Does causality give man an excuse?

[lex_aver]

Hello everyone, I am new to this forum. I was reading this forum for a few months, and now I finally have a reason to join you guys

I was thinking about how free will gets along with causality. On the one hand, nothing happens out of random, everything has a cause, be it some preceding event or just existence of some entity. However, on the other hand, man has free will.

So, in what context man's will is free? To be more specific, given identical circumstances, will ten identical men do the same? My answer is yes, because law of causality applies to everything, including man's mind. But when it comes to ethics, the question arises, if course of man's actions is predetermined, is it right to say if his action was moral or immoral? My answer is, again, yes. Man possesses volitional consciousness, i.e. he can choose from multiple alternatives using his reason. What exactly he will choose is determined by his personality, his identity. So judging man's actions really means judge man by his actions, deciding if he is good or evil.

And here comes the interesting part, what makes me worry. If ten identical men will do the same in the identical situation, then man's personal development is predetermined. It seems to me that this fact doesn't give man an excuse, because it doesn't change who he is, and I man must be judged only by who he is, not how he became who he is. Yet I'm not sure. I ask you guys to help me understand this part better.

And the last thing. I searched for free will threads on this forum and found out that some people here actually think that free will means random will. Although it seems bizarre to me, I'll appreciate good explanation on this point, too.

[Cogito]

I think you're making the common mistake of confusing causality and identity with determinism. Determinism says that the actions of all particles in a given system are determined by their initial states, while causality says that a thing will act in line with its identity. It is the identity of the human consciousness such that it has the ability of free will, the ability to choose among alternatives (based on the initial choice of whether or not to focus). A man with free will is violating determinism but is not violating causality, as his mind is acting in line with its identity.

[lex_aver]

I don't understand. It seems counter-intuitive that ten identical people will act differently in the same situation. Or maybe I misunderstand the definition of free will?

[DavidOdden]

It seems counter-intuitive that ten identical people will act differently in the same situation.

The idea of "ten identical people" is also counterintuitive. As far as I know, I am identical to myself, and I only count as one person. So you have sufficient difference that you can say that you have "two people" and not "one person", then it seems to me that they are not identical. You can have ten very similar people, for example ten people from the same family or roughly the same age. Is it counterintuitive that those ten people could act differently? The problem seems to come from assuming the contradiction "ten different non-different people".

[JMeganSnow]

Where are you getting these ten identical people to test this hypothesis? Can we please dispense with the ludicrous hypotheticals?

[lex_aver]

Thanks, DavidOdden, now I understand - I had a problem with situation when one man is doing a thing and nine identical replicating it somewhere in parallel reality. But as you pointed out, it's nonsense.

Edited July 9, 2007 by lex_aver

[Ifat Glassman]

I was thinking about how free will gets along with causality. On the one hand, nothing happens out of random, everything has a cause, be it some preceding event or just existence of some entity. However, on the other hand, man has free will.

So, in what context man's will is free? To be more specific, given identical circumstances, will ten identical men do the same? My answer is yes, because law of causality applies to everything, including man's mind.

...

Hi Lex.

I have a different answer than the ones suggested here.

First, I want to say - I never understood some people's problem with hypotheticals. Why do some hypotheticals pass and others do not? Your hypothetical seems perfectly fine to me.

My answer is that ten identical men will act exactly the same. The reason is that man's body is composed of cells and substances which obey the laws of physics that we know. Man's mind exists thanks to man's brain, which is wholly physical as well. The identity of physical substances such as those that can be found in our body, is to obey their nature: obey gravity, electrical forces, chemical and mechanical properties etc. By now, all the evidence suggests that a mind cannot exist without a brain. Since a brain is wholly physical, and since causality applies to it, it will obey it's physical nature. The nature and behavior of substances with mass and certain charge is deterministic. Therefor, the operation of the mind is deterministic as well, given all the other information required that affected this brain (infinite amount of information).

Now, just because the brain is deterministic, does not contradict it's nature - it is a device that thinks, judges, generates consciousness, has the capacity to use reason in humans, has a mechanism for deciding whether or not to focus, learning mechanism, and all the rest of the things that you can introspect about (or see in other people).

