Free will vs Determinism
"
I don't personally believe in the excuse of "peer pressure", no one can make anyone do anything, through pressure or otherwise. I feel that people start using it as an excuse so they can live with their bad choices in life. That isn't to say that people can't influence each other, but rather that people like using that as an excuse for their actions so that they can live with themselves after the proverbial sh*t hits the proverbial fan.
People always look away from themselves when assigning blame for bad outcomes in life, but the reality is, you can only blame yourself for making the bad choices to begin with.
Free will = Freedom of choice
I'm not saying peer pressure makes anyone do anything. It does however have an effect and if your decision was affected then it wasn't totally free. If you have ever refrained from doing something in public that would be frowned upon you have given in to peer pressure.
Having ones decision affected by certain things doesn't change ones ability to make said decision. Refraining from doing something is also a choice, free will is still intact. Nothing can truly change free will/freedom of choice.
Ok, what if we look at stuff that has a more measurable influence like drugs and alcohol. Someone who is drunk is not likely to choose the same as someone who is not. To me free will describes will as being free from influence. Sometimes there is more influence than others but ignoring that we ARE influenced leads to clouded judgment. If I understand that I am buying unhealthy snack food at the store because I am shopping when I am hungry it gives me more control.
You still make the choice to become impaired by substances to begin with, and as such, everything that happens as a result of such impairment is still the fault of the impaired.
For example: A drunk driver kills someone in a car accident, should it not be the drunk driver's fault because he was impaired? Of course not, law still holds that person accountable for their actions because they chose to become impaired and then drive while in such a state. Ignoring that we are influenced is obviously a precursor to clouded judgement, but we still are free to make whatever choices we wish to regardless of said influences. And as I stated in my other post; Free will = Freedom of choice
Perhaps that was a bad example, what about all the people whos personalities have been altered by paracites? Or who's cognitive function has been reduced by pollution?
That could be a good example, I suppose it would depend on how severe the alteration to brain chemistry it is. Thank you for pointing that out.
_________________
Writer. Author.
AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,665
Location: Houston, Texas
We make choices, even if the choices we make are predetermined. Things will definitely turn out a certain way, but we don't know what that way is. Although our choices are predermined, we still have to make them and take responsibility for them.
So essentially, in order to live a functional life, we need to behave as though we have free will, even if it is actually an illusion. We do have the power to make our own decisions, it's just that all those decisions would be predictable if we had enough information (and mental capacity) to predict them.
That brings up the issue that if some day we could predict what going to happen will that fact have an influence? Would knowing the future change the future and thus create an unpredicted outcome? Makes my head hurt!
I'm intrigued by the idea of emergent properties. Just like water has qualities that the constituent oxygen and hydrogen atoms did not have, although more interesting questions might be whether there are musical (such as the existence of melody or syncopation) or mathematical truths that the earlier unformed universe did not have.
There's no question logic can be used in something like the Apollo space program to figure out how to get to the Moon in an efficient way.
Now, one interesting thing from my own life is that when I used logic to figure out what classes to take or what to do regarding jobs, I sometimes made 'clunky' decisions. I did much better when I used logic to generate ideas and then gut instincts (right-brain feel-and-texture) in deciding what to do.
"Free will" as we know it is a product of causality.
Hypothetically speaking, if one could observe existence on a quantum scale without altering it (damn you Heisenberg) and process the ridiculous amount of data required to map subatomic movements to macroscopic cause and effect.... one could predict the future with unerring accuracy... SO for all intents and purposes all our choices and actions are predetermined.
BUT that doesn't mean we don't have "free will". It just means that "free will" isn't exactly what many assume it to be. The choices are still ours to make... but they're just choices we were going to make anyway, under the circumstances. And if you think about it sensibly, you will realise that there isn't any other way it could be. There isn't any possible way that any choice we make could be completely divorced from causality. It just doesn't make sense. We don't exist in some sort of solipsist vacuum, free of outside influence.
It isn't like I've ever lost sleep wondering whether my choices are really mine to make... as even myself and the concept of "mine" are part and parcel with those choices... and coming up with some imagined solution to this non-problem doesn't make a mote of difference to the way my life plays out.
If it were simply a matter of hypothetical constructs, one might agree, however free will crosses into reality and thusly must be taken objectively into consideration.
Free will is factly given every day because we use it every day to determine what we do moment to moment, whereas determinism is simply theory that has not, and can not be proven in reality, and must be taken only as such.
I think you have this severely backwards. Your conscious experience is by definition subjective and can not be presented as objective evidence. The fact is that there is no testable evidence to support free will, only all of our individual subjective experiences which are of no empirical value.
