Free Will vs. Determinism

[Talleyrand]

An age-old and probably exhausted philosophical question is the one about how much free will we have. Rather than state my line of argument from the outset, I'll introduce the problem in order to better frame the discussion.

Take a philosopher like the German, Georg Hegel. Hegel believed that humanity follows certain patterns and laws of conduct that cut across all time periods. The universe started with certain material and certain ideas. This material and these ideas are unchangeable and follow immutable laws. Since people are cut from this material, they also follow immutable laws. This means that our supposed "free choice" that we hold so dear today is dictated by laws anterior to ourselves. People's decisions arise from circumstances, material processes in the brain and the interplay of forces, none of which we have the slightest control over. This is the determinist side of the argument. The advent of the social sciences, which attempts to predict people's behavior patterns, has given determinism some hefty back-up.

On the other side of the argument are people like the Existentialists. Existentialists believe that human consciousness is malleable. People can change the orientation of their ideas through sheer mental housekeeping. We can make any choice our imagination can conjure up. Existentialists believe that we are completely free and bear the responsibility for our beliefs, actions and decisions.

These are very summary remarks on the two schools of thought. The essential question is how much free will do we really have?

[Antwerp's Finest]

I've thought about this before :

I think free will is a hollow term.

I say this because i have a materialistic/mechanical view of our world. I think everything is part of a chemical/physical reaction which started with the big bang (or something else, not quite sure about the beginning). I think everything in our world, from natural phenomenons to human behaviour, is determinable (? hard to explain this in english) by exact sciences. We can only determine and explain certain aspects of the logical entity that our world is, because our exact sciences are not developed enough.

So we haven't got an exact science which explains free will, but scientists are discovering more and more about how our brain works, and here too it has to do with chemicals and electronic impulses. So we may be under the impression that we have free will, but actually we're just doing what a logical force/law has 'planned' us to do, we have no choice. (sidenote : i dont know which, or even if there's a goal for this logical system)


So apparantly i'm thinking the same as Hegel. (i typed this before i read your whole post)

[Streetie]

mixed basket

I choose both

[CHILLY]

I took Philosophy on Social Ethics, that shit was AWFUL. Mother fuckers analyze shit way to fucking much, live your life, make dough, bang sluts, get married, have kids, do whatever the fuck you want that makes you happy, if it is killing, fuck kill people, you will deal with the consequences. It makes me want to go on a rampage, but I don't have any automatic rifles.

[Talleyrand]

I've thought about this before :

I think free will is a hollow term.

I say this because i have a materialistic/mechanical view of our world. I think everything is part of a chemical/physical reaction which started with the big bang (or something else, not quite sure about the beginning). I think everything in our world, from natural phenomenons to human behaviour, is determinable (? hard to explain this in english) by exact sciences. We can only determine and explain certain aspects of the logical entity that our world is, because our exact sciences are not developed enough.

So we haven't got an exact science which explains free will, but scientists are discovering more and more about how our brain works, and here too it has to do with chemicals and electronic impulses. So we may be under the impression that we have free will, but actually we're just doing what a logical force/law has 'planned' us to do, we have no choice. (sidenote : i dont know which, or even if there's a goal for this logical system)


So apparantly i'm thinking the same as Hegel. (i typed this before i read your whole post)

That is a good post.

My problem with science and scientific explanations of human behavior is that, if brought to its logical conclusions, science breaks down.

For example, you seem to take the "cause-and-effect" view of things, in that one set of phenomena is caused by another and that was caused by something else and so on and so forth. There is a chain of events, in other words. This view breaks down when you get to the "first cause" (big bang, God, etc.) because, if everything has a cause, then why not the first cause? Some philosophers have invoked the causa sui, but only for logical convenience. The illogical nature of the cause-and-effect view has led me to abandon it.

Cause and effect has alot to do with proximity. In my mind, whatever is proximal to an event has a higher likelihood of being deemed the cause of that event. All things in the universe hang together and cause-and-effect is a way for us to connect these things that hang together. I find it more likely that cause is something that we read into things and, in most cases, helps explain a small part, but not the entire picture. With this line of thinking, human behavior cannot be determined. If it could be, we could determine the causes and then even change them to some degree, thus exercising free will.

I understand that this post is Wittgensteinian in its tone and my line of thinking here is rather awkward. I will elaborate more specifically later.

[Astaroth]

I'm of the belief that consciousness is an accidental byproduct of our evolution. So therefore I think our minds allow us to interpt reality in such a way that we can find structure and meaning, whether or not there is such a thing free will or determinism.

I guess the short answer is, I don't believe in either.

[M U G G S]

I've always believed in free will. Determinism can only give broad generalizations about behavior. It can't say whether or not i'll have Lucky Charms or Oat Flakes for breakfast; it might say that i'll eat breakfast in general, but that's sort of a "no shit" prediction. If determinism is saying that i'd be more likely to have the Lucky Charms because of an afinity towards sugar based products from our not so healthy society that really digs sugar, then what can it say when i choose the shitty oat flakes once in a while? That in doing so i'm only excersizing psuedo-free will because that's the only other choice besides not eating?

To me, the two sides have always sorta been like this:
Determinism - things will happen, and stuff always happens
Free Will - sometimes you'll choose A, sometimes B

In my mind, it's a mix of the two. We are free to make our own opinions and our own choices, (ie whether or not to choose A or B) but our choice reflects the choices that others have made previous to us. Any rationale we have regarding any decision in any situation has either been handed down to us directly (as in we were told what to do or how to do it) or can be decided upon by ourselves (we can do whatever we want, regardless of if it's been done before).

[Astaroth]

Yeah, I agree with you Muggs. While I don't believe in either true determinism or true free will, I could certainly get behind the idea of a sort of pseudo-free will.

Love your sig, btw.

[katalyst777]

Excellent discussion here, Talleyrand!!

I believe that, we potentially have infinite free will, but out of conditioning and environmental response and reaction resign to determinism.

Take free will to the extreme and follow Ayn Rand's objectivism. Pick your end and shoot for it exclusively and the "universe will conspire with you to make it happen" (quote by some philosopher can't remember who right now). Nothing will stop you.

Every bit of technology and every achievement that we have made during our time on this planet bears witness to that. Abraham Lincoln bears witness to that.

Before dude won the presidency he had failed at nearly every endeavor he tried including numerous other smaller office elections. If he had believed in determinism he would have chalked it up and moved back to a log cabin in Kentucky. Now he's an American historical icon and heroe to some.

The problem is we are taught rules and limitations since birth. Do this, don't do that. Your were born this, that is how you will die. The apple doesn't fall too far from the tree, so on and so forth.

We become so fearful of what will happen if we fail that eventually we become blind to possibility. We become consumed by the mediocrity of just getting by. If it's cool to most, who am I to want something else. Environmental and social conditioning leads to human determinism.

Yet at any moment we could wake up and change our stars. So ultimately it all boils back down to will.