De gustibus non est disputandum
I’m not a philosopher but a couple of issues that have occupied philosophers over perhaps millenia remain unresolved. Let’s call the concepts free will and determinism. Of course a problem that arises immediately as there seem not to be consensus definitions of either concept. They also seem to be linked (in the opinion of many) in that agreeing or disagreeing with one of these concepts entails acceptance or rejection of the other. A frequently encountered strategy is to add an adjective. So we have libertarian free will, strict determinism and so on. Below is a diagram that attempts to summarize the various proposals.
Ancient Greek atomists: Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus proposed a reality of atoms and empty space and Epicurus added the idea of bias (παρέγκλισις) to introduce indeterminism into reality. Over two millenia later and with the world’s finest minds applied to free will and whether determinism rules this universe, no consensus (or means of testing hypotheses) has emerged so far.
So, are all of us free to choose what we believe and form our own opinions? I think Epicurus was right that the universe we occupy is fundamentally indeterminate and I also think humans who are conscious are able to make rational choices between available options. I’m also persuaded by Daniel Dennett that if this universe can be shown to be strictly determined (I’ll take an affordable bet this will not happen during my lifetime) this does not impinge significantly on the concept of free will. I don’t see how any of these issues can be resolved, hence de gustibus non est disputandum (you pays your money and you takes your choice) I look forward to hearing the views of fellow TSZ readers and contributors.
I neglected to offer my definitions of free will and determinism. I’d be grateful for guidance from anyone who can offer working definitions for either concept.
If one has free will, one should be able to change ones likes and dislikes.
Hmm. That’s a good one. I dislike dried fruit (Christmas cake, for example) and though I can suppress the feeling of distaste and eat the stuff, I don’t enjoy it. Does that mean I lack free will?
Actually these issues are resolved, if you just have the patience to read through the long story.
Oh, great. What got resolved? That there is free will? That determinism rules?
What a bluffer you are Erik.
However I call your bluff! What Alan said…..
No spoilers, but this was a great show and touches on this discussion, https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p087gj19/devs
OMagain,
*curiosity piqued, spins up Surfshark*
First things first. Do you want them resolved? Do you think it is possible to resolve them?
Not sure. Depends what the answers are. I don’t think I’d like the idea of having no free will but I don’t think I could be convinced that is the case as my first-person experience is so convincing to me that I do have free will.
Not sure about that either. I don’t think I have enough information to form an opinion that amounts to a guess. There is also the problem that the true answer might be too complex for humans to understand.
Erik,
So, Erik…
This was short. Philosophy is simply not your thing. The right answer would have been: “Yes and yes! I am not going to stop until we get to the bottom of this!”
Erik,
But am I now going to get your answer to:
What got resolved? That there is free will? That determinism rules?
Erik,
I honestly don’t think it is possible
No, in my case that would be the wrong answer because I honestly don’t think whether determinism holds is resolvable. Please correct me.
Oh, sure. It’s all worked out. Specifically, it has been laid out thoroughly what follows from physicalist premises and what follows from dualist and essentialist etc. premises. Accordingly, physicalists have their scope of phenomena that they can expect and explain, dualists theirs etc.
As your illustration points out, physicalists cannot properly explain free will. So, if free will is true (and it is, because otherwise we could have truthfully stopped judging people a long time ago), then physicalist premises are either false or, at best, incomplete. It’s a long story.
Very broad brush strokes there. To see if I can clarify, physicalism is an attempt to account for the properties of our universe. I doubt anyone claims that the current state of Physics and science in general has yet approached anything resembling a full “how” explanation. So incomplete, I agree with. But that doesn’t mean dualism gets a pass. Dualism is unfalsifiable.
Just noticed that the chart I copied from Wikipedia doesn’t show “Indeterminism” at all, which is a shame as the obvious route to serenity is via physicalism and indeterminance.
Physicalism accounts for the *physical* properties of the universe. Moreover, philosophically, physicalism claims that physical is all there is. And philosophers know what follows from this and what cannot follow.
