Are we on rails?

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.

176 thoughts on “Are we on rails?

  1. DNA_Jock: 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.

    Let’s see. You do not believe in choices. You do not believe in free will. You do not believe in right and wrong. Yet you somehow believe in valid arguments and truth?

    Nah, you can’t fool me.

  2. Kantian Naturalist:
    And of course one can deny that [free will] involves violating laws of physics without denying that we have [free will] as such.

    This describes me. I don’t think that (human) free will violates laws of physics. A few subtleties however:
    1. Are we talking about billiard ball physics (the deterministic type) or physics where relativity and probability are among the fundamentals?
    2. If we are talking about deterministic billiard ball physics, then the problem with it is that it violates free will, particularly when supposing that this kind of physics indeed is (metaphysically) fundamental to all existence. Is anyone here who denies that determinism violates free will? Haven’t seen any yet.
    3. So, to reconcile free will and physics, either physics is not deterministic or it is not metaphysically fundamental. I happen to believe both: Physics is not deterministic, but rather probabilistic, and it is not fundamental to things like will, intellect, and moral choices.

  3. Erik: Let’s see. You do not believe in choices. You do not believe in free will. You do not believe in right and wrong. Yet you somehow believe in valid arguments and truth?

    Nah, you can’t fool me.

    Well, I’m not trying to fool you, Erik, but you do seem to have quite the habit of barking up the wrong tree.
    I do believe in choices, free will, and right and wrong (in the ethical sense…). However, I recognize that I might be wrong about free will. I feel on more solid ground re inaccurate statements and valid arguments.
    You are running around claiming that you know free will exists because people still judge each other. It’s beyond incoherent.

  4. Rumraket: 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).

    I think there’s some mileage to be gotten out of this analogy — though subject to lots of crucial disanalogies, of course!

    I think that the kinds of norms that can be gotten out of this analogy are norms of how an organism ought to adjust to its environment (if it is to persist long enough to contribute its genes to the next generation). What ought to be the case about how the brain processes information is explained in terms of how the organism ought to adjust to its environment, given its evolutionary history and ecological niche.

    But that much would be as true for tardigrades and blue whales as for us.

    Where we differ is our capacity to construct shared symbols, collective institutions, and forms of reasoning that structure how we resolve disagreements (to the extent that we can). All that requires a special kind of norm: not just the eco-physiological norms that we share with tardigrades and blue whales, but the norms in terms of which we can hold each accountable for what we say and what we do.

    Crucially, those norms can themselves become objects of inquiry: we can not only use a norm as a basis for judgment but also form judgments about which norms to use (which of course do presuppose other norms that are not being held up to scrutiny in that moment!).

  5. I have always thought computers are nothing like brains.
    I wouldn’t go so far as to assert they can’t be, in principle, but efforts to emulate human behavior are cargo cult.

  6. Erik: 1. Are we talking about billiard ball physics (the deterministic type) or physics where relativity and probability are among the fundamentals?

    You are presented with a vanilla and a chocolate ice cream. You are 80% likely to choose chocolate and only 20% likely to choose vanilla. You choose chocolate. Did you just make a free will choice?

    I’d say you didn’t. This was just a “roll of the die” outside of your control. Hence, in my view free will is also incompatible with indeterminism. Why do you consider this to be a free will choice?

  7. Corneel: You are presented with a vanilla and a chocolate ice cream. You are 80% likely to choose chocolate and only 20% likely to choose vanilla. You choose chocolate. Did you just make a free will choice?

    I choose vanilla, because that’s the flavor that I prefer. This is free will of the compatibilist kind.

    What would be the point of free will, if you couldn’t use it to support your own preferences?

  8. Corneel:
    Erik: 1. Are we talking about billiard ball physics (the deterministic type) or physics where relativity and probability are among the fundamentals?

    Corneel: You are presented with a vanilla and a chocolate ice cream. You are 80% likely to choose chocolate and only 20% likely to choose vanilla. You choose chocolate. Did you just make a free will choice?

    I’d say you didn’t. This was just a “roll of the die” outside of your control. Hence, in my view free will is also incompatible with indeterminism. Why do you consider this to be a free will choice?