The fact that men has the capacity to decide (this is our nature), means that we are responsible for our actions, for the content of our minds, for our mental focus.

[DarkWaters]

First, I want to say - I never understood some people's problem with hypotheticals. Why do some hypotheticals pass and others do not? Your hypothetical seems perfectly fine to me.

The problem is that some hypotheticals are so unrealistic that their consideration will not yield a better understanding of reality. In this thread, it is unclear what is meant by "ten identical men", it is unclear what set of possible actions we are considering and it is far-fetched if there are any real-world examples of two or more men who are identical with respect to making complex choices given how each man's present context of knowledge is different. Clarifying each of these conditions is necessary for any meaningful discussion.

The nature and behavior of substances with mass and certain charge is deterministic. Therefor, the operation of the mind is deterministic as well.

This is a Rationalist argument. For a process to be deterministic it means that for each possible set of (externally received) initial conditions, there is exactly one possible outcome. For human beings, the input would be volition and the output would be an action. Given that the inputs are internally generated, it seems very misleading to label the human brain as a deterministic process. The process of a synapse firing a neuron is surely deterministic. But this is not really using the human brain no more than describing how light reflects off of the rods and cones in the back of a human eye is seeing. What precisely do you mean by "operation of the mind"?

Now, just because the brain is deterministic, does not contradict it's nature - it is a device that thinks, judges, generates consciousness, has the capacity to use reason in humans, has a mechanism for deciding whether or not to focus, learning mechanism, and all the rest of the things that you can introspect about (or see in other people).

The fact that men has the capacity to decide (this is our nature), means that we are responsible for our actions, for the content of our minds, for our mental focus.

If I understand your position correctly, you think that both the human mind is both deterministic and that human beings have free will. Is this your position? If so, I really do not understand how this is not a contradiction in terms. Could you please clarify what you mean by deterministic?

Edited July 11, 2007 by DarkWaters

[DavidOdden]

My answer is that ten identical men will act exactly the same.

Explain what "ten identical men" means. We know empirically that identical twins don't act exactly the same. So what is the meaning of "ten identical men", and why would they have to act the same. Focus on how "one existent" becomes "two existents". Since it's well-known that two identical men don't act exactly the same, why would you expect ten identical men to be different?

[dbc]

My answer is that ten identical men will act exactly the same.

Would "identical" include identical twins?

[hunterrose]

First, I want to say - I never understood some people's problem with hypotheticals. Why do some hypotheticals pass and others do not? Your hypothetical seems perfectly fine to me.

As far as that goes, I also don't have a major problem with the hypothetical.

My answer is that ten identical men will act exactly the same. The reason is that man's body is composed of cells and substances which obey the laws of physics that we know... The nature and behavior of substances with mass and certain charge is deterministic. Therefore, the operation of the mind is deterministic as well, given all the other information required that affected this brain (infinite amount of information).

I do have a problem with this, though. The parts are deterministic, therefore the whole is deterministic? Isn't that a fallacy?

The brain...is a device that...has a mechanism for deciding whether or not to focus

Ah. And are you saying this mechanism is a volitional choice? Or simply a deterministic effect?

[DavidOdden]

As far as that goes, I also don't have a major problem with the hypothetical.

So are you saying that you accept the idea of ten men who are the same but not the same? Hypothetically speaking.

[Ifat Glassman]

The problem is that some hypotheticals are so unrealistic that their consideration will not yield a better understanding of reality. In this thread, it is unclear what is meant by "ten identical men", it is unclear what set of possible actions we are considering and it is far-fetched if there are any real-world examples of two or more men who are identical with respect to making complex choices given how each man's present context of knowledge is different. Clarifying each of these conditions is necessary for any meaningful discussion.

It is necessary for an experiment, but not for discussion. A hypothetical is used to explain a concept according to other known attributes of the entities involved in the hypothetical. It makes sense to talk about a hypothetical even if you cannot construct one in reality. For example, if you want to explain to someone what is a perfectly smooth surface and how it acts, you can use a hypothetical (maybe demonstrate it with something visibly smooth), but the use of a hypothetical perfectly-smooth surface, is only helpful in discussion, even if you do not have the means to create it, and even if it is impossible with current technology to create it.