Unfalsifiable to the satisfaction of the physicalist, yes. But dualism is the claim that there is more than just the physical, e.g. free will. And the non-physical would not be physically falsifiable, that’s the ontological essence of the non-physical.
That’s why I am an anti-IDist. ID theorists think they can “detect design”. Nope, design is undetectable. Design exists, but you cannot put a number on it. ID-ists are either cryptophysicalists or just not very good at metaphysics.
Isn’t that what the Derk Pereboom arrow represents? And let me assure you that it may lead to hard incompatibilism, but serenity is elusive.
You are going to have to unpack this. What do you mean by “truthfully stopped judging people”? You do not appear to have thought through the ‘no free will’ case at all.
I would say the problem needs to be defined before being resolved.
I predict there will be no agreement on definition.
Is it surprising to anyone that Alan’s take on this would be that we can’t agree what will means and what does free mean and what does mean mean and what does have mean, and what does define mean…
I could have told you that’s how this would lead before there was a single reply. I guess I am Uri Geller.
But most people, not Alan of course, but most know what they are talking about when they ask if people have free will. They mean can you actually make a free choice from several options or does it just seem like you could chosen something different than you did, but that’s because you aren’t aware of the physical constraints which forced the choice on you.
There is no need for word game obfuscation. People have been wondering this question for ages. Everyone not named Alan or Daniel Dennett knows exactly what the question means.
And talking about determinism is a totally irrelevant and separate matter to the question most people are asking. There can randomness in the universe but that still doesn’t mean you can choose. If it’s the physical arrangement of the body which causes the result then there will only be one result from one physical arrangement.
Unless you want to believe that quantum uncertainty decides outcomes. That still doesn’t get the physicalists off the hook of trying to reconcile the physical with the metaphysical.
phoodoo,
That’s a bit vacuous, phoodoo. Do you have an opinion on free will? Determinism? Care to offer definitions?
Well, I am convinced I can but will allow that I may be delusional and unaware of that fact.
What do you think?
Determinism holds that knowing exactly the positions, momentum, velocities of every particle in the universe at some time is enough to predict the situation at any other time. We’re on rails, in other words. I reject this idea. What do you think?
I’ve not come across Derk Pereboom before. Will read up on hard incompatibility. But I dismiss strict determinism at the outset.
My serenity comes in moments only. It may be an early indication of dementia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompatibilism
I do seem aligned with this grouping, especially Lucretius.
Still stuck on the basics. There seems to be an overlap between is and ought. Determinism holds therefore no free will therefore no moral responsibility. Determinism is false therefore we have constrained free will to make choices therefore moral responsibility. But the consequence and how society should deal with people who deviate from norms hardly changes.
If there is randomness in the universe then one physical arrangement can give rise to multiple different outcomes. According to your proffered definition since “you could have chosen something different than you did” this counts as a choice. If you are dissatisfied with this, please explain how you think you can squeeze your flavour of free will in any kind of universe.
LOL. You really suck at bluffing, Erik.
Based on what, on the quantum fluctuations? That still doesn’t give you a choice. the quantum fluctuation chooses. Your desire is not a quantum fluctuation.
It seems to me the materilaist who don’t get this haven’t even thought about this. Do you think one day we can build a computer that makes outputs based on what it likes best? What would such a program be like-you would program the computer to have feelings, then just go with what feels right? This seems stupendously naive if one believes this is possible. But that is the logical conclusion if one thinks the brain can have a state of being that has no correlation to its output. One state of being has to equal a thousand different outputs, a million-for the same exact state! And the computer is going to do the same thing.
This is the idea from people who have spent time thinking of this? Ridiculous.
How does free will work then? How does phoodoo choose?
But that’s your position, is it not?
One input, many different unconstrained from that input choices as output?
Why don’t you define your terms?
What does?
No, that destroys strict determinism. A computer is deterministic (those that humans have built so far) but that does not mean a biological physical brain must be. That is so nineteenth century.