    Of course the choice above would not be free. It is a completely unrealistic scenario.

    If I was presented with vanilla and chocolate ice cream, my options would not be restricted to choosing one or the other. I could choose one or both or neither. I might prefer vanilla but choose chocolate because I wish to share it with my partner who I know prefers chocolate. I can only make a free choice by first knowing what motivates me to make that choice. My choice cannot be considered free if it stems from unreflective desire.

  9. CharlieM: I can only make a free choice by first knowing what motivates me to make that choice. My choice cannot be considered free if it stems from unreflective desire.

    Don’t you have a desire for your choices to be free? Sounds like a Catch-22.

    I believe we’ve had this discussion before. Your concept of free will faces much bigger problems than determinism, methinks.

  10. Corneel:
    CharlieM: I can only make a free choice by first knowing what motivates me to make that choice. My choice cannot be considered free if it stems from unreflective desire.

    Corneel: Don’t you have a desire for your choices to be free? Sounds like a Catch-22.

    I believe we’ve had this discussion before. Your concept of free will faces much bigger problems than determinism, methinks.

    We only desire what we don’t yet possess.

    Having free will means treating our own desires as if they were the desires of a stranger. To know ourselves is to have an impartial view of our own passions. In that way, we control them, they do not control us.

    This is not an either/or situation. I know that I am far from achieving complete freedom of will

  11. CharlieM: We only desire what we don’t yet possess.

    Nonsense. We also desire not to lose the things we do have. We desire not to receive things we do not want.

    CharlieM: Having free will means treating our own desires as if they were the desires of a stranger. To know ourselves is to have an impartial view of our own passions. In that way, we control them, they do not control us.

    Without desires there is no will, be it free or not. Without desires our decisions are utterly meaningless, since they lack motivation.

  12. Corneel:
    CharlieM: We only desire what we don’t yet possess.

    Corneel: Nonsense. We also desire not to lose the things we do have. We desire not to receive things we do not want.

    Fair enough. So desire stems from dissatisfaction with a certain state of affairs. You were talking about our desire to be free to choose. If we desire this for ourselves then this is not freedom.

    CharlieM: Having free will means treating our own desires as if they were the desires of a stranger. To know ourselves is to have an impartial view of our own passions. In that way, we control them, they do not control us.

    Corneel: Without desires there is no will, be it free or not. Without desires our decisions are utterly meaningless, since they lack motivation.

    The whole point is that we should not let our personal desires motivate us.

    If somebody lays down their life for another it is generally not because of a desire to die. They may desire to live a long and healthy life but they have to suppress this desire. Of course even risking one’s life for another may have a selfish motive. That is why we should examine our motives objectively. Selfish desires can never be free.

  13. CharlieM: The whole point is that we should not let our personal desires motivate us.

    If somebody lays down their life for another it is generally not because of a desire to die. They may desire to live a long and healthy life but they have to suppress this desire. Of course even risking one’s life for another may have a selfish motive. That is why we should examine our motives objectively. Selfish desires can never be free.

    Yup, this conversation goes just like last time. Let’s try one more time:

    Why do you avoid having your personal desires motivating you? Why do you try to be unselfish? Why do you long to be free?

    Because you WANT to. Everything, I repeat: everything you are pursuing is motivated by your desires and all your desires are ultimately selfish! Without desires there is no incentive to do anything.

    And there is nothing wrong with that. If helping other people and being an overall good person makes you feel happy, then nobody is going to complain. Your mission to escape your own desires is futile!

  14. What a silly conversation.

    What parents hope to teach their children is how to delay gratification and to be motivated by long term goals.

    Perhaps with a bit of empathy and concern for the functioning of society thrown in.

    All of which is personal desire.

    It’s just that desires conflict, and successful people are able to navigate to long term gratification. And with decent parenting, be compatible with the functioning of a productive society.

  15. @ OM
    Finished watching DEVS/DEUS. Wondering if Kenton is living in the sim. I hate that guy! 😉

  16. Alan Fox:
    @ OM
    Finished watching DEVS/DEUS. Wondering if Kenton is living in the sim. I hate that guy! 😉

    Great. I’ll do an OP soon. The point really is that even if we know the future, then what? We can only live our lives. And some aspects of the future are fixed, we know that, and yet we still somehow live our lives.

