived on Walmgate, just along from the Spread Eagle a couple of years ago. I was at York University and I was living in halls there. York is such a great city, I had a fantastic year. Anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 1:03 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 5:54 PM Tusko has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 7 of 210 (357817)
10-20-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Tusko
10-20-2006 5:06 PM


Re: Free Willy
I'm just going to wander off topic a moment, I can't resist. I bet you didn't know that I lived on Walmgate, just along from the Spread Eagle a couple of years ago. I was at York University and I was living in halls there. York is such a great city, I had a fantastic year. Anyway.
What a coincidence. I work at the science park across the road from the University, near Heslington village. I cycle to work across Walmgate stray every day. I agree, its a great city.
How funny - we've both started threads that deal with free will pretty much simultaniously. I'd love you to come over to my thread and have a look at it. If you're interested I'd love you to comment on it.
Yes, you started your thread just as I was composing my opening post. I've read a few posts, but I didn't want to get too involved in case I got distracted.
We have different outlooks on this issue. I'm pretty much at home with hard determinism. I don't see how free will could fit into the picture really, but I'm always open to suggestions.
Personally, I think that hard determinism is just a theoretical philosophical position. As far as I can see, everyone acts as though they have free choice, even when they take a hard determinist position.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Tusko, posted 10-20-2006 5:06 PM Tusko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Tusko, posted 10-20-2006 6:46 PM JavaMan has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 210 (357818)
10-20-2006 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-20-2006 1:03 PM


chaos theory
A fourth possibility, that certain systems are chaotic and cannot be pre-determined significantly in advance of occurrance.
Chaos theory - Wikipedia
Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is the sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, exhibiting an exponential error dispersion, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, the phosphate starvation signaling pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, turbulent fluids, economics, population growth and the vast variety of thermodynamically open systems operating far from equilibrium.
It could be that choice is one source of chaos in some systems, and not just by humans.
The problem I have with hard determinism is that we do not know anywhere near enough of many variables to come close to tweaking out the deterministic paths -- we don't know what we don't know (ala mr obvious Rumsfield), so we can't know whether determinism applies or not.
Today I had sugar in my coffee, but normally I don't have sugar on anything. It was a spur of the moment decision, and confirmed my personal preference for coffee without.
Reason?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 1:03 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by JavaMan, posted 10-22-2006 9:03 AM RAZD has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 9 of 210 (357821)
10-20-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
10-20-2006 2:03 PM


I agree (I think)
My own opinions are pretty much the same, I think. But what do you think about the question of choosing between alternatives?

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2006 2:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2006 6:41 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 10 of 210 (357830)
10-20-2006 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JustinC
10-20-2006 4:11 PM


quote:
But if determinism is true, then what are you deciding between?
The options presented to you, of course. The fact that given that precise situation YOU would end up inevitably choosing one of them doesn't make it any less your decision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JustinC, posted 10-20-2006 4:11 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by JustinC, posted 10-21-2006 12:23 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 11 of 210 (357831)
10-20-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JavaMan
10-20-2006 6:01 PM


Re: I agree (I think)
I say that you choose and the choice is a function of your nature. It would be pretty silly to say that your nature didn't at least strongly influence your decisions. But how could that make your decisions less free ? If you were offered the choice of two flavours of ice cream and one was your favourite and the other was one you didn't like would you say that your choice wasn't free because you would always choose the first ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 6:01 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
Tusko
Member (Idle past 100 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 12 of 210 (357834)
10-20-2006 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by JavaMan
10-20-2006 5:54 PM


Re: Free Willy
(re: York - I have a fond memory of walking all the wall in one day, and stopping off here and there. Pubs.)
I'd better start by confirming that I don't argue that I have any proof that hard determinism is true (It would be so cool if I did!). It just feels right to me. I accept that it could be the wrong position. I also hear what you say about it being largely theoretical. All the time we act as though we have choice. I seem to do so on many occasions throughout the day. Why is this, if I don't think I believe free will can exist?
It could be because I was raised to believe in free will. Its like the free will Jesuits got me basically, and I can't easily unlearn what I was raised with. Also, it wouldn't make much sense to those around me if I was to suddenly make a concious effort to deny free will. We constantly reinforce each other's sense that free will exists as others told us that it was real. But in a way, if I was to argue this I would be capitulating and saying that there was an inherent contradiction between the way I believe I work (hard determinism) and the way I act (free willy).
You could answer the problem another way. Just as Freud caused a stir when he suggested that the strings of each individual were being pulled by a subconcious that lurked off stage, someone who believes that hard determinism sounds reasonable is merely going a step further in placing the string puller (not necessarily a sentient one I hasten to add!) outside the human body.
I don't think its very hard for someone to accept that they have desires and inclinations, and that they act upon these feelings, but that these desires and inclinations are not self-caused but have occurred as a result of external stimulii - or rather for reasons external to the concious or unconcious will.
Doesn't this offer a way of reconsiling what appears to be an individual's act of choosing with the fact that I don't believe there is room for free will in the world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 5:54 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by JavaMan, posted 10-22-2006 7:34 AM Tusko has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 13 of 210 (357945)
10-21-2006 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
10-20-2006 6:37 PM


quote:
The options presented to you, of course.
What are the options? Two different futures states?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 10-20-2006 6:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2006 1:42 PM JustinC has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 14 of 210 (357970)
10-21-2006 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-20-2006 1:03 PM


One might also consider the impact of simple concepts such as context or scale on these ideas.
In the scale of the single individual one might be said to be free to take individual action with the framework of under or overlying forces.
In societal terms one might say that our actions are determined by external factors such as environment, upbringing etc.
In scientific terms, on a smaller scale our world is dictated by the interactions of atoms and on a cosmic scale by forces such as by gravity.
In short, the question of "freedom" might be best assessed within a given context - a form of deterministic relativism, so to speak.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 1:03 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 15 of 210 (358045)
10-21-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JavaMan
10-20-2006 1:03 PM


JavaMan writes:
If the hard determinist position is true, then no-one can really be held responsible for their actions
Of course they can. That's subjective.
JavaMan writes:
On the other hand, if the libertarian position is correct, then the deterministic model that underlies science must be wrong.
Nope.
JavaMan writes:
My intuition, like that of most people, is that this argument is faulty in some way. I spend a good part of my day putting a lot of effort into choosing between alternatives - it doesn't make much sense to imagine that these choices would have been the same without me putting in the effort to make the choices.
You're right -- it doesn't make much sense to imagine that, since such assumes that you can change the past.
JavaMan writes:
Now that I've got to the end of this essay, am I entirely free to post it or not to post it?
No. "Entirely free" is self-contradictory; as, "that which is locked to nothing," wouldn't be locked to being 'entirely free'.
Oh, and it wouldn't be locked to that logic, either. Nor that logic. Nor that.
Ain't violations of the law of noncontradiction grand?
JavaMan writes:
Or is my action of posting it (or not posting it) already predetermined as I write these words?
Is there some entry of true randomness? If not, then yes.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JavaMan, posted 10-20-2006 1:03 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024