Look at the many experiments done such as those by Benjamin Libet which suggest that many of our "volitional" acts are initiated by our brain before our conscious mind is aware of the desire to act. Also of note is alien hand syndrome, a documented complication following a corpus callosotomy.
It seems more likely that the conscious mind is more of an observer charged with creating a narrative to package the experience of the brain, perhaps as an evolutionary tool to improve the brains ability to predict the future via narrative memory.
"Free will" as we know it is a product of causality.
Hypothetically speaking, if one could observe existence on a quantum scale without altering it (damn you Heisenberg) and process the ridiculous amount of data required to map subatomic movements to macroscopic cause and effect.... one could predict the future with unerring accuracy... SO for all intents and purposes all our choices and actions are predetermined.
BUT that doesn't mean we don't have "free will". It just means that "free will" isn't exactly what many assume it to be. The choices are still ours to make... but they're just choices we were going to make anyway, under the circumstances. And if you think about it sensibly, you will realise that there isn't any other way it could be. There isn't any possible way that any choice we make could be completely divorced from causality. It just doesn't make sense. We don't exist in some sort of solipsist vacuum, free of outside influence.
It isn't like I've ever lost sleep wondering whether my choices are really mine to make... as even myself and the concept of "mine" are part and parcel with those choices... and coming up with some imagined solution to this non-problem doesn't make a mote of difference to the way my life plays out.
If it were simply a matter of hypothetical constructs, one might agree, however free will crosses into reality and thusly must be taken objectively into consideration.
Free will is factly given every day because we use it every day to determine what we do moment to moment, whereas determinism is simply theory that has not, and can not be proven in reality, and must be taken only as such.
I think you have this severely backwards. Your conscious experience is by definition subjective and can not be presented as objective evidence. The fact is that there is no testable evidence to support free will, only all of our individual subjective experiences which are of no empirical value.
Look at the many experiments done such as those by Benjamin Libet which suggest that many of our "volitional" acts are initiated by our brain before our conscious mind is aware of the desire to act. Also of note is alien hand syndrome, a documented complication following a corpus callosotomy.
It seems more likely that the conscious mind is more of an observer charged with creating a narrative to package the experience of the brain, perhaps as an evolutionary tool to improve the brains ability to predict the future via narrative memory.
If conscious experience is "subjective" as you put it, then that means that nothing in this world, nor the next, could ever be viewed as factual evidence to anything and the science behind the claim of determinism above free will would also fall into that catagory, not to mention science as a whole since science is proven with fact determined by experimentation which is simply experiences that are viewed with our conscious mind. So, you're not doing a very good job of presenting scientific evidence (or even facts for that matter) to convince me that you might be correct, you've simply maneuvered everyone who has ever argued anything into an infinite standoff that can never be resolved.
_________________
Writer. Author.
"Free will" as we know it is a product of causality.
Hypothetically speaking, if one could observe existence on a quantum scale without altering it (damn you Heisenberg) and process the ridiculous amount of data required to map subatomic movements to macroscopic cause and effect.... one could predict the future with unerring accuracy... SO for all intents and purposes all our choices and actions are predetermined.
BUT that doesn't mean we don't have "free will". It just means that "free will" isn't exactly what many assume it to be. The choices are still ours to make... but they're just choices we were going to make anyway, under the circumstances. And if you think about it sensibly, you will realise that there isn't any other way it could be. There isn't any possible way that any choice we make could be completely divorced from causality. It just doesn't make sense. We don't exist in some sort of solipsist vacuum, free of outside influence.
It isn't like I've ever lost sleep wondering whether my choices are really mine to make... as even myself and the concept of "mine" are part and parcel with those choices... and coming up with some imagined solution to this non-problem doesn't make a mote of difference to the way my life plays out.
If it were simply a matter of hypothetical constructs, one might agree, however free will crosses into reality and thusly must be taken objectively into consideration.
Free will is factly given every day because we use it every day to determine what we do moment to moment, whereas determinism is simply theory that has not, and can not be proven in reality, and must be taken only as such.
I think you have this severely backwards. Your conscious experience is by definition subjective and can not be presented as objective evidence. The fact is that there is no testable evidence to support free will, only all of our individual subjective experiences which are of no empirical value.
Look at the many experiments done such as those by Benjamin Libet which suggest that many of our "volitional" acts are initiated by our brain before our conscious mind is aware of the desire to act. Also of note is alien hand syndrome, a documented complication following a corpus callosotomy.
