Do people have choices?

[Warren Dew]

There are degrees for which loans make sense. I know someone who took out loans for her undergraduate degree, then more loans for her doctorate, both in materials science, then more loans for her law degree. Then she became a patent attorney with a big name firm, and I'm sure she didn't have too much trouble paying off her loans.

Trucking and costume design, maybe not so much.

[hadespussercats]

There are degrees for which loans make sense. I know someone who took out loans for her undergraduate degree, then more loans for her doctorate, both in materials science, then more loans for her law degree. Then she became a patent attorney with a big name firm, and I'm sure she didn't have too much trouble paying off her loans.

Trucking and costume design, maybe not so much.

Costume design can pay well. It's just chancy.

[Coito ergo sum]

But, all of this student loan stuff has little to do with whether people have choices in live, or whether life is deterministic.

I get the impression that quite often people equate not having an attractive choice in a given situation with not having free will. I see those as two different things.

[hadespussercats]

But, all of this student loan stuff has little to do with whether people have choices in live, or whether life is deterministic.

I get the impression that quite often people equate not having an attractive choice in a given situation with not having free will. I see those as two different things.

Look at you, trying to get back on topic. As though you could make it happen through force of will...

[Coito ergo sum]

But, all of this student loan stuff has little to do with whether people have choices in live, or whether life is deterministic.

I get the impression that quite often people equate not having an attractive choice in a given situation with not having free will. I see those as two different things.

Look at you, trying to get back on topic. As though you could make it happen through force of will...

It's destiny.

[PsychoSerenity]

It doesn't appear deterministic to me. It actually appears as if living beings may make choices as to do this or that - jump off a cliff or not - eat a bear or not - etc.

I can type these words, or not. Sometimes some things are harder than others, granted.

If you did consider the world to be deterministic, and that "choices" that people make were completely dependant on their environment, - would that change your opinions of what you consider fair in terms of social welfare/resource distribution?

I think we may be operating under different conceptions on what it means to have a choice, and what it means to be "deterministic."

As I understand it, determinism involves a rejection of free will - every event is the inevitable result of antecedent causes. Defined that way, I would say that yes, my entire worldview would change if I accepted that. My views on punishment for crime would change, my views on economics would change, etc. It would change everything, because it would be a fundamental shift in a basic premise.

I do not, however, accept that our actions are pre-determined. While choices are influenced by outside forces and our motives, needs and desires, I do not extend those influences to to conclude that we are automatons with no will of our own.

I think this may be an important difference. I agree with your description of determinism, but I have simply never seen any reason to believe in free will. I wonder if this is a major difference between right and left wing political philosophy, because like you I agree my views would change massively if I saw it differently; I suspect I would become right wing.

When I look inside myself, I see my thoughts and desires either arising from some specific cause, or seemingly randomly, but presumably still from a cause, just one that's currently unidentifiable. Any thought of "I want to do this" is just an attempt to rationalise it or express it after the thought has popped into my head. Any pondering of options is just a process my mind goes through to get a better understanding of the current situation, and that better understanding then causes my eventual decision. But I can't get any sense of there being something independent, some inherent essence within people that had control, such that it would be fair to judge them for the events in their lives.

I'm still trying to understand compatibilism, to challenge my views, and see if there is room for some meaningful description of free will that I can understand. I'm currently reading "I am a strange loop", one of the books recommended in the Dan Dennett lecture I posted - so I might have more to say when I've read further through.

I don't expect you to explain how you think free will works, but I would be very interested to hear what influences, reasons or thoughts have led you to believe in it.

[Coito ergo sum]

It doesn't appear deterministic to me. It actually appears as if living beings may make choices as to do this or that - jump off a cliff or not - eat a bear or not - etc.

I can type these words, or not. Sometimes some things are harder than others, granted.

If you did consider the world to be deterministic, and that "choices" that people make were completely dependant on their environment, - would that change your opinions of what you consider fair in terms of social welfare/resource distribution?

I think we may be operating under different conceptions on what it means to have a choice, and what it means to be "deterministic."

As I understand it, determinism involves a rejection of free will - every event is the inevitable result of antecedent causes. Defined that way, I would say that yes, my entire worldview would change if I accepted that. My views on punishment for crime would change, my views on economics would change, etc. It would change everything, because it would be a fundamental shift in a basic premise.

I do not, however, accept that our actions are pre-determined. While choices are influenced by outside forces and our motives, needs and desires, I do not extend those influences to to conclude that we are automatons with no will of our own.

I think this may be an important difference. I agree with your description of determinism, but I have simply never seen any reason to believe in free will.