  17. Corneel:
    CharlieM: The whole point is that we should not let our personal desires motivate us.

    If somebody lays down their life for another it is generally not because of a desire to die. They may desire to live a long and healthy life but they have to suppress this desire. Of course even risking one’s life for another may have a selfish motive. That is why we should examine our motives objectively. Selfish desires can never be free.

    Corneel: Yup, this conversation goes just like last time. Let’s try one more time:

    Why do you avoid having your personal desires motivating you?

    The point is I don’t avoid these things. If I did I wouldn’t be sitting in my own comfortable house with enough money in the bank to hopefully give me a secure future.

    Thomas à Kempis who I regard as close as comes to a true Christian had Christ saying:

    “But if you rely upon self, and do not offer your free will to Mine, your offering will be incomplete and the union between us imperfect. Hence, if you desire to attain grace and freedom of heart, let the free offering of yourself into the hands of God precede your every action. This is why so few are inwardly free and enlightened—they know not how to renounce themselves entirely.
    My word stands: “Everyone of you that doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be My disciple.”

    The paradox is that in order to truly have free will, we need to have the ability to give up completely all that we own. If even Thomas à Kempis, with very little personal possessions and comforts, did not believe that he was free from personal desires, how do I compare to him?

    True freedom is not a physical state, it is a state of being.

    Corneel: Why do you try to be unselfish?

    I try to be unselfish because I believe in the reality of Christ.

    I try and fail. As Socrates supposedly said, “An unexamined life is not worth living”.

    To give an example of a supposedly unselfish act on my part. My wife wants us to go on a long shopping trip while I would rather stay at home. We go on the trip. I pat myself on the back for being unselfish. But on asking myself what my motive was for putting her first I realise that I was choosing between going on the trip and staying at home with an unhappy wife. I decided that going shopping would give me an easier time of it. A seemingly unselfish act done for selfish reasons.

    Corneel: Why do you long to be free?

    Do I long for freedom? I believe I know what path I need to take to attain freedom. This entails giving up a great deal. Looking at the life I am leading tells me that my longing to hang on to what I have got is greater than my longing for freedom. If I long for freedom why am I still accumulating possessions?

    I know the hardship involved in becoming truly free and to my shame I prefer an easy life.

    Corneel: Because you WANT to. Everything, I repeat: everything you are pursuing is motivated by your desires and all your desires are ultimately selfish! Without desires there is no incentive to do anything.

    And there is nothing wrong with that. If helping other people and being an overall good person makes you feel happy, then nobody is going to complain. Your mission to escape your own desires is futile!

    I agree that everything I pursue is motivated by my desires. And that is why I am not free. Freedom comes with acting selflessly with no incentive, no thought for a future reward. This requires unconditional love.

  18. petrushka:
    What a silly conversation.

    What parents hope to teach their children is how to delay gratification and to be motivated by long term goals.

    Perhaps with a bit of empathy and concern for the functioning of society thrown in.

    All of which is personal desire.

    What about teaching them respect for life and to be happy. Teaching them to aim for long term goals might be commendable but it all depends on what those goals are. Perhaps Hitler’s parents taught him that he should aim for long term goals.

    It’s just that desires conflict, and successful people are able to navigate to long term gratification. And with decent parenting, be compatible with the functioning of a productive society.

    Who would you consider to be successful people? Would you consider Pol Pot to have been a successful person? He did become a very powerful leader.

  19. The best thing about religion is it includes a history of the search for values. Anyone having an IQ above room temperature can see that eternal values have evolved from tribal to universal.

    Societies that inculcate values in children survive. The only common theme is conformity to things necessary for the well being of the community. Details are irrelevant.

    Societies that don’t nurture children fail. It’s Darwinian.

  20. petrushka: Societies that don’t nurture children fail. It’s Darwinian.

    Some societies survive just fine , when it is other societies children that they chose not to nurture.

Leave a Reply