It seems more likely that the conscious mind is more of an observer charged with creating a narrative to package the experience of the brain, perhaps as an evolutionary tool to improve the brains ability to predict the future via narrative memory.
If conscious experience is "subjective" as you put it, then that means that nothing in this world, nor the next, could ever be viewed as factual evidence to anything and the science behind the claim of determinism above free will would also fall into that catagory, not to mention science as a whole since science is proven with fact determined by experimentation which is simply experiences that are viewed with our conscious mind. So, you're not doing a very good job of presenting scientific evidence (or even facts for that matter) to convince me that you might be correct, you've simply maneuvered everyone who has ever argued anything into an infinite standoff that can never be resolved.
This is a sadly misguided and a logic fallacy. What you consciously experience is a unique and individual thing, taking place entirely inside your mind; what you observe is something else entirely. Empirical evidence comes from the senses. When one observes they process outside stimuli, information which is available to other observers. This is key to any objective evaluation, science is built on empirical observation which must be testable and, even more importantly, re-testable. I can never know your conscious experience, nor can I be certain you even have a conscious experience. I can however recreate experiments, independent of the original experimenter. This is what gives scientific study, and objective observation empirical value. What is going on in your conscious mind is available to you and you alone and therefore can not be considered fact, is entirely subjective, and can not be presented as empirical evidence for the idea of free will.
What you have managed to do is ignore the facts on the table and instead argue a perceived, though factually non-existent, loop hole in my reasoning.
"Free will" as we know it is a product of causality.
Hypothetically speaking, if one could observe existence on a quantum scale without altering it (damn you Heisenberg) and process the ridiculous amount of data required to map subatomic movements to macroscopic cause and effect.... one could predict the future with unerring accuracy... SO for all intents and purposes all our choices and actions are predetermined.
BUT that doesn't mean we don't have "free will". It just means that "free will" isn't exactly what many assume it to be. The choices are still ours to make... but they're just choices we were going to make anyway, under the circumstances. And if you think about it sensibly, you will realise that there isn't any other way it could be. There isn't any possible way that any choice we make could be completely divorced from causality. It just doesn't make sense. We don't exist in some sort of solipsist vacuum, free of outside influence.
It isn't like I've ever lost sleep wondering whether my choices are really mine to make... as even myself and the concept of "mine" are part and parcel with those choices... and coming up with some imagined solution to this non-problem doesn't make a mote of difference to the way my life plays out.
If it were simply a matter of hypothetical constructs, one might agree, however free will crosses into reality and thusly must be taken objectively into consideration.
Free will is factly given every day because we use it every day to determine what we do moment to moment, whereas determinism is simply theory that has not, and can not be proven in reality, and must be taken only as such.
I think you have this severely backwards. Your conscious experience is by definition subjective and can not be presented as objective evidence. The fact is that there is no testable evidence to support free will, only all of our individual subjective experiences which are of no empirical value.
Look at the many experiments done such as those by Benjamin Libet which suggest that many of our "volitional" acts are initiated by our brain before our conscious mind is aware of the desire to act. Also of note is alien hand syndrome, a documented complication following a corpus callosotomy.
It seems more likely that the conscious mind is more of an observer charged with creating a narrative to package the experience of the brain, perhaps as an evolutionary tool to improve the brains ability to predict the future via narrative memory.
If conscious experience is "subjective" as you put it, then that means that nothing in this world, nor the next, could ever be viewed as factual evidence to anything and the science behind the claim of determinism above free will would also fall into that catagory, not to mention science as a whole since science is proven with fact determined by experimentation which is simply experiences that are viewed with our conscious mind. So, you're not doing a very good job of presenting scientific evidence (or even facts for that matter) to convince me that you might be correct, you've simply maneuvered everyone who has ever argued anything into an infinite standoff that can never be resolved.
This is a sadly misguided and a logic fallacy. What you consciously experience is a unique and individual thing, taking place entirely inside your mind; what you observe is something else entirely. Empirical evidence comes from the senses. When one observes they process outside stimuli, information which is available to other observers. This is key to any objective evaluation, science is built on empirical observation which must be testable and, even more importantly, re-testable. I can never know your conscious experience, nor can I be certain you even have a conscious experience. I can however recreate experiments, independent of the original experimenter. This is what gives scientific study, and objective observation empirical value. What is going on in your conscious mind is available to you and you alone and therefore can not be considered fact, is entirely subjective, and can not be presented as empirical evidence for the idea of free will.
What you have managed to do is ignore the facts on the table and instead argue a perceived, though factually non-existent, loop hole in my reasoning.
