How much of our personality is free will?

[Johnny Canuck3]

The various quantum phenomena show this is the case -- including almost the simplest, that of radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus. There's no way of telling from the antecedent conditions whether or not a particular nucleus will decay (and cause a click on your Geiger counter) within, say, the next minute.

Once again, you've already said that. The answer is that our inability to measure or comprehend the antecedents, doesn't mean they aren't there. There may be physical laws or forces determining the breakdown of the nucleus, that we haven't come across yet.

 

[Jonti]

Hey, if you want to build a life philosophy on the possibility of a determinist quantum mechanics, well, good luck.

No reason for me to get involved

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Hey, if you want to build a life philosophy on the possibility of a determinist quantum mechanics, well, good luck.

No reason for me to get involved

But in the end, it doesn't really matter, does it?

We'll both continue making decisions and choices, moment by moment.

But I have to admit, I didn't think you'd abdicate this easily.

 

[Jonti]

... We'll both continue making decisions and choices, moment by moment.

So you do make decisions and choices then?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So you do make decisions and choices then?

Of course. I just don't need the fiction of free will to comfort me, as others apparently do.

 

[Jonti]

How do you make decisions and choices if your freewill is a fiction?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

How do you make decisions and choices if your freewill is a fiction?

It's an illusion that has the force of reality for me, due to my inability to comprehend the totality of all antecedents.

 

[Jonti]

So you don't, in fact, make decisions and choices at all?
You just say that you do.

But (if you mislead people about that) -- why should anyone believe anything you say?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So you don't, in fact, make decisions and choices at all?
You just say that you do.

But (if you midlead people about that) -- why should anyone believe anything you say?

No, from the perspective of my limited cognition and understanding, I DO make choices; I go through the process of making a choice.

But, the choice I make, in any given instance, is the only one that I could make in the circumstances.

I appear to have free will, because I go through the process of deliberation, but if I could understand all the antecedents, I'd see that the ultimate choice was a foregone conclusion..

 

[Jonti]

But, the choice I make, in any given instance, is the only one that I could make in the circumstances.

That's not what having a choice means. Having a choice means one can select from a number of alternatives.

... if I could understand all the antecedents, I'd see that the ultimate choice was a foregone conclusion.

How do you *know* that you are unable to make choices?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That's not what having a choice means. Having a choice means one can select from a number of alternatives.

How do you *know* that you are unable to make choices?

But from my perspective, I AM making choices.

Do I buy the blue shirt, or the red?

In the end, I will choose.

 

[Jonti]

... the choice I make, in any given instance, is the only one that I could make in the circumstances.

But from my perspective, I AM making choices.

From my perspective, you're confused .

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

From my perspective, you're confused .

Not at all.

You're sitting there still at your terminal.

But the planet is moving through space at 25,000 mph. You're not aware of it, but you also are moving at 25,000 mph. You think you're sitting still. It's actually an illusion.

Because from your perspective, you're sitting still. And that's true.

But you're also moving at 25,000 mph.

 

[Jonti]

Not at all.

You're sitting there still at your terminal.

But the planet is moving through space at 25,000 mph. You're not aware of it, but you also are moving at 25,000 mph. You think you're sitting still. It's actually an illusion.

Because from your perspective, you're sitting still. And that's true.

But you're also moving at 25,000 mph.

None of which has anything to do with your adherence to an outdated Laplacian determinism ... has it?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Oooo, only just noticed people are posting on this again.

Interesting thread

So would I be right in saying that some people on here believe strongly in fate?

Nah, to me fate is a mythical idea of a pretermined path we have no choice to follow. What I'm speculating is that our personalities, internal processes and from that our actions are determined by our biological and social/external experiences, and therefore we can only ever act in the way all that programming has geared us to. Unlike fate we can constantly change this programming by being subject to new social experiences (e.g. like being in therapy) or biological experiences.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Upbringing may shape the way you think but IMO doesn't affect your free will.
......

Genetics - blood will out - I increasingly look in the mirror and see my old man, no matter what I wanted, how I thought, I see his mannerisms coming through to me as I get older, same as I can see expressions my sons pull, the way they behave, as mine.

Tbh I'd expect you picking up your dad's mannerisms to be largely socially constructed rather than genetic.

Well I suppose if you mean a predestined life due to a higher being then no.

If you mean a predestined life due to social and financial/ class restraints then probably a bit more.

And if you mean your genes pre-destining you ( e.g. getting diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia ), then yes.

But genetics are highly likely to be influenced by social factors! For example certain family members of mine developed diabetes later in life. However, they've all been overweight. From my understanding by keeping my weight in the normal range I will reduce the possibility of my developing diabetes in everyday life.

Perhaps if we were less complex then all of our genes would be very deterministic but as it is there are so many combinations it seems quite likely that social experiences can act as triggers, i.e. if condition a is met then gene b will spark.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Oooo, only just noticed people are posting on this again.


Nah, to me fate is a mythical idea of a pretermined path we have no choice to follow. What I'm speculating is that our personalities, internal processes and from that our actions are determined by our biological and social/external experiences, and therefore we can only ever act in the way all that programming has geared us to. Unlike fate we can constantly change this programming by being subject to new social experiences (e.g. like being in therapy) or biological experiences.

Talking of 'programming' ourselves made me think and the question crossed my mind as to whether the idea often seen in films of a computer 'getting a mind of it's own', thinking for itself' and becoming 'alive' is in some way a deep-rooted psychological reflection of ourselves and our own mental state?

Anyhow.........

I believe that even if we have a relative few free-will choices to make as a result of social and biological conditioning, that this should in no way undermine the importance of these choices. We have an imagination, we have the ability to use it and to dream and to put these dreams into practice. In some ways talking about just 'choice' negated so much more about the facets of humanity.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

None of which has anything to do with your adherence to an outdated Laplacian determinism ... has it?