So I don't see what the big deal is about hypotheticals that you guys are having.

This is a Rationalist argument. For a process to be deterministic it means that for each possible set of (externally received) initial conditions, there is exactly one possible outcome. For human beings, the input would be volition and the output would be an action.

Where is your proof that volition is not deterministic? you have none. On the other hand, all the evidence that exists suggests that it is. the only "evidence" you offer is introspection, but introspection can only teach you that volition exists - it cannot teach you that it is not deterministic. The idea that it is not deterministic is made up and unsupported.

Given that the inputs are internally generated, it seems very misleading to label the human brain as a deterministic process.

Everything which is internally generated is generated due to physical properties of the system. Including self-initiated processes. So it is misleading to say that just because a system is self-initiated, that it is not deterministic.

The process of a synapse firing a neuron is surely deterministic. But this is not really using the human brain no more than describing how light reflects off of the rods and cones in the back of a human eye is seeing.

The connection between cells "firing" and consciousness has been observed many times. It is also known that synapses are the site of learning in the brain. So firing synapses, firing cells are an essential part of using the human brain. And that's just a fact.

What precisely do you mean by "operation of the mind"?

I already explained this in previous post: "it [the brain] is a device that thinks, judges, generates consciousness, has the capacity to use reason (in humans), has a mechanism for deciding whether or not to focus, learning mechanism, and all the rest of the things that you can introspect about (or see in other people). " All the operations I mentioned are those that the mind performs, but the mind is generated by the changes in the brain. Therefor you can take this answer as the answer to "what are the operations of the mind?".

If I understand your position correctly, you think that both the human mind is both deterministic and that human beings have free will. Is this your position? If so, I really do not understand how this is not a contradiction in terms. Could you please clarify what you mean by deterministic?

"For a process to be deterministic it means that for each possible set of (externally received) initial conditions, there is exactly one possible outcome."

As for the first question, yes that is my position. But I think that a further clarification of how there is no contradiction can be found in examining the differences between our concepts of "free will". I will go back to this question later if it is still not clear...

Explain what "ten identical men" means. We know empirically that identical twins don't act exactly the same. So what is the meaning of "ten identical men", and why would they have to act the same. Focus on how "one existent" becomes "two existents". Since it's well-known that two identical men don't act exactly the same, why would you expect ten identical men to be different?

There was an inaccuracy in what I said in the first post - I meant to say ten identical men with exactly the same conditions. Such thing is not possible to construct in reality (at least not with current technology and knowledge), but the concept exists.

"ten identical men with exact similar conditions of development" (again, something that does not actually exist), meant 10 human beings which the atoms of their body have the exact same position and identity at a certain time point, and who are exposed to identical physical conditions (also in terms of position and identity of atoms of the environment around those men).

[DavidOdden]

There was an inaccuracy in what I said in the first post - I meant to say ten identical men with exactly the same conditions. Such thing is not possible to construct in reality (at least not with current technology and knowledge), but the concept exists.

I still want you to show how the concept can exist. I don't deny that the phrase "ten identical men" exists, but I do deny that there could be such a thing. First, in order to enumerate things, there have to be distinct things. If you were counting belly buttons, you couldn't point to yours 10 times and say "There are 10 belly buttons in this room". To have 10 men, you have to have 10 different men: you can't point to yourself and say "I'm 10 men". For a moment, let's only consider particles, so imagine you have a pretty empty area, and there is in fact 1 electron in that area. You can't point to it 10 times and say "there are 10 electrons".

"ten identical men with exact similar conditions of development" (again, something that does not actually exist), meant 10 human beings which the atoms of their body have the exact same position and identity at a certain time point, and who are exposed to identical physical conditions (also in terms of position and identity of atoms of the environment around those men).

How do you have ten exactly identical electrons in exactly the same time and place? How do they retain their individuality (so that there are 10, not 1), but still satisfy the "same identity" conditions.

