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.
So, in effect, you are unable to answer my question. Understood!
Erik,
When you place all these strange “is my interlocutor worthy” preconditions on explaining how you know you are right about God, free will, and pre-destination, you really do seem to be running away from having a conversation.
You never explained how you arrived at this:
To prove myself worthy of your wisdom, I will point out that I do believe that God exists.
But, problematically, I do not believe that she is aware of my existence. Or yours.
Sooooo, about those attributes of your God…
If free will does not exist, we continue to judge others because we can do no otherwise.
“Underlying the belief that free will is incompatible with determinism is the thought that no one would be morally responsible for any actions in a deterministic world in the sense that no one would deserve blame or punishment.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
There, explained, even though it was unnecessary, because you knew it anyway, being the smart guy that you are. Now, if you’d care to explain where you stand, the discussion might continue, but of course you never do.
Consider that the frisson of condescension that pervades many of your comments may reduce the likelihood of response.
If there is no free will, why does recidivism vary?
Yea, I always knew you thought materialism was ridiculous.
Indeed, so nineteenth century. Physicalism, now, refute that if you can. Of course, neither confirmation nor refutation is possible. We’re left choosing Pascal’s wager. Or are we on rails?
Yeah, so nineteenth century, therefore you pick seventeenth century instead. Good one 🙂
You got me. But God is timeless, or something, no? So truth is eternal, fixed. Whereas science and human understanding of reality is provisional, ephemeral, based on experience.
My experience is whether there’s more to the physical universe is undecidable. Live and let live with that.
Still no defense of the baseless faith that theistic systems or ethics somehow are more objective or factually based than any naturalistic system.
Creating a post on a topic that you have pre-decided is undecidable is your idea of live and let live? Got you again.
Alan Fox,
I think I am starting to get your materialist argument. I know there are only atoms and physical reality, but still…
BTW, you have finally made Pascal’s wager make sense, congratulations. “I believe there could be a God, and ultimate morality, so I might as well live my life as if there is.”
Makes perfect sense. Well done!
It’s so cute when you use phrases you don’t even know what you mean by.
That free will is a bitch. Damned if I have it; damned if I don’t. Undecidable is what I said Eric. Unless you or anyone can show one or the other.
This sounds very much different from “live and let live”.
What’s that then phoodoo?
Am I allowed to have slaves under that ‘ultimate morality’? Does your defense of ethic cleansing get a pass?
Live-and-let-live is a consequence of it being undecidable. As far as I am concerned, everyone is entitled to decide for themselves. Nobody is entitled to force their view on others. Anyone that wishes to have a civil discussion on the issue is welcome and cordially invited. Hence the OP.
Brilliant Freudian typo! 🙂
PR @ Erik.
Maybe you take a decision as something different from me. It is possible for me to revise my view in the light of new evidence. All my views are provisional and revisable.
ETA reviseable, revisable? Potato, potato.
Apple, pineapple, orange! 🙂
You are correct that I was aware of the problematic consequences of there being no free will, hence my desire to see you unpack your claim that
We all agree that almost everybody believes that free will exists, and is therefore willing to judge others. The discussion is centered around whether this belief is an illusion or not. The fact that we still judge others merely means that we believe free will exists, not that it actually does. You do not seem to have thought this through at all.
What???
Ever major atheist and skeptic on the planet agrees that free will DOESN’T exist.
What the hell are you talking about?
Furthermore, for those outlier materialists who say somehow it still does exist, even though all of life is physical states of being, they have absolutely NO way of explaining how it possibly could, if your brain is all there is.
Have you thought about this?
Citation please. I’ve not come across anyone who convincingly espouses the argument. It all falls apart one stage earlier because everyone has their own definition of what free will is.
Have you, phoodoo? You’re not persuasive so far.
Of course I have thought it through. Namely, if free will, choices, judging right and wrong etc. are an illusion, then all institutions and achievements in humanity, society and civilisation, such as science, education, governance, etc. are all nonsense.
Clearly, you have not thought this through at all! Because if rightness itself is an illusion, then you are not even wrong 😀
I expected your stance to be very much close to nonsense. You exceeded my expectations.
You have also said you have never heard of the skeptic movement before. You are practically illiterate on the topic.
I don’t claim they are convincing, I am telling you it is the prevailing wisdom of the /atheist/skeptic prominent glitterati. If you don’t even know this, why don’t you take a month off and read about the topic, before you keep saying such obvious nonsense?
phoodoo,
*translates phoodoo-speak*
“No, I can’t back up my claims”.
You write stuff. I write stuff. You are influenced by stuff. I’m influenced by stuff. What do you want, phoodoo? Are you bored and just want to troll? Do you think you affect World events by posting here. You need to be on the street with your banner.
Alan Fox,
Live and let live brother.
Now, go do some reading, so you can be informed.
I don’t believe you. It’s generational.
Funnily enough, just spent a pleasant couple of hours lunch on our terrace chewing the fat with a friend over leek soup with cheese and aïoli toast. It’s fun to interject some apparently burning issue (if phoodoo were to be believed) to be met with a blank stare. “No free will? Are you serious?”
Heard of Google?
Its not that hard to use once you get the hang of it.
I think even you can do it Alan
Maybe Jock knows how?
You guys have internet, right?
Don’t worry about it
How long do I have to do this….
Please, please make it stop….
Oh, you too Robert…
Robert Sapolsky: “I Don’t Think We Have Any Free Will Whatsoever.”
Heard you the first time…
But Susan…
Ok, I expected this from you Michael..
