Free Will (An Illusion?) Revisited

[seattlegal]

The issue at hand is that you may be solely the product of external/internal (genetic/biological) influences. If you don't have control over the content of your character (which you don't; any character-forming decision you might contend lies in your past would also be subject to what made "you" and what compelled you to "make that choice"), your interaction with the universe is just another bit of the script.

You can also choose to change your pattern of behavior from one you followed in the past to a new one that you follow in the present, freeing yourself from that past pattern of behavior.

 

[juantoo3]

Does a rapist choose to be a rapist? No. Myriad factors carve him into one. Does he choose, in free will, to rape? No. Internal and external factors compel him to act as he does. He is no more responsible for being a man that chooses to rape than the Earth is responsible for spinning.

I am guessing you are not familiar with the influence of epigenetics on the genome. I am also guessing you are not familiar with the express comments towards this very matter from very learned people immersed in the field of genetics. I am also guessing you are not aware there is *no* gene yet identified that expressly equates with any particular thought - behavior pattern. (That is not to say there are not patterns identified; Freud, Watson, Pavlov and Skinner demonstrated there *are* common patterns, but none of which are directly identified as associated with any particular gene)

From what I gather you are saying, there is no compulsion to religion (in spite of the overwhelming evidence going back into prehistory), or any moral expression (in spite of the evidence of morality observed in social, herd and pack animals), because *all* such is pointless and irrelevent. Likewise there is no compulsion to justice or mercy, guilt or redemption, because *all* such is pointless and irrelevent. In the purist sense of the term anarchy, all is fair until somebody bigger comes along...

We will have to agree to disagree. I am not limited by my genetics. I am me in spite of my genetics. What is *me* is far more than the sum of my genetics.

 

[juantoo3]

I am not asserting that genetics decide all. I am asserting that no being is capable of actual choice because every choice made is decided by myriad factors outside of voluntary control. ... Is your choice made in spite of your experience and not because of it? No.

OK, a little better opportunity to attempt to address this. It seemed to me that your conclusion sounded a whole lot like a genetic argument. So, I'll apologize and start again.

Are our choices informed by our experiences? Yes. Are our choices limited by our experiences? No.

A choice is not free because everything that brings to make X choice at Y moment is outside of your conscious control. A common rebuttal to that point is "But your past choices bring you to the choices you'll make in the present." However, from your very first choice, all aspects of your experience from every moment of your existence are acting upon you and will bring you to only one choice and not the other. Since that process is not within voluntary control, we do not make choices in free will.

emphasis mine-jt3

I tend to bristle with absolutes...absolutes almost always guarantee an error in reasoning. "Everything" is an absolute term. And since our thoughts *are* within our voluntary control, it stands to reason that not everything influencing a choice is outside of our control.

What makes you think there is chaos? ... Throw a marble into a pile of marbles and their movements are not chaotic; simply hard to follow.

Ah, Mandelbrot's fractal geometry...

I have not at any time asserted that genes decide everything for us. My position is that our choices are formed based on our experience. Part of our experience is internal, a man with certain biological qualities will react to certain experiences in certain ways. Other parts are external. A child raised in a box will be different from a child raised in the world. My assertion is that every "decision" we make, every choice, is formed from an unimaginably complex interplay of [every] experience acting upon us.

Again, my argument is not nature/nurture and never was. It's more abstract than that. It's about the very reality of choice. Whether we actually make choices in freedom, or whether our choices are formed by factors not controlled by us, both biological and environmental.

I am wondering if perhaps you may not grasp the concept of nature / nurture, because that is precisely what you are describing. "Part of our experience is internal, a man with certain biological qualities will react to certain experiences in certain ways. Other parts are external." What you are calling "internal" and "external" are effectively nature and nurture, respectively. That is likely why my confusion with the "genes made me do it" argument.

It's not that something influences a choice, it's that a choice is nothing but the result of factors outside of our control. Does a rapist choose to be a rapist? No. Myriad factors carve him into one. Does he choose, in free will, to rape? No. Internal and external factors compel him to act as he does. He is no more responsible for being a man that chooses to rape than the Earth is responsible for spinning.