[DarkWaters]

It is necessary for an experiment, but not for discussion. A hypothetical is used to explain a concept according to other known attributes of the entities involved in the hypothetical. It makes sense to talk about a hypothetical even if you cannot construct one in reality. For example, if you want to explain to someone what is a perfectly smooth surface and how it acts, you can use a hypothetical (maybe demonstrate it with something visibly smooth), but the use of a hypothetical perfectly-smooth surface, is only helpful in discussion, even if you do not have the means to create it, and even if it is impossible with current technology to create it.

So I don't see what the big deal is about hypotheticals that you guys are having.

I have no problems with assuming unrealistic hypotheticals, such as assuming frictionless pulleys. Such an assumption might aid understanding of kinematics and dynamics. However, if someone postulates a hypothetical that essentially violates the law of identity, then this will not further any understanding of reality.

Where is your proof that volition is not deterministic?

You are asking me to prove a negative. My argument that volition is not deterministic is my observation in reality that men have free will. The burden of proof is on your to demonstrate that volition is deterministic and therefore free will is an illusion.

Needless to say, I understand that you already have indicated that men both of free will and that the brain is a deterministic organ. So if a process is deterministic and a sentient being making a volition choice is an essential, intermediate step of the process, how is this not a contradiction? If we assume that volition is deterministic then there is no internal contradiction. Just one with reality.

The connection between cells "firing" and consciousness has been observed many times. It is also known that synapses are the site of learning in the brain. So firing synapses, firing cells are an essential part of using the human brain. And that's just a fact.

I never disputed this. Anyone with some basic scientific literacy understands that there is a connection between brain activity and consciousness. However, at present there does not exist a complete scientific explanation for consciousness solely based on observations of brain activity. There are only observed correlations.

Edited July 12, 2007 by DarkWaters

[lex_aver]

"ten identical men with exact similar conditions of development" (again, something that does not actually exist), meant 10 human beings which the atoms of their body have the exact same position and identity at a certain time point, and who are exposed to identical physical conditions (also in terms of position and identity of atoms of the environment around those men).

DavidOdden and DarkWaters are right, such this hypothetical is in conflict with axiom of identity. However, decision-making is always based on evaluating facts of reality. So, it is unclear to me if man's decision is predetermined by man's identity and situation he is in. That is the question my hypothetical was aimed to illustrate.

Also, it is unclear to me whether free will implies randomness in decision-making or merely its goal-driven evaluation-based mechanism.

Edited July 12, 2007 by lex_aver

[JMeganSnow]

Also, it is unclear to me whether free will implies randomness in decision-making or merely its goal-driven evaluation-based mechanism.

Just the second one, because "random" means "unpredictable". You can often predict what choices people will make by knowing their motivations and the methods they use for making decisions. It just doesn't lend itself well to mathematical analysis. Run an RPG and you'll see what I mean: even when you think you've covered all the bases your players will still almost always end up taking option 3: dig a hole to China. After a while you can predict when this will happen.

[DavidOdden]

So, it is unclear to me if man's decision is predetermined by man's identity and situation he is in.

I would not say "situation he is in", because the situation a person is in can include very many things that a man is ignorant of (weather, lions, Islamicist terrorists). A man's decision is made on the basis of what he knows about reality, not reality itself (but the consequences are a result of reality, not knowledge).

The "free will" question only makes sense in a rigorous Groundhog's Day scenario, where time loops back on itself and exactly the same sequence of events is played out multiple times. The idea itself presumes a contradiction, but leaving that aside, the question is, if nothing were different, would the decision have been the same? We have no basis for deciding, since the replicability assumption is invalid. Would it matter if you have a really elaborate clock-rewinding plan where the whole state was the same, the weather was the same, blah blah blah but really it was a day later? Well, do the experiment and I'll be happy to referee the paper. At present, this is utterly beyond the scope of rational investigation. I think the problem is not well enough defined that it can be investigated scientifically (i.e. as you've seen, the question ends up being asked in terms of vague notions like "random", "pre-determined"). I understand the concept of "free will" by its opposition to something else, like "bound will" or "unfree will", that is, an irresistible force that overrides a man's choice. I have not seen any evidence at all that there is such a thing.