You haven't given any "facts" at all, only theories that can't be proven, just like everyone here. What makes you think you're reasoning isn't flawed? What makes you "correct" in this matter? Answer: Nothing. Because it's a theoretical construct built with things that can't be proven using real science.
Observation is also an experience on a personal level (which is different for everyone experiencing it), to say that conscious experience has nothing to do with what we observe with the senses is complete lunacy. That implies that our experiences are separate from what our senses tell us (which is by definition, experience). But you know, I'm not going to sit here and argue pointlessly with you about philosophy that is at best theoretical. I don't have the patience necessary to explain it to you any further and frankly it would be pointless because you have your set "logic" and I have mine, neither is going to change so what is the d**n point? You know what, don't even answer that, it's pointless.
_________________
Writer. Author.
It seems more likely that the conscious mind is more of an observer charged with creating a narrative to package the experience of the brain, perhaps as an evolutionary tool to improve the brains ability to predict the future via narrative memory.
I've been fascinated with Benjamin Libet's experiments, really cool stuff. Aren't there a lot of people that believe the consciousness is sort of the final veto in making decisions? Even if the decisions are originating with the unconscious? It seems peoples sense of identity relies heavily on what they believe is in control of self.
Even taking out the question of free will it's still hard to tell who's in control of who. If I'm exposed to a violent threat my body unconsciously starts to react with chemicals to amp up my strength and senses. I loose fine motor skills and I get tunnel vision and then my conscious mind reacts.
Philosophy aside (because that's all it is), everyone has free will and choose to make their own decisions, they choose to do what they do, and choosing determinism as a philosophy is no exception to that free will.
Free will is absolute and can never be taken away as the ruling decision maker.
Just because you don't want something to be true doesn't mean it isn't true.
I believe everything is determined. If today started again, without anybody knowing, would anybody make a different decision? No, the day would turn out exactly the same. That to me says that today was guaranteed to happen this way, and tomorrow is guaranteed to happen as tomorrow will happen.
I know this is a bit off topic but coo coo ca choo.
I say this: Everything may be predetermined, but thinking that everything is predetermined isn't going to help you any.
_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes
Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html
Presuming that any given universal state is directly influenced by the state before it as per the laws of physics, then "free will" as commonly understood does not exist.
We are the observers of our actions but not the authors. We tend to assume that our actions follow our conscious exertion of "will," but that is probably ad-hoc after-the-fact rationalization on the part of the mind which happens below our perception. The mind must constantly reconcile the fact that the body has acted by fooling itself into thinking it has provoked the action. This is not necessarily the case.
The mind is a machine which operates strictly according to the sum of its chemical processes and the physical laws of the universe. To think that we may consciously affect these processes by a way of a vague and ill-defined concept of "will" is absurd.
So -- what are the social and societal implications of this?
Mostly nothing.
Dangerous and criminal people will continue to be locked up and reprimanded because they are dangerous and disruptive. Everyone else will resume their lives as they normally would because the illusion of consciousness is both powerful and irrelevant -- it doesn't matter if our decisions are not "our own" in the way we want to believe or not, because they feel like they are.
In essence, the "free will" question is interesting to discuss but has little bearing on how we should conduct ourselves in our day to day lives. And though the universe is probably completely deterministic, we still can't tell what it will determine for our future, therefor "living like the universe is deterministic" is a meaningless phrase.
Pretty much this.
Also, here's an interesting and entertaining (and a bit cheesy, pseudo-philosophical) video on the subject. Skip to about 40 seconds in to get to the actual discussion.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU05XZ4_jtk[/youtube]
It isn't like someone had written that this will happen on that day and an invisible force will pull us there, it's just that the "choices" we make are inevitable.
I have always been a determinist. Think of it this way, say that God (doesn't matter if you believe in him or not, just imagine) is omnipotent. This means that he can predict the future flawlessly. He can do this due to determinism, thus, he knows what we will do, what we'll think, literally everything that will happen. He doesn't define it, he just witnesses it. I believe we have free will, but sadly, our free will is defined by preceding events. This is not fatalism, as God does not control our actions. I think determinism is just a natural law.
_________________
Do I have HFA? Nope, I've never seen a psychiatrist in my life. I'm just here to talk to you crazies. ; - )
We are the observers of our actions but not the authors. We tend to assume that our actions follow our conscious exertion of "will," but that is probably ad-hoc after-the-fact rationalization on the part of the mind which happens below our perception. The mind must constantly reconcile the fact that the body has acted by fooling itself into thinking it has provoked the action. This is not necessarily the case.