That's just it though, not everything that influences our choices *is* outside of our control. And even those experiences that are outside of our "control" still must pass through our subjective filters, which further personalizes each experience. How I experience a sunset or a baby crying is different from how you experience these things. What is more, because of mood or being tired / cold / hungry, or any of a list of other physical / psychological factors, I may not experience that sunset or baby's cry the same way twice. In that sense I agree with you that there are a series of influences outside of our control, but there are also those that we do control. We can choose to be happy, sad, angry, apathetic...if we know we are behaving in these manners. A child cannot control their emotions; a mature adult can, albeit within limits. Thoughts lead to behavior, or at least that's how I see it until I see something conclusive that shows otherwise. And our thoughts are under our control, in that we actively and voluntarily choose which thoughts we will entertain and which we will not. Free will.

So I very much disagree that a rapist has no control, or responsibility, over their behavior. Regardless of past experience, rape is a violent exercise of power and force committed by an individual who probably obsesses with thoughts of wanton violent use of force and exertion of physical power to subdue a hapless victim. This is at best a psychological miscreant, at worst a pathological criminal, and in every case has responsibility over his behavior.

It is one thing to entertain a thought that is socially unacceptable. It is quite another to act upon those thoughts. So yes, the rapist in your example *is* responsible for his behavior, regardless of past experiences. He has the choice to act upon what he knows is socially unacceptable, or restrain himself. If he chooses not to restrain himself, then society has the right to restrain him for the betterment of society as a whole.

 

[Q2008]

You can also choose to change your pattern of behavior from one you followed in the past to a new one that you follow in the present, freeing yourself from that past pattern of behavior.

The bold is the bit at issue. Is one responsible for not choosing to change one's pattern of behavior when THAT choice is determined by experiences beyond one's control?

 

[juantoo3]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

 

[Q2008]

I tend to bristle with absolutes(footnote1)...absolutes almost always guarantee an error in reasoning. "Everything" is an absolute term. And since our thoughts *are* within our voluntary control, it stands to reason that not everything influencing a choice is outside of our control.

1.Quite appropriate. Absolutes do tend to indicate an error in reasoning. Not in this case though. Where does our voluntary control come from? When we choose to do avoid thought X and cultivate thought Y, it is voluntary. I agree. However, what is the origin of our will to do one instead of the other? If your temperament, which is outside of your control, inclines you to make the choice differently, does it matter that the choice is "voluntary?" When we discuss ourselves, nos-mêmes, as a factor in our decision making (I can choose), we have to consider where we come from. Are we a product of our voluntary action? No. If "I" am the only personal factor in a decision and the content of "I" is outside of my control, I am not making choices freely.

Ah, Mandelbrot's fractal geometry...

Do tell.

I am wondering if perhaps you may not grasp the concept of nature / nurture, because that is precisely what you are describing.

I've a firm understanding of the N/N dichotomy, and the "internal/external" I'm describing is different. N&N have to do with the formation of "I." There are genetic (nature), and environmental (nurture; sometimes people include in utero factors in this concept; hormones acting upon a fetus may be considered nurture, not nature) factors acting upon who I am and who I become. An [internal factor] as I describe it has to do with who you are at a given moment, what internal realities (thoughts, moods, temperament, a bad stomach ache you happened to have at a time) you bring to a decision-making table. [External factors] would be everything the universe (outside of your body and mind) is bringing to the situation. Both act upon what You "decide" to do, and, I believe, the two ultimately determine everything you choose.

That's just it though, not everything that influences our choices *is* outside of our control. And even those experiences that are outside of our "control" still must pass through our subjective filters, which further personalizes each experience. How I experience a sunset or a baby crying is different from how you experience these things. What is more, because of mood or being tired / cold / hungry, or any of a list of other physical / psychological factors, I may not experience that sunset or baby's cry the same way twice. In that sense I agree with you that there are a series of influences outside of our control, but there are also those that we do control. We can choose to be happy, sad, angry, apathetic...if we know we are behaving in these manners. A child cannot control their emotions; a mature adult can, albeit within limits. Thoughts lead to behavior, or at least that's how I see it until I see something conclusive that shows otherwise. And our thoughts are under our control, in that we actively and voluntarily choose which thoughts we will entertain and which we will not. Free will.

I hate to bring it back again before you've had time to tell me what Mandelbrot's fractal geometry is, but there ya' go. If you toss a marble onto a pile of marbles, the path of every marble would be known beforehand if every aspect of the toss and the physical being/configuration of the marble pile were known. It'd be unreasonably complex, but with the knowledge, the solution would be there.

Nature and nurture craft us like a marble pile. We have certain biological realities to deal with every day; our body is affected constantly by its own processes and by the environment. What your body is, is shaped likewise by genetics, by the realities of the womb, by the events of your life. Our mind is a creation of our body (for the sake of simplicity, let's keep metaphysics out of this and say we're nothing but complex meat-machines), and would likewise be predictable if only we knew every minute factor that had ever acted on us to form our mind.

