Freedomain Radio

Restoring Guy, I wonder if you think probabilistic theories in physics could make any real trouble for the substantive claims of determinism?

Ellis, I'm not sure if those sorts of choices are actually "random," but if they are, and determinism is true, then it must be that such choices are possible in a deterministic world.  Does the pattern make sense?  I keep saying that I don't know how the universe or mind work, or if determinism is true, but if determinism is true, then it must be that none of the things we observe are actually incompatible with determinism.

Nexalacer, I never said that determinism has been proven or is the only scientific position.  In fact, I specifically said in an earlier post that I didn't think it could be proven, and that there's nothing wrong with libertarian free will.  I also said that Stefan holds the view that all matter in fact operates according to immutable physical laws, and that non-law-bound things do not exist (he advances this view in his UPB book).  So if you're objecting to those claims by pointing to the difficulties involved in testing them, then I'll have to direct you to him.  I don't personally hold either of those views for reasons very much like those which you alluded to.

You make a point I haven't heard anyone make before when you say "...possible choices made [by] humans are boundless, within the set of choices that do not violate the laws of physics, because the possible influences on the human mind are boundless."  I'm really not sure why you think that this is relevant.  Are you suggesting that minds are somehow able to freely select the things that will affect them, and therefore can guide their otherwise law-bound choices?

PCRS, it's clear that we experience what seems to be the ability to choose freely, and so no determinist could reasonably argue that we need to live as if our choices are predetermined.  It's not possible to live as if our choices are predetermined; we have to make our choices!  People who act differently as a result of accepting determinism are probably missing the point.  If determinism is true, then it's true whether or not you believe it.  If it's not meaningless to talk about responsibility, meaning, and choice, then if determinism is true, then determinism must not be incompatible with those things.  And if determinism is incompatible with those things, and it's true, then not believing in it won't help.

As for how morality could play a role in a deterministic world, welcome to the battlefield.  That question has been fought over for centuries, and I'm not touching it.  Suffice it to say that "I believe that X has some property Y, but if I believed that determinism were true, then I would believe that X has the negation of property Y" has precisely no bearing on whether or not determinism is true, no matter how much it would suck to believe that X has the negation of property Y.

I'm struggling to make myself as clear as I'd like, but basically, I agree with you in most aspects.  Since you were arguing the determinist position, I was arguing my problems with the position, though it was directed at you.  I understand you don't hold the views of determinists.  I agree with the claims that Stef advances in the UPB book, and I actually interpreted his understanding of free will as different than what you define as libertarian free will.

My point is that there is an incomprehensible number of influences on the human mind and with our limited knowledge of how the human brain functions, it is hubris to assume that we know how our brain categorizes and uses these influences in the process of making otherwise law-bound choices.  So while I have to agree with the determinists that our brains are law-bound, I think the categorization and the usage of the vast amounts of information held by our brains is what gives us the ability to make choices, a.k.a. free will.  This is how I interpreted Stef's definition of free will, with a little bit of my own input... I guess he'll have to tell me if I interpreted correctly or not!

My approach to free will is a little bit more basic, and consists of rejecting any argument against free will that requires the existence of free will (i.e. all of them).

Determinists will always argue that the free will position is "an error" which we should choose to "correct" because "truth" is "preferable" to error.

"Truth," "error," "preference," "choice" - are all terms that requires the existence of free will, since these things simply cannot exist in a purely deterministic universe.

The moment that I see a determinist "arguing" with a rock bouncing down a hillside, telling it that its existing direction is "wrong," and should be "corrected," - or argue with a cloud, telling it to stop raining, I will have respect for the consistency of the position at least.

This is not particularly unusual -- it would be the same in physics, if someone proposed a theory that repudiated gravity all taking as its first premise the existence of gravity.

That's why I'm never able to respond to determinists with anything but sarcasm.  A hard habit to break -- the chemicals in my mind must... (See?  There I go again.)

Every time I try to follow their logic, I end up witnessing a train wreck.  It seems so obvious to me, and so invisible to them, that I can't figure out if we're talking about the same thing.  So I keep flipping back and forth between being annoyed at them for actively trying to screw with me (akin to screaming "YOU CAN'T HEAR THIS!!!" in my ear), and ignoring them because I think they're just lost, and refusing to accept directions.

