Determinism & Free Will

[Adam]

Yeah that's exactly the way I see it

I think it's a misunderstanding about what free will actually means, that leads people to make assumptions about how if you don't believe in it then you must believe there's some divine plan to everything

If anything, the whole free will idea is more like that, as it implies we're in some way "special" (unless other animals supposedly have this free will too)

If you sit and think properly about HOW you make every decision you believe you make, then I think it's pretty obvious that it actually just comes down to biology

[Al Swearegen]

The way i see it. it is like the cards are stacked and the odds against a free choice in things. That is detirminism. Free will is the magical x-factor. The thing that upsets a perectly well constructed culture, society, universe. It is the unplannable, the abstract, the adaptable. I think therefore i am .

[the_ruckus]

The way I see it reality can be divided into two main categories: metaphysical reality and man-made reality.  Metaphysical reality is highly deterministic and governed by things such as the laws of physics, etc.  Man-made reality is realm of things such as concepts and ideas, this is the realm where free-will exists.

[Calavera]

The way i see it. it is like the cards are stacked and the odds against a free choice in things. That is detirminism. Free will is the magical x-factor. The thing that upsets a perectly well constructed culture, society, universe. It is the unplannable, the abstract, the adaptable. I think therefore i am .

The way I see it, your brain tells you what to think, what to do, what to look at, what to consider, what to perceive, and so on. What your brain tells you is based on the information your brain has acquired for you (whether genetically through evolution and heredity and/or via your personal environment and situations). Just because we're unaware of every single detail involved in our personal lives that affects the personal decisions we make doesn't mean we should acknowledge free will.

I would say adapting to any new environment is not a result of free will but, rather, an effect of a process involving a set of related/unrelated factors that led to this adaptation. It was inevitable that you would adapt eventually. Nothing would've stopped you from adapting. The same could be said in the case you never adapted.

Also, what necessity is there in having an entity that has yet to be clearly defined and that has no real purpose if things can be explained without such an entity? Occam's razor suggests not to involve unnecessary and unneeded entities if things can be explained without them.

Then there is the matter of psychopaths/sociopaths (and clinical narcissists and histrionics and such). These people can't really change the kind of destructive people that they can be. Unless they undergo some extreme psychiatric treatment (which has yet to be discovered), they'll never ever change for the better and become genuinely loving people who actually care for people other than themselves due to their personality disorders. What free will do such people have?

Other than that, I do not see the concept of free will as destructive. Rather, I see it as a harmless illusion that's just not necessary for our existence and the existence of this planet and this universe.

[Dexter Morgan]

Determinism is most likely our reality; but since humans cannot gather full knowledge of it, free will might as well exist for us.

[Calavera]

Occam's razor.

What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?

[Queen Victoria]

 

[lutra]

Fuck, tried to word my thoughts about determinism and free will several times now but keep failing to do so properly. Um, I might decide to make an effort again later on.

[Al Swearegen]

Occam's razor.

What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?

Both can be argued for.
I think that it is like the religious debates.
"But what about Dinosaur bones"
"God put them there"
"Well show me anything that can't be exaplined by an omnipotent being that can do and be anything"
"I can't"
"Therefore my argument makes better sense"

Not being able to find evidence of something that can not be explained away by detirminism, in this instance, does not make it a necessarily stronger or better claim.

I will say that people believe it detirminism varyingdegrees and for varying reasons.

[Calavera]

Occam's razor.

What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?

Both can be argued for.
I think that it is like the religious debates.
"But what about Dinosaur bones"
"God put them there"
"Well show me anything that can't be exaplined by an omnipotent being that can do and be anything"
"I can't"
"Therefore my argument makes better sense"

Not being able to find evidence of something that can not be explained away by detirminism, in this instance, does not make it a necessarily stronger or better claim.

I will say that people believe it detirminism varyingdegrees and for varying reasons.

In the case of the dinosaur bones, even without scientific evidence, it would've still been better to say that the dinosaur bones exist and that, therefore, dinosaurs existed in the past because those bones would've belonged to such creatures. To impose an omnipotent being as an explanation for putting the bones there is to add an unnecessary entity that lacks the evidence needed for its existence anyway and to complicate and demolish a much simpler but more rational explanation. Even as an agnostic, I wouldn't find the existence of God to be a satisfying answer for this scenario. Science simply explains things better.

Free will is simply a concept that some humans believe they have. But it's way too complex to explain a lot of the things in this reality. Its absence makes things much simpler to understand for now.