Like the thrown marble, any choice we have to make will a given scattering pattern within us. The marbles making up our body will influence the pattern of our scattering, the marbles making up our mind will influence it as well. Our reaction to any choice is the result of so many invisible marbles moving as they will because of how they're configured. There is no randomness. The origin of everything in any situation could be known if you had the capacity to learn and look at all the factors. A marble that rolls beneath the bed is not responsible for doing so, when its path was determined by the way Nature and Nurture stacked the marbles below it. When I choose to do something, every mental and physical marble of my being is pushing me to one reaction or another.

So I very much disagree that a rapist has no control, or responsibility, over their behavior. Regardless of past experience, rape is a violent exercise of power and force committed by an individual who probably obsesses with thoughts of wanton violent use of force and exertion of physical power to subdue a hapless victim. This is at best a psychological miscreant, at worst a pathological criminal, and in every case has responsibility over his behavior.

And it is practically beneficial to believe so. How could a society function if it was understood and believed that nobody was personally responsible for anything? At the very best, whichever of us believe correctly, this argument is philosophical masturbation. It doesn't have practical application in our world.

He has the choice to act upon what he knows is socially unacceptable, or restrain himself. If he chooses not to restrain himself, then society has the right to restrain him for the betterment of society as a whole.

Why would anyone choose to do wrong, if they were choosing freely? You don't believe there are just evil people do you? And if so, what makes them evil? Do they choose to be evil? Do we choose our nature, or is it given us by Nature and Nurture?

 

[Q2008]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

And if Tim chooses to not decide because he's emotionally distressed at the time of the decision because his wife has just been in a horrible car accident, he's solely and completely responsible for his decision to not choose? Despite that if his wife hadn't been in the accident, he would've chosen to choose? We're responsible for our choices even if the difference between ChoiceX and ChoiceY is an event over which we exert no control?

 

[juantoo3]

(Mandelbrot sets and Fractal Geometry) Do tell.

My former avatar is but one example:

Fractal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you toss a marble onto a pile of marbles, the path of every marble would be known beforehand if every aspect of the toss and the physical being/configuration of the marble pile were known. It'd be unreasonably complex, but with the knowledge, the solution would be there.

Mandelbrot's geometry describes this very type of thing concerning the marbles, however, according to him while it *is* a very complex puzzle there *are* distinct patterns that can be observed and solved.

From my POV, even though there are complex issues involved, the will ultimately is divorced from myriad influences and experiences in so much as we pick and choose which influences and experiences to guide us. We can even choose not to choose. I would think this too could be described in fractal geometry.

I think what I am trying to say is that we choose how to live our lives. OK, some circumstances are beyond our control, but the fact we are born into severe poverty does not excuse unethical behaviour. Likewise, being born and raised in the lap of luxury does not excuse unethical behaviour. We choose how we behave. I may fantasize about raping a woman (although it remains why I should wish to entertain such thoughts, and why I expose myself to experiences that promote such thoughts), but I choose to act on those thoughts or not in accord with my social ethics, mores and norms. It so happens in most western societies (and most societies I am familiar with) rape is pretty well frowned upon, subject to the death penalty in some cultures. So if I choose to act upon thoughts of rape I have chosen to entertain, I choose to risk forfeit of my life in accord with social and ethical norms. That is the purpose of law.

Nature and nurture craft us like a marble pile. We have certain biological realities to deal with every day; our body is affected constantly by its own processes and by the environment. What your body is, is shaped likewise by genetics, by the realities of the womb, by the events of your life. Our mind is a creation of our body (for the sake of simplicity, let's keep metaphysics out of this and say we're nothing but complex meat-machines), and would likewise be predictable if only we knew every minute factor that had ever acted on us to form our mind.

I am sticking at the moment with the complex meat-machine idea, but I still don't see it. I'll tell you why;

I have seen some generally stable otherwise sane intelligent people do some pretty stupid things. They may not always under similar sets of circumstances do the same things (never is anything precisely exactly the same, every moment things change). Why do people destroy themselves with addictions they *know* are killing them? How does one explain why people on the spur of the moment do something wild, exciting and out of the ordinary? Why do people act on dares or for a lark? Or even "just because."