Stephen…did someone hack your voice computer..I can’t take it!!!
Exactly Erik. We’re all in the same boat. Whatever is true for you is true for me. But we are also free to be deluded. It’s all a free choice. What you can’t show us apparently, is what justifies your choice of belief. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not my desire to interfere. I’m curious but it is up to you whether you want to engage or not.
phoodoo,
And?
Yes, serious
Oh, right…
Alan Fox:
Is that right Alan?
I wonder why some might not want to engage with you? Hm…
And…
Phoodoo, the question is whether the impression almost everyone admits to that they are able to make (constrained by the possible) free choices is delutional or not.
How to decide?
phoodoo,
Maybe you could just have a go and see what happens.
Yup, as I predicted.
We add ad consequentiam to your ad populum.
Yes, that is a rather depressing scenario that you describe.
Now, when are you going to demonstrate that it is not, in fact, true? You have not even tried yet.
“Gee, no-one believes that” and “My, that’s depressing” are not valid arguments.
I think free will is an illusion, but I don’t think judging right and wrong is an illusion.
It is unfortunate that you lump the lack of free will together with no judging of right and wrong, because they’re not the same thing, and none of this actually follows from free will being an illusion. Even on it’s surface it’s a totally vacuous statement.
Now sadly, between phoodoo and yourself, you two clowns couldn’t possibly even begin to defend these claims. You like to spew out assertions such as these, but you both invariably always run away from defending them.
Naughty boy. You equivocated on the meaning of “right and wrong”.
In a determined world, then “right and wrong” in the ethical sense loses meaning, I grant you, but beliefs can still be accurate or inaccurate.
They are to people who believe in magic invisible brains that can wish universes and living organisms into existence.
In that world they live in, which is essentially make-believe, how emotionally taxing you find a proposition is largely a determinant of your beliefs in it’s truth-value.
OK.
What do you mean by free will? Do you think that given precisely the same initial conditions, that the same result will ensue? My thinking is, due to quantum uncertainty, initial conditions can never be identical in reality. Besides, I don’t think we are capable of deciding whether our perception that we can make choices is real or delusional and there are zero consequences to holding either view.
That’s my question to it’s proponents. The kind of free will we are told about, like libertarian free will, seems to me to reduce to a brute fact. That your choices are not determined by anything. They “just are”. It makes choices be things for which there is no explanation. To borrow a phrase from phoodoo, choice “just happens, that’s all”.
What is ironic is these same people will squeal like pigs at the concept of brute facts given a different context(and will masturbate furiously to any mentioning of the principle of sufficient reason), but here they’re just fine with brute facts. I suspect they just haven’t realized this is what their position reduces to. They refuse to discuss or defend it all the time. Honestly, I think they don’t even think about it. Like, ever.
I don’t know if quantum uncertainty is fundamental (there are superdeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics), but I think that’s besides the point. Things being determined by chance doesn’t get you free will. You’re not choosing the chance outcomes of quantum uncertainty. Rather the chance outcomes of quantum uncertainy is then what determines your choices.
Quantum mechanics is no refuge of free will.
” In his new book Until the End of Time, the US theoretical physicist Brian Greene says that our choices only seem free because “we do not witness nature’s laws acting in their most fundamental guise; our senses do not reveal the operation of nature’s laws in the world of particles”. In his view, we might feel that we could have done otherwise in a particular situation, but, short of some unknown psychic force that can intervene in particle motions, physics says otherwise.”
Sabine Hossenfelder:
phoodoo,
Phoodoo’s clip of Sabine Hossenfelder is from here. Well, she’s very confident except that:
and isn’t into having her particular dogma questioned. See the comments. Questions unanswered: what does free will entail? What consequences are different between a strictly determined universe and a universe where bias affects random events as we see in biology.
Suppose someone assumes (or had reasons to think) that free will meant incompatibilism or libertarian freedom.
With that assumption in place, it would make sense for them to “deny free will” in the specific sense of denying that our capacity to choose and judge according to norms of thought and conduct requires a violation of the laws of fundamental physics.
And of course one can deny that this capacity involves violating laws of physics without denying that we have this capacity as such.
In that sense, it is perfectly coherent for someone to accept norms of conduct governing intentional action (and norms of thought governing cognitive acts) while at the same time denying a belief in free will.
And if someone with that view were asked, “why not call yourself a compatibilist, since you are not a determinist?” , I think they would be well within their rights to respond, “because libertarian freedom, of the sort that is incompatible with physical causation, is what the believers in ‘free will’ have meant by that term ever since Descartes, and I am happy to allow them to have it.”
Thank you, that is well stated. I will also note that defenders of libertarian free will complain (in my opinion rightly) that compatibilists are re-defining terms. The kind of “free will” compatibilists are arguing for is just not good enough in the views of libertarians.
Speaking of the idea of norms governing intentional action, I like to think of sentient beings like ourselves as effectively very sophisticated computers that react to their circumstances through their programming.
We have inputs (what we experience of our surroundings – including interactions with other humans – through our senses) and for a given input we have outputs (how we react to our circumstance).
Setting rules and boundaries and having norms then becomes part of the input we all experience, and we frequently find that given this input humans have different outputs than without this input. We become aware of these rules and they affect our behavior. There is no requirement that reject the notion that our actions are determined by the laws of physics. We can accept that reality and simultaneously understand that setting rules for behavior and informing each other that these rules are in place, affects how we behave. Just like changing inputs for a computer can change it’s outputs.