I have evidence of free will every day. This morning I chose to sleep in an hour, and other mornings I choose to get up at my regular time. I had black tea this morning, and not Earl Grey. I will choose what I get for lunch today, and I will choose to go to the bank around lunch time. I can go tomorrow to the bank, but I think I'll do it today. All that is free will.

I have never seen any reason to believe in destiny or predestination.

Free will seems more in line with a naturally occurring universe, to me, whereas predestination seems to me to require some sort of guiding force -something that set the destiny. I think that's why many religious folks speak of predestination, the ability to "read the future" and that sort of thing. I don't see any reason to believe that any of our actions are determined in advance (except those that are automatic, like falling off a cliff). Where our minds our concerned, we are able to determine our own movements.

It also "feels" like I have free will. It doesn't feel like I am under a compulsion to do anything. The only time I feel compelled is when my free will is overcome - like if someone forces me to do something, or incentives (carrots/sticks) arise that cause me to prefer a course of action over others.

I wonder if this is a major difference between right and left wing political philosophy, because like you I agree my views would change massively if I saw it differently; I suspect I would become right wing.

But, I'm not right wing. I'm an Enlightenment liberal, prochoice, progay rights, prolegalization of drugs, profree speech, profreedom of and from religion, atheist, live and light live, type of a person, who supports resistance to tyranny, rejects nationalism and blind patriotism, and is a Thomas Paine-esque "citizen of the world."

If I believed in predestination, however, my entire world view would have to change, because I can't see how anyone who believes in predestination can believe in arrest and punishment for crime, for example.

When I look inside myself, I see my thoughts and desires either arising from some specific cause, or seemingly randomly, but presumably still from a cause, just one that's currently unidentifiable. Any thought of "I want to do this" is just an attempt to rationalise it or express it after the thought has popped into my head. Any pondering of options is just a process my mind goes through to get a better understanding of the current situation, and that better understanding then causes my eventual decision. But I can't get any sense of there being something independent, some inherent essence within people that had control, such that it would be fair to judge them for the events in their lives.

I think our brains are decision-making tools and they have complex systems that can make choices. There need not be some "inherent essence" or "something independent." Our brains are it. It "feels" like we inhabit bodies, but it looks like that isn't really the case - we ARE our bodies, and our brains.

I'm still trying to understand compatibilism, to challenge my views, and see if there is room for some meaningful description of free will that I can understand. I'm currently reading "I am a strange loop", one of the books recommended in the Dan Dennett lecture I posted - so I might have more to say when I've read further through.

I don't expect you to explain how you think free will works, but I would be very interested to hear what influences, reasons or thoughts have led you to believe in it.

Noted above.

I don't "believe" in it. Maybe we are predestined, I don't know and can't know for sure. It's an unfalsifiable proposition, since we might be predestined to feel like we have free will. But, there lies madness. We also can't know if we didn't just pop into existence a second ago complete with all our memories, believing we've been alive for years. The thing is, I see no evidence of that, and I can only proceed on the assumption that my senses sense reality within their functional capabilities. And, I can only say that when I choose to type these letters....then hesitate....[read hesitation] to take the last sip of black tea from my mug, it appears to me that that is my choice. I wasn't even thirsty, and I didn't need the caffeine. I just thought I'd finish the tea. That seems like free will to me.

It may, of course, not be. But, until I have some evidence that I had no choice in the matter of drinking that last sip of tea, well, I will go with the evidence of my senses. That's all I can do, actually.

[PsychoSerenity]

Free will seems more in line with a naturally occurring universe, to me, whereas predestination seems to me to require some sort of guiding force -something that set the destiny. I think that's why many religious folks speak of predestination, the ability to "read the future" and that sort of thing. I don't see any reason to believe that any of our actions are determined in advance (except those that are automatic, like falling off a cliff). Where our minds our concerned, we are able to determine our own movements.

Determinism doesn't imply any intended predestination, but rather that we are one of billions of complex emergent systems in the universe with very different destinies. The religious also talk a lot about free will; I don't think it's worth bringing them into it.

I wonder if this is a major difference between right and left wing political philosophy, because like you I agree my views would change massively if I saw it differently; I suspect I would become right wing.

But, I'm not right wing. I'm an Enlightenment liberal, prochoice, progay rights, prolegalization of drugs, profree speech, profreedom of and from religion, atheist, live and light live, type of a person, who supports resistance to tyranny, rejects nationalism and blind patriotism, and is a Thomas Paine-esque "citizen of the world."

If I believed in predestination, however, my entire world view would have to change, because I can't see how anyone who believes in predestination can believe in arrest and punishment for crime, for example.