There is a novelty factor, perhaps stronger in some than others. There is an adrenaline rush factor, perhaps stronger in some than others. There are countless variables, I agree, but we have a choice (and more importantly exercise that choice whether we see it as such or not) over which outside influences we willingly entertain. Everybody is subject to environmental influences, but there are those factors we do control, and we choose from among them and so choose our thoughts and behaviors.

There is no randomness.

This is essentially what Mandelbrot was on about, but I am not certain it applies in the strictest sense.

this argument is philosophical masturbation. It doesn't have practical application in our world.

I see. So Law, justice, reparation, and mercy and forgiveness are not practical applications?

Why would anyone choose to do wrong, if they were choosing freely? You don't believe there are just evil people do you? And if so, what makes them evil? Do they choose to be evil? Do we choose our nature, or is it given us by Nature and Nurture?

Define evil, please?

What's more, I sense a distinction between "our nature" and "Nature." Would you clarify?

I do not believe people are created to be firewood for an everlasting bonfire, if that's what you're getting at. But people can and do choose unethical, immoral, unrighteous and bad behaviors...sometimes "just because"...and more often they find ways to justify to themselves. We occasionally behave in a naughty manner because there is an element of thrill and enjoyment to be had. But..."only one more" cigarette turns into 50 years at a pack a day and small cell carcinoma of the lungs...but this person is not responsible? Who is responsible for a person if that person is not responsible for self? I see arguments like yours used to surrender responsibility for self to the state...and that's the last entity I want to be responsible for me (they have a terrible track record). But that is a political aside, I choose to smoke, I choose to quit, I hope I quit in time to stave off lung cancer, I live with the consequences in any event.

Likewise, I may work in an environment where I am unwittingly exposed to asbestos, I choose to work there, I do not know I am exposed, I may or may not smoke, and I eventually get lung cancer anyway. That's life, I live with the consequences...

And there's the crapshoot that I might smoke like a chimney all of my adult life, install asbestos for a living, retire at 95 and finally take a dirt nap at 102...that's life as well. Obviously there are far more variables at play, but life is still a random hand of cards we are dealt and we do the best to play the hand we get.

This is all presuming the meat-machine, disregarding the metaphysical aspects.

Ethical behavior, on the other hand, is purely a choice. Naughtiness is self-gratification, an extension of the same self-gratification we held as a three year old and knew no better. Ethics is about tribe and community, about beyond self. And the rest of the tribe and community is there to instill the rules and insure we uphold them, and that when we chose not to that we pay a penalty ostensibly to insure we don't do so anymore. We choose to be Ghengis Khan, or Mother Theresa, or most likely somewhere in the middle...getting away with just enough to make life interesting while not stepping on the toes of society. At least until guilt sets in and we get a dose of religion, and then we become self-righteous as we poison ourselves with the antidote. All is choice, and consequence.

 

[juantoo3]

I could go in so many more directions, but ultimately we are responsible for the choices we make.

One thought that hit me, how can a person steal or defraud another? What influences and experiences drive such behavior? Obviously the perp justifies to self...I gotta feed my starving kids, I'm a month behind on my car payment, I get a cheap thrill shoplifting...but the justification comes at a price to another community member. The perp may get away with it...but one day "he" gets caught. Can't help himself? Internal and external experiences drove him to it? Found ways to justify to self?

So?

From the POV of the perp, he's gonna say whatever to justify to self, others and authority. It helps if he can create a victim scenario...oh poor me, I was born and raised on the poor side of the tracks...self-gratification via self-justification.

But that's all BS to the POV of the real victim. The person who was stolen from has the loss of property, value and benefit. It cost him to give pleasure to someone else with absolutely no say in the matter (there are political implications here, too...). He is denied what is rightfully, justly and legally his, against his wishes and foreknowledge.

Ethics is about the other person, the tribe, family, community. We choose to be ethical because we love. We love family, we love our tribe, we love our community. We need to belong, and to belong we must play by a generally agreed set of rules, and those rules essentially boil down to: don't do to me what you don't want done to yourself. This axiom is found throughout all of the world faiths.

Truly evil people, if there are such, are so by choice. Disillusioned antisocial loners hellbent on self-gratification at all cost...its possible I suppose. But that is not the norm, it is atypical behaviour. Saints, if there are such, are so by choice. They are so self-directed to serve others of a sense of love of family, tribe and community that they transcend the need for self-gratification. I'm not there yet, nowhere close.

 

[seattlegal]

The bold is the bit at issue. Is one responsible for not choosing to change one's pattern of behavior when THAT choice is determined by experiences beyond one's control?