The mind is a machine which operates strictly according to the sum of its chemical processes and the physical laws of the universe. To think that we may consciously affect these processes by a way of a vague and ill-defined concept of "will" is absurd.
So -- what are the social and societal implications of this?
Mostly nothing.
Dangerous and criminal people will continue to be locked up and reprimanded because they are dangerous and disruptive. Everyone else will resume their lives as they normally would because the illusion of consciousness is both powerful and irrelevant -- it doesn't matter if our decisions are not "our own" in the way we want to believe or not, because they feel like they are.
In essence, the "free will" question is interesting to discuss but has little bearing on how we should conduct ourselves in our day to day lives. And though the universe is probably completely deterministic, we still can't tell what it will determine for our future, therefor "living like the universe is deterministic" is a meaningless phrase.
Pretty much this.
Also, here's an interesting and entertaining (and a bit cheesy, pseudo-philosophical) video on the subject. Skip to about 40 seconds in to get to the actual discussion.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU05XZ4_jtk[/youtube]
Precisely!
Your brain is computer, processing all this information systematically. "A+B" will return "C" though the formulas are massively complex and ever evolving. Your conscious mind is tasked with building the narrative which allows for better results from future processing. This narrative is a significant portion of the foundation of information your subconscious mind uses to process information and is important and valuable. The result being you feel like the author of your life, even though you did not have any conscious decision making ability.
Like many here have suggested, this being true, and knowing it is true, does not change anything. We will all continue to live our lives in the same way.
Great video btw, new channel to subscribe to!

Question: How can anybody use Determinism as an "Excuse"? I can understand that somebody can use it to some extent to excuse some minor misbehavior, or to rationalize away some shady (Although not illegal) behavior one performs in their personal life, but if "Free Will" existed, people who were devoted to avoiding responsibility would find a way. Where there's a will (Free or not), there's a way. The bottom line is this, though, as far as I am concerned, and I understand and respect that people may disagree: If you commit crimes, particularly violent ones that infringe on the civil rights of others and threaten stability, society IS going to hold you to account for the actions you performed, irrespective of whether or not they were entirely voluntary or not, because having people running around committing these actions is not conducive to a functional, flourishing and stable society, which as was pointed out to me in the Story of Philosophy (The section on Spinoza) are reflective of our universal hopes with respect to the function we expect civil society to perform (Safeguarding us from the aggression and irrationality of one another so that we can live a peaceful and serene life, to take an Epicurean/Hobbesian view of things.). Whether or not people choose to accept that fact, it remains a fact regardless of what people choose to believe (Which is my issue with Subjectivism, be it moral or epistemological, the former being grounded in the latter's shaky foundation. This whole "Thinking makes it so" BS that it's predicated on with respect to personal preferences.)
As far as Free Will is concerned, I believe it exists to some degree. The notion that we are deterministic automata whose behavior is completely determined by an endless chain of prior events and circumstances is a radical theory which I find wholly unconvincing, but I also find the idea of "Free Will" in the way it's popularly conceived to be anthropocentrically smug, as if we are wholly rational and logical beings who are so superior to the rest of those "Savage beasts" (Most of whom don't wage war with one another.......) when simply skimming over a history book would immediately put the lie to that ignorant notion. That said, I understand where people are coming from when people say Determinism can quite easily be used as an excuse for behavior that society considers "Immoral", "evil", "wrong", whatever you want to call it, but like I said, society holds people to account because it must, which it will do regardless of whether one's acts are free or not, which makes the whole debate irrelevant to me. And as far as philosophy providing excuses is concerned, the idea of libertarian free will makes it incredibly easy to simply sweep society's problems under the proverbial rug and condemn others, because they were "Always in control" (which I don't disagree is often true, although emotions can be strong driving forces with regards to behavior) as opposed to fixing the underlying problems that, if they don't cause certain behaviors (And I believe they do in some instances), certainly influence it in a strong way. To pretend that inequality, a sense of disenfranchisement and powerlessness, genetics, upbringing, poor mental health and shittastic availability to mental health services and so on don't determine at all whether somebody will become a rapist, murderer, wife-beater, pimp, prostitute, robber, etc, are to deny simple facts of reality and to play the role of the ostrich, burying our heads in the sand like wimps.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Free drinks at the Gas Station? |
13 Jul 2025, 6:08 pm |
Physicists Capture 1st Ever Images Of Free Range Atoms |
07 May 2025, 7:25 pm |
Minecraft clone: VoxeLibre/Luanti (is free, Open Source) |
11 Jul 2025, 7:13 pm |