I did mean more economically right wing, social justice type thing - being pro-gay rights etc isn't so much left/right but rather progressive and anti-authoritarian. The idea that people with free choices in a free market will give a fair result because people can simply choose the right thing to do, and that if someone ends up in a bad situation it's most likely because they made the wrong choices and therefore deserve it, is what I don't agree with.

Whereas if most people didn't believe in free will, I suspect the result of that would be, people creating a society as a system with more equal results, more equal output regardless of an individuals input - rather than judging unequal outputs to be evidence of an individual's worthiness.

And as you say, I don't agree with retributive punishment.

That seems like free will to me.

It may, of course, not be. But, until I have some evidence that I had no choice in the matter of drinking that last sip of tea, well, I will go with the evidence of my senses. That's all I can do, actually.

In terms of evidence, as I understand it, most of the sciences show no room for free will. Even quantum indeterminacy is predictably random and there's no reason to think that something about our brains can have an effect on it. The only possible space I can see is compatibilism, but as I said I don't understand that yet.

[Coito ergo sum]

Interesting. I don't think the free market is based on any assumption that people "can simply choose the right thing to do, and that if someone ends up in a bad situation it's most likely because they made the wrong choices and therefore deserve it." That's nothing to do with free market capitalism. At all. Whether someone "deserves" to be rich or poor, successful or unsuccessful doesn't enter into the equation in the least, at least not in free market or laissez-faire capitalism.

The basic assumption of free market capitalism is that rational economic actors acting in their own self interest deal with information and price goods and services more efficiently than a centrally controlled political body or a bureaucracy. Competition among market participants determines which participants survive and which do not, presumably the participant with the product at the price and quality which meets the demand the best will be most likely to survive.

Where do you get this idea that the free market is supposed to result in people making "the right" decisions, or those most "deserving" being most successful. "The right" decision is a matter of opinion, and there is no objection arbiter of same - it depends on what philosophy or sense of right/wrong you have. Whether someone "deserves" something is likewise purely a value judgment and depends on what your basing your sense of right and wrong on. The differences of opinion can range from black to brown to orange to yellow to white on almost every issue.

If I thought everything was determined, however, I don't think my opinion would change actually, on the advisability of regulated capitalism. I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist - I support rational regulation - regulation for a defined demonstrable purpose that makes sense given the realities of the market, and I am a proponent of rational safety nets. On the issue of economics, I don't think I would change a thing. Whether destined or not, we still have to live in the world, and proceed as we think best. I don't see any alternatives in the offing that are better than relatively free market capitalism with rational regulations and safety nets. I would only suggest that we work towards improving and making more rational and reasonable those regulations and safety nets that we have. If I thought we were predestined, I would not change that. For example, Communism doesn't make any more sense in a predestined world than it does in a free will world - it's still a miserable system - and misery is misery whether destined or not.

You are a bit cagey about it when you say you don't agree with "retributive" punishment. What kind of punishment do you agree with, and why? If all is inevitable, then how can you agree with ANY punishment, or even rehabilitation? Whatever they do is inevitable anyway - it's destined.

You'll need to be a bit more specific about the "most of the sciences showing no room for free will." That's not what I've read. There are laws governing the universe, sure. Gravity is predictable, etc. However, that doesn't mean we don't have free will. It might, of course. As far as I know, however, the current scientific consensus is, "maybe, maybe not. We don't know."

[Aos Si]

Can anyone prove they do have choices?

I always think these debates are interesting but ultimately pointless and having a nihilist slant towards free will makes the most sense.

I cannot prove that free will exists and I cannot prove it doesn't, so what I can do is have agnosticism logically, the strength of which is ultimately tending towards the nihilistic. By which I mean this cannot ever be resolved.

I hope that free will exists as a pragmatist, but note that either way I will never know if it really does. The illusion of free will is so complete though, that it might as well exist, because for all the evidence there is to the contrary ie none I have to logically conclude it may and proceed accordingly, for if it does not I will never know anyway.

[hiyymer]

Can anyone prove they do have choices?

I always think these debates are interesting but ultimately pointless and having a nihilist slant towards free will makes the most sense.

I cannot prove that free will exists and I cannot prove it doesn't, so what I can do is have agnosticism logically, the strength of which is ultimately tending towards the nihilistic. By which I mean this cannot ever be resolved.

I hope that free will exists as a pragmatist, but note that either way I will never know if it really does. The illusion of free will is so complete though, that it might as well exist, because for all the evidence there is to the contrary ie none I have to logically conclude it may and proceed accordingly, for if it does not I will never know anyway.