Then there would be no point to repentance. We have many examples of people who have decided to make a change from their past harmful behavior patterns and have overcome them, so there is empirical evidence to support this ability to choose to change.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

Agreed! Otherwise, you are reducing people down to unreasoning automotons.

 

[juantoo3]

And if Tim chooses to not decide because he's emotionally distressed at the time of the decision because his wife has just been in a horrible car accident, he's solely and completely responsible for his decision to not choose? Despite that if his wife hadn't been in the accident, he would've chosen to choose? We're responsible for our choices even if the difference between ChoiceX and ChoiceY is an event over which we exert no control?

Yep.

 

[Q2008]

Then there would be no point to repentance. We have many examples of people who have decided to make a change from their past harmful behavior patterns and have overcome them, so there is empirical evidence to support this ability to choose to change.

That is not empirical evidence for choice to change, merely change. This entire argument boils down to a very simple mechanism; in any choice, there are factors brought to us by the nature of the choice, and there is who we are. We are one factor, outside of us are other factors. For there to be free will, we would need to have absolute control over at least one factor; us. As it is, we simple don't have that control. I challenge anyone to show me how one decides to be different from what one is. Do you choose your temperament? Do you choose your metabolism? Your parents? Your childhood experience? If you do not choose these things, the "I" factor is not ultimately subject to voluntary control. If a man makes a positive change in his behavior, it is not because he, at the drop of his hat, simply decided to be different. Something within him has fallen into place, and something in his external experience is just right to set off the change-reaction. He betters himself not because he chooses to, but because of the pattern in which his marbles are falling.

 

[Q2008]

From my POV, even though there are complex issues involved, the will ultimately is divorced from myriad influences and experiences in so much as we pick and choose which influences and experiences to guide us. We can even choose not to choose. I would think this too could be described in fractal geometry.

Why does one man choose for B to influence him and another choose A?

I think what I am trying to say is that we choose how to live our lives. OK, some circumstances are beyond our control, but the fact we are born into severe poverty does not excuse unethical behaviour. Likewise, being born and raised in the lap of luxury does not excuse unethical behaviour. We choose how we behave.

Then you have to concede, you do believe there are people who, for no reason at all, make bad choices, and others who for no reason at all make good choices? Why?

but I choose to act on those thoughts or not in accord with my social ethics, mores and norms.

You believe rapists live in a different society than you? Do you think that, if a rapist had lived exactly your life up until the present day, they would not rape?

I am sticking at the moment with the complex meat-machine idea, but I still don't see it. I'll tell you why;

I have seen some generally stable otherwise sane intelligent people do some pretty stupid things. They may not always under similar sets of circumstances do the same things (never is anything precisely exactly the same, every moment things change). Why do people destroy themselves with addictions they *know* are killing them? How does one explain why people on the spur of the moment do something wild, exciting and out of the ordinary? Why do people act on dares or for a lark? Or even "just because."

And therein lies the point of the "complexity" clause. People are incredibly complex meat machines. We can't follow the atoms of the mind (non literal; think "very small realities" and not "atoms") and we can't know all the marbles clinking together in a person's experience. Spontaneity is nothing but a result of a pattern that is too complex (for us) to map.

but we have a choice (and more importantly exercise that choice whether we see it as such or not) over which outside influences we willingly entertain. Everybody is subject to environmental influences, but there are those factors we do control, and we choose from among them and so choose our thoughts and behaviors.

So, why does anyone make a choice differently from anyone else? Do you choose your sense of aesthetics? If you choose to listen to Rap instead of rock, is it simply an arbitrary exercise of choice, or do you choose because of a taste within you, one which you do not consciously cultivate? We can willing avoid thoughts we find objectionable, but you do not say to yourself "Today I will choose to find materialism objectionable, therefore I will choose to avoid thoughts leaning towards materialism." Or do you? Will you admit that people do differ in taste? And if we do not control our taste, why are we responsible for making taste-based choices? You don't hold the key, but you're still held responsible for unlocking the door?

I see. So Law, justice, reparation, and mercy and forgiveness are not practical applications?

The issue of free will has no practical application. To interact with other humans, as we always will, we HAVE to treat the world as if there is free will. NO human society could function on the understanding that nobody was responsible for anything. There is no alternative to crime and punishment, justice, mercy. Whether or not we have free will, we have to pretend we do. That is my feeling. There is no free will, but we can't base our lives on that fact.

What's more, I sense a distinction between "our nature" and "Nature." Would you clarify?