The problem, Stef, is that by your criteria, you'll only ever debate the bad determinists. The good ones who know what they're talking about won't ever debate with you. Therefore, by your own admission, all you can claim victory over in this debate is a bunch of straw men.

DanielOR:

The problem, Stef, is that by your criteria, you'll only ever debate the bad determinists. The good ones who know what they're talking about won't ever debate with you. Therefore, by your own admission, all you can claim victory over in this debate is a bunch of straw men.

DonnywithanA:

If determinism is true, then it's true whether or not you believe it.

That applies to everything, why do you emphasize it ? The earth rotated around the sun before people believed it did.

Stefan Molyneux:

The moment that I see a determinist "arguing" with a rock bouncing down a hillside, telling it that its existing direction is "wrong," and should be "corrected," - or argue with a cloud, telling it to stop raining, I will have respect for the consistency of the position at least.

But even if determinists don't believe it themselves, it could still be true. One could also argue determinist do not argue with a rock, because it does not have the argumentation interface that humans do. They could say so maintaining the position that this interface is deterministic and all information flowing over it is deterministic. They were 'meant' to argue with you. It is a bit like some computers communicate with RS232 and others with Wifi. A RS232 computer cannot communicate through wifi with another. Humans can only communicate with rocks through pushing and can communicate with other humans by sound, light, touch etc.

But I think that this debate will be hard to conclusively end, for all means and purposes we can proceed to act as if we have free will, because life would be quite boring without it.

pcrs:

But even if determinists don't believe it themselves, it could still be true.

pcrs:

It is a bit like some computers communicate with RS232 and others with Wifi. A RS232 computer cannot communicate through wifi with another. Humans can only communicate with rocks through pushing and can communicate with other humans by sound, light, touch etc.

No, but they could be hiding, as Daniel pointed out: a real determinist does not debate it like the guy in the video with all the metal stuck through his face, you only get to debate the bad ones.

It feels very much like there is a psychological effect driving the passionate determinist debaters. I have some interest in the matter since the free willotron has not been plucked out of the brain. 

Stefan, I wonder at your characterization of determinism; it seems extremely over-simplified, to the point of failing to describe any coherent determinist position, but you've done your research and I'm curious how you can use those ideas to critique the kinds of positions I've discussed above. 

As far as I'm aware, the terms "truth," "error," "choice," and "preference" are not incompatible with determinism.  A determinist doesn't have to say that we don't make choices, or that we don't prefer anything, or that something would be good or bad for us, or anything else that would clearly lie in the face of what we observe.  All a determinist would need to say is that our choices, preferences, and beliefs are the products of physical processes which operate according to immutable laws, and that therefore the "freedom" of our choices is not the same as that discussed by the metaphysical libertarians.  Is that wrong?

If the determinist position is true, then our "choices" are an illusion.

Atheists don't use "God" to prove atheism - "God" is just a logical error that has to be abandoned - the same is true of "choice."

But then, a determinist cannot oppose "choice" either, since there is no other possible alternative. It would be like a phycisist "opposing" gravity.

Stefan Molyneux:

If the determinist position is true, then our "choices" are an illusion.

Atheists don't use "God" to prove atheism - "God" is just a logical error that has to be abandoned - the same is true of "choice."

But then, a determinist cannot oppose "choice" either, since there is no other possible alternative. It would be like a phycisist "opposing" gravity.

To add some umph to this reasoning, when you adopt a certain premise and hold that premise, you make all your choices based on that premise.

If my premise is "Nate gets screwed", what happens?  What choices do I make based on that premise?

If my premise is that when I die I will have 72 virgins to myself in a virtual paradise, what decisions do I make? What decisions do suicide bombers make?

If my premise is that determinism is true, I will make all my choices based on the premise that determinism is true... which is a total contradiction and will cause nothing but endless frustration, futility and a complete lack of self-respect and thus a lack of respect for others. 

It's funny that nearly all those who held the determinist position on FDR in the first debates were all abusive, snarky and passive aggressive, provoked a lot of anger and frustration and are now banned as a result.  I suspect that behavior was based on choices made by that premise.  Considering the debate in this thread, it's not turning out any different, thus my theory holds.

This is not an argument for or against the existence of free will, so don't go gaslighting me by forgetting that you asked the question Stef answered above.