I don’t know nor can I tell you whether the universe is deterministic or not. But IF there is randomness in the universe, then by definition one physical state CAN give rise to multiple different outcomes. I note that you don’t consider this to qualify as “choice” either. So what’s left?
I don’t know. I have no idea what makes humans have feelings.
Now, can either you or the cocksure Erik explain how choices are made that are neither fully determined by external factors nor are stochastic?
That is by no means the defintion or conclusion of random. I don’t know where you are getting this. Random doesn’t mean there is no cause and effect.
Great, then all you have to do is explain how that can be so.
Metaphysical states effecting physical states, that’s how.
You know, like feelings, wishes, desires…?
It sure beats the heck out of the physicalists explanation, which is that feelings wishes and desires are physical states which cause their physical state.
I’m on record as claiming no sentient entity can explain something as complex as itself. So it isn’t possible.
How so?
When will your be publishing this ‘solution’ to the problem of free will? What journal?
Do cats and does have mirror metaphysical states residing somewhere, or is it just humans?
If the latter, was that always the case? Or did some point come where some child of someone had it but their parents did not?
How come nobody seems to realize their feeling, wishes and desires are being ‘transmitted’ to them, except you? How did you come to this realisation? Was it a purely logical thing, once you rule out everything else that’s all that remains?
OFC I don’t expect answers to any of this. You don’t have them. Also, your selective quoting makes it clear what topics you desperately want to avoid. Very amusing.
So, presumably there is a meta-metaphysical state that your metaphysical state uses to generate it’s next state? Otherwise you are simply trapped in the same place as your hated materialists where the same input produces the same output, inescapably.
All you’ve done is split the problem in half and say that the problem does not apply to one half of it and declared problem solved!
I assume that by “random” you understand the outcome to be unpredictable. If there is only one possible outcome, as is true for determinism, then that outcome is perfectly predictable. Agree?
If feelings, wishes and desires are metaphysical states, then I am not a physicalist, because I know for sure those states exist. Another metaphysical state then would be preferences. You prefer your feelings to be made out of immaterial stuff. Me, I don’t care what feelings are made of, but I do prefer discussions to be made of rational arguments.
Now, it is true that my feelings and desires determine my decisions, but can I decide what I feel, or can I choose what I desire? If not, then are we not still trapped in a world without free will?
So, your ‘explanation’ invents things we’ve never observed and which are by definition untestable and that’s better?
To be clear, inventing a ‘ghost’ version of yourself that is transmitting instructions to your physical body is a better explanation then one based in reality?
To you perhaps. But then again, what else would you expect from a fan of Uri Geller.
I agree. It’s just that there’s no third option.
“Metaphysical states” which you have no control over. You feel, wish, and desire what is in your nature to do.
Pushing the cause of your particular actions back a step to the instantiation of “metaphysical state” emotions you can’t choose whether to have doesn’t give you free will.
What explains why you have the particular metaphysical states you do? There appears to be none on your view of things. Thus your choices seem to be fundamentally random and inexplicable. They “just happen, that’s all”.
And even if you could choose what you desire, something is then required to explain why you choose the desire you do, which still raises a demand for an explanation for your will. The only other alternative are either a random brute fact with no explanation (thus outside of your choice), or an infinite regression of causes (which are also outside of your choice). Free will couldn’t possibly exist even in an immaterial world. The concept is logically incoherent.
That’s the legal definition, but not very interesting philosophically.
Cats and dogs display the same kind of vacillation as humans when confronted by two negative options. Or two positive options, for that matter.
With brain scans, an outside observer can see what choice has been made before you become aware of the decision.
Also, choice is not a particularly common situation from minute to minute. Most of the time you are simply doing stuff. Walking, talking, breathing. Things for which the choice model hardly apply.
Yeah, I don’t see how dualism is going to salvage libertarian free will either. There is something weird going on with what people want “free will” to be. For some reason, people want it to be completely detached from the world it is supposed to inform our decisions in. That’s not going to happen, people.