"Nature:" genetic (and prenatal, metabolic, organic, whatever you so choose) influences affecting a person. "One's nature:" the content of a person's character. Are you pensive, abrupt? Rude or polite? Pious or Godless? What is your temperament? How do you react to stress? How do you express emotions? What do you like/dislike?

But people can and do choose unethical, immoral, unrighteous and bad behaviors...sometimes "just because"...and more often they find ways to justify to themselves.

"Just because" is not a reason at all. Do you actually believe anything has ever been done "just because"?

We occasionally behave in a naughty manner because there is an element of thrill and enjoyment to be had.

And we choose how to feel about that thrill? Thrill seekers feel as they do because they choose to? Or is it an aspect of their nature they do not control?

but this person is not responsible?

How can you hold a man responsible when his behavior can be traced to something as simple as an inclination (inborn or environmental, who knows) to get a kick out of teenage rebellion? He may "choose" to smoke a cigarette, but is it a free choice when it is in his nature to seek out that method of fulfillment? I like the feeling of rebellion, so I take a smoke from my dad's pack. I am responsible for making a choice, even if I wouldn't have made the choice had it not been my inclination?

Who is responsible for a person if that person is not responsible for self?

Nobody. Scary thought, huh?

Obviously there are far more variables at play, but life is still a random hand of cards we are dealt and we do the best to play the hand we get.

Explain to me why you think we are not also one of life's random cards? Life is the hand we're dealt? Or are we dealt along with it?

Ethical behavior, on the other hand, is purely a choice. Naughtiness is self-gratification, an extension of the same self-gratification we held as a three year old and knew no better. Ethics is about tribe and community, about beyond self.

Very noble thinking. Unfortunately, selflessness is ultimately an extension of selfishness. Things we do out of love for others are because we love them. If we weren't satisfied in some way by what we perceive to be selfless behavior, we wouldn't do it. Ethics is ultimately an extension of the childish self-gratification that never really leaves us. Your values incline you to ethical behavior. But you don't choose your values, and hence don't choose ethics.

 

[Q2008]

Yep.

I can see now you're joking. Imagine all the time we've wasted on this little discussion, and all of it just to tickle your funny bone!

In all seriousness, you're suggesting we're responsible for any choice, even when it can be shown that the choice depended on one factor outside of our control? You can actually make sense of that position for yourself?

 

[juantoo3]

I can see now you're joking. Imagine all the time we've wasted on this little discussion, and all of it just to tickle your funny bone!

No joke. I'm sorry you feel thoughtful and considered disagreement is a waste of time.

In all seriousness, you're suggesting we're responsible for any choice, even when it can be shown that the choice depended on one factor outside of our control? You can actually make sense of that position for yourself?

Because the alternative is that we are not responsible for our choices.

Think about that...long and hard...and come to the inevitable conclusions:

No "bad," unethical or immoral behavior, no justice or reparations for wrongs committed, no mercy or forgiveness to be granted...essentially love becomes meaningless.

In other words, it flies in the face of all evolutionary and natural examples to the contrary, exemplified by any group of herding or pack animals.

Now, is that choice more difficult when some outside influences are emotionally overwhelming? Yes, of course. But that does not negate the responsibility for the choice made. If anything, is serves as an object lesson in not making rash decisions.

 

[juantoo3]

That is not empirical evidence for choice to change, merely change. This entire argument boils down to a very simple mechanism; in any choice, there are factors brought to us by the nature of the choice, and there is who we are. We are one factor, outside of us are other factors. For there to be free will, we would need to have absolute control over at least one factor; us. As it is, we simple don't have that control. I challenge anyone to show me how one decides to be different from what one is. Do you choose your temperament? Do you choose your metabolism? Your parents? Your childhood experience?

Epigenetics.

You are attempting to subordinate a person's behavior to their genetics**, your denials notwithstanding. I asked Dr. Francis Collins this very question point blank, and he responded in the negative. I invite you to look over the notes I took from his lecture on the science board:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/mysteries-of-dna-9783-2.html

Posts 29 and 30

**"I am not asserting that genetics decide all. I am asserting that no being is capable of actual choice because every choice made is decided by myriad factors outside of voluntary control", originally posted by Q2008

I am still not convinced. Determinism is not proven by some vague "myriad" reasons internal and external outside of our control. We control our thoughts, and we do exercise a large degree of control over a lot of our external influences. So the premise does not stand, because we *do* control our behaviors and there is no evidence to support otherwise.

 

[juantoo3]

Why does one man choose for B to influence him and another choose A?

