Free Will vs. Determinism

My wife is currently taking a course at our local community college (I'll be taking it next semester) called "Introduction to Ethics", and one of the books they've had to read is a short dialogue on Free Will and Determinism. I am not privy to their class discussions, but the subject has piqued my curiosity enough that I've decided I'm not sure which one I perhaps agree with more. As of now I probably consider myself a compatibilist.

Android339

I also think compatibilism is the more rational view on will, but that ethics course could lead the discussion into all sorts of areas. Compatibilism does seem like a bit of a cop-out though, but, then again, "determinism" is quite an insubstantive concept in itself. Arthur Schopenhauer said we "can do what we will but can not will what we will". That may not necessarily be true in every case though.

 

The way I see it, we have free will in the most important sense to us. At least, many of us on here do. Freedom to do what we want without any external restraint. Yet I would argue that while we are free to do that, we are not free to decide what we want. In the dialogue the Free Will proponent was insistent that free will meant that all of our actions are uncaused. To me, that is nothing more than saying that our actions are dictated at random, which seems to me no more free than our actions being dictated by a long line of events. In this way I can sort of acquiesce to the fact that determinism seems to be true, yet also reconcile the intuitive belief that I somehow have free will by ascribing it a relative value to external constraint and not an absolutist free will that seems just as stifling as saying we are robots by any other method.

Android339

There is certainly some degree of latitude within human activity. Although we do have genetic traits, sociological boundaries and different psychological mechanisms that can trigger the desire to act. We have to juggle a-priori and posteriori knowledge in a way that does not always lead to the same desire for action. I believe we don't have a single mindset (i.e we can doubt ourselves, or, for example, say things we don't mean) and that our judgements are not always consistent (in line with Heidegger's "Dasein").

Looking at biological evolution, it is clear that we are pre-disposed to some actions. Quantum mechanics seems to reject deterministic outcomes (as far as I understand it). Human creativity, discovery and invention seem to suggest a scenareo where there is a middle-ground between the two extremes. There have been some intersting threads in this union on the topic, as I recall.

In what case would you dispute the relevance of Schopenhauer's quote?

As far as quantum mechanics, it is hard for me to see how that directly relates to the bigger level where we operate. It is true enough that things of quantum size operate under different laws than things of greater size, and so it is hard to see the relation, that is, how would randomness on the quantum level operate on the greater level where no such randomness is perceived?

Android339

In the case of that quote; I don't think people are always free to do what they will. Additionally, I think we can change what we desire. Examples would include being constrained by circumstance in actualising one's will. When it comes to being unable to will what one wills, I believe that people can make a conscious choice to change what they think and desire.

This is a woolly and transient area of the mind, where a "will" to act certainly changes with time and often with mood and is not necessarily a discrete, objective position.

I find your "scale" objection to the non-determinism in quantum mechanics interesting. I wonder if you take the postion that Einstein originally had during the Bohr Einstein dialogue, akin to the "Copenhagen interpretation". Would you think that quantum effects are imperceptible on a macro level?

Quantum effects can definately be ignored, macro world is 100% determined. Just look at gibbs energy and how good it can predict shit.3atronach3

Would you like to explain a bit? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy I did many experiments at my college and it never flaws.... Btw how irelevant quantum effects are in the macro world you can easily see by the percentage of things you can describe with classic pyshics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy I did many experiments at my college and it never flaws.... Btw how irelevant quantum effects are in the macro world you can easily see by the percentage of things you can describe with classic pyshics.

 

3atronach3

I don't understand where and how Gibbs energy fits into this discussion. I also thought that quantum effects can be applicable to our "macro" environment in "decoherence" i.e. quantum effects impact on the "macro" environment. There is still such a lot of stuff we don't understand about this new insight into our environment that it seems daft to start imposing absolute limits on it.

Cant beleive an atheist beleives in free will :O

Well brain does have some weird emergent charachteristics so you could look for free will there but thats spirituality.

Cant beleive an atheist beleives in free will :O

Well brain does have some weird emergent charachteristics so you could look for free will there but thats spirituality.

3atronach3

Oh, now I see what you're saying about Gibbs Energy.

Free will and spirituality are both far too nebulous concepts to have any concrete beliefs on. But as far as I understand it; they are entirely different concepts.