Thoughts on Determinism

[Pa3s]

As far as you are concerned they are real alternatives. Your will determines them, so what? Are your "free will" is supposed to be free from itself? Ding,ding, ding ad absurdum.

Yes, indeed. If you believe in determinism, free will does not only become untrue, but outright impossible. Free will itself becomes a paradox, as you already said, because if your will is not influenced by anything, how can it be your will?

Soft and hard determinism believe in the same thing. The only actual difference between them is the fact that hard determinists just say free will is impossible (according to the common definition) and reject it completely, whereas soft determinists adapt and redefine free will as a will which is determined by "you" alone.

[Esaman]

Yes, indeed. If you believe in determinism, free will does not only become untrue, but outright impossible. Free will itself becomes a paradox, as you already said, because if your will is not influenced by anything, how can it be your will?

That contradiction is not dependent on determinism, but on existence of any causality and relationship between things at all.

[Pa3s]

That contradiction is not dependent on determinism, but on existence of any causality and relationship between things at all.

Yeah, you're right. The way I said it makes it look like it is connected to determinism, but it's a separate paradox people can rack their brains over.

[Esaman]

it's a separate paradox people can rack their brains over.

Yeah,I sure got as much as I wanted from revisiting the topic. Thanks for bringing it up and the discussion.

[Pa3s]

Yeah,I sure got as much as I wanted from revisiting the topic. Thanks for bringing it up and the discussion.

Thank you, too! It helps a lot if you have someone to discuss these things with.

[Skepsis]

I have a tendency to see concepts such as determinism and free will as beliefs that depend upon individual perspectives and tend to not care as much about the logical consistency of adopting one point of view over the other. They both seem to have their strengths and justifications for their belief. To me, ultimate reality cannot be understood or explained logically. I personally belief that the universe is indeterministic, but localized events can be deterministic. I also believe that there is a spiritual layer to reality that we cannot directly perceive and the existence of this realm contains a will that guides the development of living organisms. Higher organisms have a greater cognitive function that allow a greater awareness of themselves and the consequences of their behavior, which gives the will of humans a distinct flavor when compared to most other living organisms. We are not purely the results of physics, nor are we purely spiritual beings. We are mostly beings of matter during life and mostly beings of energy before and after life. This is my own subjective perspective and highly is unscientific, even though I largely subscribe to empiricism when making most of my decisions in life. Sort of odd really.

[Skepsis]

Lately, I've been thinking about belief in free will and how its related to a belief in duality. I think it would be safe to say that hard determinist do not believe in a mind/body duality, but there seems to be those that believe free will exists and there arguments seems to coincide with a belief in duality. I think compatibilists make good arguments to believe in free will and not believe in dualism.

Any thoughts here?

[Pa3s]

I did want to comment that I only just started to read the paper you had a link to in your original post and I have found it to be quite informative. I should've done this first before even posting, but in my haste I wrote myself right into some conceptual traps and logical errors. This thread has led to me having a renewed interest in the arguments for/against free will and determinism, and even epistemology.

Nice job

Thanks, I'm glad this thread sparked new interest in the subject.

I have a tendency to see concepts such as determinism and free will as beliefs that depend upon individual perspectives and tend to not care as much about the logical consistency of adopting one point of view over the other. They both seem to have their strengths and justifications for their belief. To me, ultimate reality cannot be understood or explained logically.

I think a person's convictions are like a house of cards. Fragile, carefully constructed and each element is built on another one. For my own opinion, I can list several arguments which may seem compelling to me, but irrelevant to others. Some Atheists think if religious people just listened to reason, they would suddenly realize the error of their ways. But it's not that easy. Because deep down, every group has its house of cards built upon a belief that can not be known for certain. Atheists too. Even if they base most of their beliefs on science, the very core, the foundation still remains unanswerable. And if they were wrong about this one question, all else must be questioned.

Werner Heisenberg put it nicely: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

I personally belief that the universe is indeterministic, but localized events can be deterministic. I also believe that there is a spiritual layer to reality that we cannot directly perceive and the existence of this realm contains a will that guides the development of living organisms. Higher organisms have a greater cognitive function that allow a greater awareness of themselves and the consequences of their behavior, which gives the will of humans a distinct flavor when compared to most other living organisms. We are not purely the results of physics, nor are we purely spiritual beings. We are mostly beings of matter during life and mostly beings of energy before and after life. This is my own subjective perspective and highly is unscientific, even though I largely subscribe to empiricism when making most of my decisions in life. Sort of odd really.

If you want to hear my personal opinion: I tend to prefer straightforward concepts. If a system has too many insecurities and ambiguities (even more than usual regarding metaphysics, that is) it seems artificial and weak to me. This might be a simplistic view, but it makes sense to me.

The realization that humans, animals, plants and even lifeless matter might actually be all the same deep down blew my mind. Yes, you can define differences between all these things. But change your perspective and the differences fade into the background. One day, people might be able to construct cybernetic humans which fulfill all the defining aspects of life. This belief answers many difficult questions and ends tedious discussion about morality by negating its basic concept.

You don't have to feel bad if you harbor beliefs which are unscientific. Science can't answer everything. I have believed in souls and the afterlife for years for no apparent reason. And yet, I still don't know what will happen after death even if my beliefs have changed.

Lately, I've been thinking about belief in free will and how its related to a belief in duality. I think it would be safe to say that hard determinist do not believe in a mind/body duality, but there seems to be those that believe free will exists and there arguments seems to coincide with a belief in duality. I think compatibilists make good arguments to believe in free will and not believe in dualism.

Any thoughts here?

Yes, as far as I know, hard determinists agree with metaphysical materialism without exception. Nothing beyond matter exists. I have to admit that I don't know how compatibilists think about this issue, though. As I have already said in this thread, both types of determinism believe in basically the same in my opinion. Free will, as it is commonly defined (i.e. truly free) is impossible. And if you believe in dualism and have a soul which is both immaterial and not subject to the laws of nature, isn't this soul also able to transcendent them? This would make "ideal" free will possible again. I don't know if that's what you expected to hear. Perhaps I need a few more details/context.