I see you are attempting to lay some kind of logical trap, but immediately I see some errors in your reasoning:

Chief among them is the presumption that behavior is genetic based. There is simply *nothing* to confirm that, beyond some sketchy research pointing to a novelty factor in some, a tendency towards thrillseeking, and possibly a tendency towards seeking G-d. We should know more in a few years, but as it stands now the premise is built on shifting sand.

Now, as to why a person may choose one influence over another is elemental psychology: nature/nurture, environment, parents, teachers, religious leaders, peers...pretty much in that chronological order. From these a person picks and chooses and cultures their own unique preferences as they mature.

Then you have to concede, you do believe there are people who, for no reason at all, make bad choices, and others who for no reason at all make good choices? Why?

You want me to answer the million dollar question for you? Even if I did know, would you listen? Smart people do dumb things...it's all around, one need only open their eyes and observe. That is *not* evidence for determinism.

You believe rapists live in a different society than you? Do you think that, if a rapist had lived exactly your life up until the present day, they would not rape?

I have no desire to force myself on a woman against her wishes. Not even as a fantasy. So the short answer to your question is *no.* The caveat is *my mother raised me better than that,* with the addendum that I *do* exercise self-control and self-restraint.

You? Do you fantasize about rape? Do you exercise self-control? You seem awfully consumed by this subject...

And therein lies the point of the "complexity" clause. People are incredibly complex meat machines. We can't follow the atoms of the mind (non literal; think "very small realities" and not "atoms") and we can't know all the marbles clinking together in a person's experience. Spontaneity is nothing but a result of a pattern that is too complex (for us) to map.

Perhaps that is your conclusion, I think Mandelbrot demonstrated otherwise.

So, why does anyone make a choice differently from anyone else? Do you choose your sense of aesthetics? If you choose to listen to Rap instead of rock, is it simply an arbitrary exercise of choice, or do you choose because of a taste within you, one which you do not consciously cultivate? We can willing avoid thoughts we find objectionable, but you do not say to yourself "Today I will choose to find materialism objectionable, therefore I will choose to avoid thoughts leaning towards materialism." Or do you?

Difference between unique individuals is no proof of determinism. Even among what differences can be shown within a group, there are always collective group norms and values. And yes, I *do* think a personal aesthetic is cultivated. There are values and norms I carry forward from my parents, just as there are those aesthetic values I carry that distinguish me from my parents. This is no proof of determinism. Aesthetics are as much about fitting in among our *preferred* sub-culture peers, in some cases even *putting on airs,* still not proof of determinism.

Will you admit that people do differ in taste? And if we do not control our taste, why are we responsible for making taste-based choices? You don't hold the key, but you're still held responsible for unlocking the door?

Sure I can admit people differ in taste, but what purpose does it serve? It furthers my view, not yours. And since we *do* control our taste, cultivating our preferences, and those preferences can and do morph over time, your premise is faulty. Yes, we are still held responsible for unlocking doors, as you put it, because we do indeed have the keys.

The issue of free will has no practical application.

Sure it does. It teaches personal responsibility for actions and behavior, self-restraint and self-control. Where is a person at without these things? Is society better without these things? I have visions of anarchy in the worst possible sense of the term...

There is no free will, but we can't base our lives on that fact. "Nature:" genetic (and prenatal, metabolic, organic, whatever you so choose) influences affecting a person. "One's nature:" the content of a person's character. Are you pensive, abrupt? Rude or polite? Pious or Godless? What is your temperament? How do you react to stress? How do you express emotions? What do you like/dislike?

NOW you admit to a genetic influence. Interesting, considering you chastised me earlier for suggesting that was your position.

Now here you are attempting, and to an unquestioning person unfamiliar with the subject perhaps in a seemingly convincing manner, to equate autonomic metabolic systems with self-directed thoughts leading to behavior. You can't compare an autonomic system like the adrenal response to stress with the self-directed responses like outward expression of emotion. And yes, one *can* control these things in a public setting. Even the matter of polite or rude is a matter of self-directed control and preference. There is no such thing as a genetically happy person...a person chooses to be happy, each and every day. They choose to be sad, miserable, and on. Even clinically depressed people can change the degree of their depression by self-direction: they can choose to wallow in their depression or try to rise above it. And then there is love...is love *just* the reaction of chemicals in the brain?

"Just because" is not a reason at all. Do you actually believe anything has ever been done "just because"?