Maybe in future studies, we'll have stronger evidence suggesting free will, but until then ...

[Callaway]

Occam's razor.

What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?

Both can be argued for.
I think that it is like the religious debates.
"But what about Dinosaur bones"
"God put them there"
"Well show me anything that can't be exaplined by an omnipotent being that can do and be anything"
"I can't"
"Therefore my argument makes better sense"

Not being able to find evidence of something that can not be explained away by detirminism, in this instance, does not make it a necessarily stronger or better claim.

I will say that people believe it detirminism varyingdegrees and for varying reasons.

In the case of the dinosaur bones, even without scientific evidence, it would've still been better to say that the dinosaur bones exist and that, therefore, dinosaurs existed in the past because those bones would've belonged to such creatures. To impose an omnipotent being as an explanation for putting the bones there is to add an unnecessary entity that lacks the evidence needed for its existence anyway and to complicate and demolish a much simpler but more rational explanation. Even as an agnostic, I wouldn't find the existence of God to be a satisfying answer for this scenario. Science simply explains things better.

Free will is simply a concept that some humans believe they have. But it's way too complex to explain a lot of the things in this reality. Its absence makes things much simpler to understand for now.

Maybe in future studies, we'll have stronger evidence suggesting free will, but until then ...

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think that there are some religious people who believe that the Earth is less than 10000 years old who say that God put the dinosaur fossils at different places in the rock layers to test their faith.

[Al Swearegen]

Occam's razor.

What can free will explain in this reality that determinism cannot explain?

Both can be argued for.
I think that it is like the religious debates.
"But what about Dinosaur bones"
"God put them there"
"Well show me anything that can't be exaplined by an omnipotent being that can do and be anything"
"I can't"
"Therefore my argument makes better sense"

Not being able to find evidence of something that can not be explained away by detirminism, in this instance, does not make it a necessarily stronger or better claim.

I will say that people believe it detirminism varyingdegrees and for varying reasons.

In the case of the dinosaur bones, even without scientific evidence, it would've still been better to say that the dinosaur bones exist and that, therefore, dinosaurs existed in the past because those bones would've belonged to such creatures. To impose an omnipotent being as an explanation for putting the bones there is to add an unnecessary entity that lacks the evidence needed for its existence anyway and to complicate and demolish a much simpler but more rational explanation. Even as an agnostic, I wouldn't find the existence of God to be a satisfying answer for this scenario. Science simply explains things better.

Free will is simply a concept that some humans believe they have. But it's way too complex to explain a lot of the things in this reality. Its absence makes things much simpler to understand for now.

Maybe in future studies, we'll have stronger evidence suggesting free will, but until then ...

Yes but in the case of a god, we say 'But the bones are from creatures that lived and ..."
"No they are not. God put them there"
"Yes but the carbon dating can prove that"
"God makes that appear to happen because he wants there to be a test of faith now and again. He is testing you"
"That doesn't make sense."
"Could in theory an omnipotent being do this?"
"Yes, I guess"
'God did it to test you"

I think the evidence for everything to be detirmined and without free will is certainly able to be argued. As God being the answer behind everything can as seen above.
We are subject to our situation. Our environment and our genetics. Our upbringing and social status. Our nationality and religious beliefs.
All of these things will bias and weigh on everything we do and everything we are. That is determinism. To say that this is all we can do.... make a set number of possible choices without the ability to act above or beyond or around this is a limiting concession to make and does not seem in line with what i have experienced in life.
Not saying you are wrong but that it or that you similar coul disclaim every arguement with an argument of that is detirminist because... But it would in my mind be simialr to the faith like belief of but god....

[Calavera]

I'm not sure why you're putting a belief in some omnipotent being behind everything on the same level as believing in determinism. On the contrary, it's adding free will to the equation that makes it very similar to adding God to the equation.

Neither free will nor God have been shown to be necessary in their respective scenarios.

If, with the absence of free will, everything in this reality can be sufficiently explained, then determinism (the absence of free will) should be the most rational approach to take and accept (even if it does turn out to be wrong at the end).

It's the same with God and the dinosaur bones. If, with his absence. the existence of the dinosaur bones can be explained, then there is no need to impose an unnecessary entity for such a scenario. Nature alone explains it.

[Callaway]

I think that both free will and determinism exist.

I think that exercising free will is kind of like swimming against the current while determinism is more like swimming with the current.

[Adam]

You brain obviously sees areason to "go against the current" tho and tells you to do that.