Yes it does. It has to do with the ability to experience and believe something, that in fact is not true.

In one instance, it's the illusion that you aren't moving; in the other, the illusion that you have free will.

 

[Jonti]

Of course it's possible to believe something which is not true . But that's a general point and does nothing to help your case in particular. For example, I could point out that you believe in mindless (sic!) 17th Century determinism despite the fact that you do, in fact, enjoy consciousness.

You claim that the whole of the future is contained in a past snapshot of the world, and that therefore our feeling of being able to make choices is illusory ...

... Time moves forward, instant by instant. The totality of existence at this instant, is the foundation for what will inevitably happen in the next instant...

... it's a classic statement of 17th Century mechanistic determinism. You should know (from Heisenberg) that in principle "the totality of existence" cannot be precisely enumerated. So it is not clear what, if anything, your metaphysical claim could possibly mean.

And, as I've pointed out, a single unpredictable click of a Geiger counter is empirical evidence against your view. Your answer is to shrug and say "Well, maybe future science will one day devise theories which are able precisely to predict each individual click of a geiger counter ..."

But maybe not.

Here's how Mary Midgley expresses the central difficulty with traditional determinism ...

Traditional determinism, in fact, asks us to believe in a world of objects without subjects, and -- since we ourselves are subjects, being asked to do the believing -- that proposal makes no sense.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Of course it's possible to believe something which is not true :QUOTE]

It's more than just belief. Every sense available to you tells you you're sitting still. You can't detect the fact that you're moving through space. Your life is ordered based upon your sensory input etc. And yet; it's incomplete.

IMO, the same applies to your perception that you have 'free will'.

All the intellect and sensory input available to you tells you you have it, and you order your life based upon its existence.

And yet, it doesn't exist.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You should know (from Heisenberg) that in principle "the totality of existence" cannot be precisely enumerated. .

What heisenberg says, is that there is no measuring tool available to humankind, that can enumerate the totality of existence.

That isn't the same thing as saying that existence is innumerable or disorderly; merely that we can't perceive the totality of it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Of course it's possible to believe something which is not true . But that's a general point and does nothing to help your case in particular. For example, I could point out that you believe in mindless (sic!) 17th Century determinism despite the fact that you do, in fact, enjoy consciousness....

BTW, did you get a C in philosophy?

Mechanistic determinism arose in the 19th century, with JS Mill mostly.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And, as I've pointed out, a single unpredictable click of a Geiger counter is empirical evidence against your view. Your answer is to shrug and say "Well, maybe future science will one day devise theories which are able precisely to predict each individual click of a geiger counter ..."

But maybe not....

You're correct. It is some empirical evidence. It's something that we're unable to explain.

But by the same token, we don't understand how cancer happens, but that doesn't mean that cancer doesn't have a cause.

There are lots of things we don't understand. But the incompleteness of our understanding doesn't mean that the universe is disorderly.

 

[Jonti]

Mechanistic determinism arose in the 19th century, with JS Mill mostly.

Oh dear.

Someone had better tell Galileo (1564 - 1642) and Newton (1642-1727)

 

[Jonti]

You're correct. It is some empirical evidence. It's something that we're unable to explain.

But by the same token, we don't understand how cancer happens, but that doesn't mean that cancer doesn't have a cause.

There are lots of things we don't understand. But the incompleteness of our understanding doesn't mean that the universe is disorderly.

Oooh, another trite truism. How thrilling!

Now about this ...

... Time moves forward, instant by instant. The totality of existence at this instant, is the foundation for what will inevitably happen in the next instant...

... it's bollocks, isn't it?

It cannot be corroborated. It implies things that are not true. To the extent it is disprovable, it has been roundly and scientifically disproved. And as a basis to a philosophy of life, or guide to action, it's useless, for it explicitly assumes we cannot act or make choices.

 

[Jonti]

What heisenberg says, is that there is no measuring tool available to humankind, that can enumerate the totality of existence.

That isn't the same thing as saying that existence is innumerable or disorderly; merely that we can't perceive the totality of it.

Well *is* there a measuring tool ... that can enumerate the totality of existence?

Hmmm? Is there?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oooh, another trite truism. How thrilling!

Now about this ...... it's bollocks, isn't it?

It cannot be corroborated. It implies things that are not true. To the extent it is disprovable, it has been roundly and scientifically disproved. And as a basis to a philosophy of life, or guide to action, it's useless, for it explicitly assumes we cannot act or make choices.

Once again, you simply state conclusions as if it were argument.

If I were your professor, you'd be staying after class to complete some remedial assignments.

Friend, just because you took a course in university, doesn't necessarily mean know shit about something.

 

[Jonti]

If I were your professor, you'd be staying after class to complete some remedial assignments.

It's a bit arrogant that you have fantasies about instructing me in philosophy. Especially as you've already admitted that you've forgotten everything you learned.

I took a bunch of philosophy back in university ... It was a long time ago: I've forgotten it all now.

It shows Johnny, it shows .

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's a bit arrogant that you have fantasies about instructing me in philosophy. Especially as you've already admitted that you've forgotten everything you learned.It shows Johnny, it shows .

It's true that my university philosophy was a while ago, so it must be particularly galling for you that a fresh young student like yourself still can't best a broken down old thinker like myself.

And I have no fantasy about instructing the likes of you in philosophy. At my age, taking on frustrating and ultimately pointless and fruitless tasks could be harmful to my health.

 

[Jonti]

... At my age, taking on frustrating and ultimately pointless and fruitless tasks could be harmful to my health.

But you don't have a choice. Or do you?