And that's the point, isn't it? "Just because" is often so far outside of what is logically predictable in light of the influences, that it makes no sense...hence "just because." And yet I see people frequently exercise this "just because" factor simply for the novelty and change of pace, to add a fresh and exciting new dimension to a stale routine. And since there is some research that does point in this direction, genetically, again the determinism argument is undermined.

And we choose how to feel about that thrill? Thrill seekers feel as they do because they choose to? Or is it an aspect of their nature they do not control?

How exactly does this defend determinism?

What difference does it make how we feel about rape? What difference does it make if we get a mental thrill from the thought or if we can see the error of imposing our will upon another violently? Either way, it is a matter of self-direction, whether we choose to restrain our behavior for the benefit of the community, or we exercise our self-gratification that we have cultured by entertaining taboo thoughts (psychologically, rape is not about sex, it is about power). If rape is against the social fabric of norms and mores, then a person who chooses to rape is responsible for their behavior and is liable to suffer the consequences for that behavior.

How can you hold a man responsible when his behavior can be traced to something as simple as an inclination (inborn or environmental, who knows) to get a kick out of teenage rebellion? He may "choose" to smoke a cigarette, but is it a free choice when it is in his nature to seek out that method of fulfillment? I like the feeling of rebellion, so I take a smoke from my dad's pack. I am responsible for making a choice, even if I wouldn't have made the choice had it not been my inclination?

"How can I hold a man responsible when his behavior can be traced to something as simple as an inclination?" Because you presuppose an inborn inclination when none exists. Show me which genes are implicated in *any* of these behaviors. I even helped you...look at the link I posted, there is another link to a site that lists all of the known genes and what they are associated with. No direct cause connections to behavior, and only indirect connections to novelty, thrill seeking and the search for G-d. No teenage rebellion there. Teen rebellion is a cultural thing, not a genetic one. Same with smoking. Therefore, a person is responsible for their behavior, because it hasn't been traced to any genetic or environmental influence...complex or otherwise.

Nobody. Scary thought, huh?

Faulty conclusion based on faulty premise, see above.

Explain to me why you think we are not also one of life's random cards? ...Or are we dealt along with it?

I didn't say that...regardless, it is irrelevent to the conversation. Nice attempt to move the goalposts though.

Very noble thinking. Unfortunately, selflessness is ultimately an extension of selfishness. Things we do out of love for others are because we love them. If we weren't satisfied in some way by what we perceive to be selfless behavior, we wouldn't do it. Ethics is ultimately an extension of the childish self-gratification that never really leaves us. Your values incline you to ethical behavior. But you don't choose your values, and hence don't choose ethics.

Surprise!, I agree selflessness is an extension of selfishness. Ever read any Ayn Rand? It still doesn't negate responsibility for behavior...in fact, Rand was *adamant* about self-responsibility and self-direction.

 

[Quahom1]

You two done yet?

I think, therefore I am. That means I choose...try and stop me.

v/r

Q

 

[juantoo3]

You two done yet?

I think, therefore I am. That means I choose...try and stop me.

v/r

Q

Nope. I will argue against determinism to my dying breath. Those people who try to excuse their behaviors with some variation of "the devil made me do it" or "my genes made me do it" are surrendering their self-direction and will. I would rather see a person regain control of their faculties than surrender them.

A person does not accidentally fall up to the higher reaches of Maslow's hierarchy...you gotta do some climbing.

 

[jyanez]

As long as you think your purpose in life is to learn from life itself, you'll see when you grow old that such learning will never be complete because until your life's final day every second will deliver you something new, at a very moment when you're 75 years old you'll just sit and rest, understand that 75 years weren't such a long time as you thought after all and forget all those complex studies, and deep philosophies your tired body will not be able to handle as it used to and understand the only true purpose was how many times you cared about those around you.

At that moment you'll understand you really had free will, and not because of the low petrol, or the raffle. You'll remember every time you gave water to those thirsty, you cared about those who were lonely, and helped those who were forgotten, it was you who did it, not the situation, your ADN, your education or a coincidence. At that moment you'll smile. And that very smile will be the purpose of your life in that moment.

That very smile will reflect the smile of those who knew you from the beginning and will know you in the end. Since all the trees are measured based on the fruit dropped from them, they will rest sure knowing many will be the sweet fruits they will be expecting and will regard your seed as worth sawing.

Because every tree shall be resolved against it's fruit and every seed existed since the beginning and will exist in the final day, and your Father who is inside of you and outside is watching for the day of the harvest, and loves each one of His trees.