It seems to me that people with a naturalistic view of things are always finessing the point, which proves your point that even if free will is logically impossible we can't live without it. If you really believe that there is a physical reality independent of our experience and that it is rational and caused and is the ground of all existence, then it seems to me that free will is logically impossible (if by free will you mean that the "I" in your head is an un-caused cause). Yet many people who claim to have a naturalistic view of things will happily abandon logic and view human beings as rational deciders. Not only that, but they will tell everyone else that they need to be better rational deciders to make the world a better place, and often in a rather mean-spirited way a la Richard Dawkins.

[laklak]

Whether we have free will or not makes no difference since it appears we do. Saying "the Devil made me do it" (or something to that effect) isn't going to get you off a murder charge. It's like arguing that a hunk of 2x4 is actually 99% empty space, that may be true but if I hit you in the head hard enough with it your 99% empty space skull is going to cave in and mush up your 99% empty space brain and you will be apparently dead. It's an interesting stoner discussion (like about 99% of the empty space that is philosophy) but in the apparent world we live in it has no meaning.

[hiyymer]

Whether we have free will or not makes no difference since it appears we do. Saying "the Devil made me do it" (or something to that effect) isn't going to get you off a murder charge. It's like arguing that a hunk of 2x4 is actually 99% empty space, that may be true but if I hit you in the head hard enough with it your 99% empty space skull is going to cave in and mush up your 99% empty space brain and you will be apparently dead. It's an interesting stoner discussion (like about 99% of the empty space that is philosophy) but in the apparent world we live in it has no meaning.

Regarding the murder charge, I don't see how free will is relevant. All it means is that other people are going to hold you responsible for your sociopathic actions whether you actually freely willed them or not. And no one said that just because a 2X4 is mostly empty space that it will not resist being intermingled with your mostly empty space skull.

[hadespussercats]

Whether we have free will or not makes no difference since it appears we do. Saying "the Devil made me do it" (or something to that effect) isn't going to get you off a murder charge. It's like arguing that a hunk of 2x4 is actually 99% empty space, that may be true but if I hit you in the head hard enough with it your 99% empty space skull is going to cave in and mush up your 99% empty space brain and you will be apparently dead. It's an interesting stoner discussion (like about 99% of the empty space that is philosophy) but in the apparent world we live in it has no meaning.

Regarding the murder charge, I don't see how free will is relevant. All it means is that other people are going to hold you responsible for your sociopathic actions whether you actually freely willed them or not. And no one said that just because a 2X4 is mostly empty space that it will not resist being intermingled with your mostly empty space skull.

Actually, if you truly are a sociopath, you might not be held responsible for your actions in that case. But you'd probably be institutionalized, regardless.

[Aos Si]

Can anyone prove they do have choices?

I always think these debates are interesting but ultimately pointless and having a nihilist slant towards free will makes the most sense.

I cannot prove that free will exists and I cannot prove it doesn't, so what I can do is have agnosticism logically, the strength of which is ultimately tending towards the nihilistic. By which I mean this cannot ever be resolved.

I hope that free will exists as a pragmatist, but note that either way I will never know if it really does. The illusion of free will is so complete though, that it might as well exist, because for all the evidence there is to the contrary ie none I have to logically conclude it may and proceed accordingly, for if it does not I will never know anyway.

It seems to me that people with a naturalistic view of things are always finessing the point, which proves your point that even if free will is logically impossible we can't live without it. If you really believe that there is a physical reality independent of our experience and that it is rational and caused and is the ground of all existence, then it seems to me that free will is logically impossible (if by free will you mean that the "I" in your head is an un-caused cause). Yet many people who claim to have a naturalistic view of things will happily abandon logic and view human beings as rational deciders. Not only that, but they will tell everyone else that they need to be better rational deciders to make the world a better place, and often in a rather mean-spirited way a la Richard Dawkins.

I tend to think that Dennet's view on free will, being a compatibilist one forgoes logic, but then I think the only rational freedom of will is the libertarian one so I would.

It does all boil down to you at the end of the day though, you have to be a pragmatist, or you may get depressed or go mad.

I think overturning thousands of years of mean spirited religious dogma that has nothing to do with Jesus, is fair play, it's a little like positive discrimination, all the while it is redressing a balance of oppression and humiliation and outright evil its ok. If it becomes oppressive itself then it crosses a line. I don't think Dawkins is trying to win by being mean spirited, he is trying to win freedom by challenging dogma. If anything I get the impression that the people he talks to are sometimes extremely ignorant and mean spirited, and even then he seldom loses his calm. Dawkins has no problem with anyone believing what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with reality or end up demolishing buildings etc. His arguments with Catholic and non fundamentalist Protestant religious leaders are always very well educated philosophical discussions, and sound anything but mean spirited. Lets face it though Creotards are stupid. I don't mean that to sound mean spirited, they just genuinely are ignorant IDiots.