[Cogito]

I understand the concept of "free will" by its opposition to something else, like "bound will" or "unfree will", that is, an irresistible force that overrides a man's choice. I have not seen any evidence at all that there is such a thing.

What is the referent of "such a thing" in that sentence? Free will or bound will?

[DavidOdden]

What is the referent of "such a thing" in that sentence? Free will or bound will?

What, people can read minds anymore?!? Bound will, unfree will, enslaved will, the fatalistic will. Thank you for asking. I didn't have to answer, you know.

[Cogito]

What, people can read minds anymore?!? Bound will, unfree will, enslaved will, the fatalistic will. Thank you for asking. I didn't have to answer, you know.

Sure you did. The location and state of all of the particles within the reverse light-cone of your mind as you made your decision to do so determined it . They also made you miss the 't in can't.

[Tenure]

With regards to the link between brain activity and volition, there's one thing that's always bugged me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libe...27s_experiments

His experiments showed that the brain was active before the human guinea pigs were conscious of a decision. Now, my conclusion, the only one fitting with volition, is that one does not need to be aware of ones volition for it to be volition. For example, tossing a ball into a hoop in a game of basketball is a very mechanical action, and it isn't just done through magic, but at the same time, you aren't fully conscious of every move you make. Your consciousness goes into a kind of backburner, still aware of everything, but it allows the processes it has built up over time to dictate actions. I'm still not sure if this is the correct interpretation however.

I know this is really lazy, but what do you guys think? I've turned this idea over in my head since I heard about it about a year ago, and I'm still not sure of the implications of this study. Plus, I'm sure Ayn Rand must have spoken about it at sometime, considering it was whilst she was alive, and I'm often finding myself surprised at the amount of different problems she tackled.

[Cogito]

It is also possible to dispute the meaning of the experiments with regard to free will on a more simple methodological question: Libet asked his subjects to note the position of the dot the moment at which they became aware of making a decision. The assumption contained in the interpretation of the results, is that it took no time to note the position of the dot. Another account would be that in fact, given their instructions, subjects had to make a decision to note the position of the dot, but that this itself would take some time, and would interfere with the decision to move the wrist.

These are very valid objections to the results of the survey.

[hunterrose]

So are you saying that you accept the idea of ten men who are the same but not the same? Hypothetically speaking.

I accept that, even if ten identical men did/do exist, they still wouldn't necessarily act identically.

All the evidence that exists suggests that [volition is deterministic].

What evidence are you referring to? No matter how close you get in practice to finding 100% identical people/situations, people still make different decisions. That fact alone is more evidential than anything I've seen in support of human action being deterministic.

...if nothing were different, would the decision have been the same? We have no basis for deciding, since the replicability assumption is invalid... At present, this is utterly beyond the scope of rational investigation.

I kinda disagree. Not with the idea that the replicability assumption is invalid; rather I disagree that this invalidity means we have no basis for deciding or makes the question beyond the scope of rational investigation.

If you experiment with ten nigh-identical subjects, and Subject 6 acts differently from the rest, the determinist says that the minute differences in Subject 6 causes his different action - but that would be without basis. Unless the determinist could evidence why the difference in Subject 6 forced him to act differently from the rest (requiring another ten identicals test??), the determinist has no basis for his argument that being more identical would cause the subjects to act identically.

You might not be able to prove (qua replicability being invalid) that ten identicals won't make the same decision, but IMO experimental evidence will suggest that they won't necessarily act the same. No point in giving the issue up to subjectivity.

[Praxus]

If we assume for the sake of argument that we do not possess volition, noting also that few men agree on most things, least of all the nature and extent of the will, it follows that knowledge is impossible, as two men holding opposing ideas could not have chosen otherwise.

One ought to deal with people who deny free will the same way one deals with people who deny the law of non-contradiction or existence itself. Arguing about a number of hypothetical identical people is completely besides the point.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Praxus