Does causality give man an excuse?

[Ifat Glassman]

I see the discussion about ten hypothetical men to be minor here, since I can discuss the topic of free will and determinism without getting into the hypothetical example of 10 identical men, which was just used to explain things. So I'll answer your last post later, David (Odden).

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.

I agree.

You are asking me to prove a negative.

I don't think that your claim is a negative one. We could reverse the sentence to say "volition is free" and then I would say "volition is not free" and then the burden of proof would lay on you. How do you like that smartypants?

In this case we are arguing the nature of the human mind. Each of us says that the nature is X or Y, so each of us has to provide evidence for X or Y.

Your evidence (and the only evidence) is introspection. But I claim that introspection is not a proof, since all the actions you are taking, including the decision to focus, including considering the ideas involved in this thread, etc' are deterministic.

My evidence is that consciousness cannot exist without a brain (this is known since when you remove a piece of the brain, a certain mental function disappears, and also because when someone is experiencing something, there is brain activity). And since the brain is a wholly physical organ, it's action is deterministic.

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.

Wait a minute, I am not saying that free will is an illusion. It certainly exists - and each of us can introspect to verify it. The ability to learn, think, make choices, decide to focus or not - all exist. This does not mean that they are "free" (as in non-deterministic). What makes you sure that they are "free"?

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.

There is no contradiction - I think my reply to your previous quote ("Wait a minute...") explains how I see things, and how there is no contradiction.

In fact I think it is you who adds an extra idea on top of the basic observable fact that men are capable of decision making, learning, reasoning etc', to add that those activities are "free". I think this is an addition, since all other entities known to man are acting in a deterministic manner. This is the default for physical objects. So if you're claiming that a certain entity is not like the other ones in the universe, this is something that requires proof.

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.

Sure. But based on what is observed so far, nothing suggests that the mind is "free". Everything suggests that the mind is generated by the brain, and that the brain is a wholly physical entity, controlled by it's physical identity. If there comes a day when a person reports a sensation, and their brain does not show any change in activity, or if there comes a day that a neuron starts firing in a manner inexplicable by it's physical properties, then I would say that maybe there is a point in investigating your idea that thought is independent of brain, and maybe "thought" is capable of commanding the brain what to do, but it does not need the brain to exist. So far, nothing suggests it. Every experiment suggests otherwise.

[DavidOdden]

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

You can't "accept" that, since that falsely implies that I said anything like that. You can argue that if you want. Since "ten identical men" are in fact just one single man, he necessarily act identical to how he does actually act (to state the obvious).

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.

Well, nobody believes that 10 similar men always act the same. Not even Ifat, AFAICT. Besides, if you look again at the sci-fi experiment I referred to, you'll see that I was talking about one man, looping through time, where everything that he becomes aware of is the same, time and time again, and he retains no memory of the previous episode. If a man has some particular knowledge and uses logic on that knowledge, he will reach a particular conclusion. If he has different knowledge, he may reach a different conclusion, but the point of these wierdo hypotheticals is to exclude having different knowledge.

Therefore the hypothetical has to be dealing with a man who does not live by reason, but instead acts contrary to reason at some apparently arbitrary point, for instance he may irrationally decide that his deadly allergy to wheat is unimportant and thus he orders the linguini. Or he may decide to order the buckwheat noodles with shrimp, arbitrarily setting aside his deadly allergy to shrimp. The determinism thesis holds that a man must always act irrationally in exactly the same way, i.e. can a man make an "actually random" choice, not a choice that simply appears to the observer to be random. That question cannot be scientifically investigated.

[lex_aver]

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.

I never argued that man doesn't posess volition. I only asked if it is deterministic or not.

I think that this question is subordinary to the question whether causality itself is deterministic. So the basic question is "Given the situation, is there only one way for entity to act?" Mechanical experiments suggest that it is, but it is still unclear to me whether this induction can be stretched to human mind. As of now, I see no reason why it can't, but I am still unsure.

[Tenure]

I am still confused here. What we're saying is that the nature of man's brain is to reason, and that because of that, when he makes a choice, that choice will always be in line with his nature? Furthermore, we're saying this is still proof of free-will, because this is the nature of free-will, to make a decision? Determinism would say that all our choices are bound to happen, due to previous circumstances, whilst causality says that it is only natural that we make a decision, due to the previous circumstances, because effect follows cause... or something... I'm sorry, I'm just not sure what the focus of this argument is, and I'm just getting more and more confused as I read this thread.

[RationalBiker]

Wait a minute, I am not saying that free will is an illusion. It certainly exists - and each of us can introspect to verify it. The ability to learn, think, make choices, decide to focus or not - all exist. This does not mean that they are "free" (as in non-deterministic). What makes you sure that they are "free"?

I don't understand how you can put this string of sentences together and NOT see the contradiction.

From the Wikipedia;

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

How can man have free will (the ability to make a choice) if in fact he could not have chosen or decided any other way than was casually determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurences? Determined means that the man could not have decided or acted in any way other than the way he did. No choice exists there, no free will. The concepts by definition are not compatible with each other.

Edited July 13, 2007 by RationalBiker

[DavidOdden]

I'm sorry, I'm just not sure what the focus of this argument is, and I'm just getting more and more confused as I read this thread.

There is a lack of focus, which is what causes confusion. This is why free-will v. determinism threads don't make much progress. One of the fundamental facts, as far as I can see, is that man can chose. There is some other fundamental fact that the determinists want to point to, which I can only approximate and I'd really like them to say what they mean, but it's something like "all states and actions in the universe arise from an immutable physical N-to-1 mapping". It's my opinion that most of the problem comes from misunderstanding causality.

[hunterrose]

Well, nobody believes that 10 similar men always act the same. Not even Ifat, AFAICT.

Is it utterly beyond the scope of rational investigation to test scientific hypotheses using approximating (i.e. similar) models of reality?

If you look again at the sci-fi experiment I referred to, you'll see that I was talking about one man, looping through time, where everything that he becomes aware of is the same, time and time again, and he retains no memory of the previous episode.

Sure.

If a man has some particular knowledge and uses logic on that knowledge, he will reach a particular conclusion.

That's what I disagree with - or perhaps I just misunderstand you. Logic doesn't necessarily lead to a single right and a single wrong answer. Much more often, it leads to many feasible solutions and many other unsuitable solutions. Even if your Groundhog Day-ed man retained no memory of previous episodes, I see no reason to say that he'd play the same opening chess move every episode.

The point of these wierdo hypotheticals is to exclude having different knowledge.

That's the first point. Their second is that having identical knowledge/environment will lead to making identical decisions. You seem to be saying that because the first is impossible the second is unknowable... I'm saying that the second is not dependent on the possibility of the first, as no datum/environmental variable has been evidenced to have a deterministic effect on a human's actions.

...The hypothetical has to be dealing with a man who does not live by reason

As far as I can tell, nobody believes that. Making a different decision when rerunning the episode wouldn't necessarily mean that one of the decisions was irrational.

[lex_aver]

Ah! I have just finally understood it all. Man acts according to his nature, and in any situation he volitionally chooses his action, he has free will. But once action had been taken, it becomes a fact of reality, which is only identical to itself and cannot be altered. This may lead to false conclusion that the very process of making this act was deterministic. But it is wrong.

Thanks to everyone for helping me in this!

[DavidOdden]

Is it utterly beyond the scope of rational investigation to test scientific hypotheses using approximating (i.e. similar) models of reality?

Uh, no, but that has nothing to do with whether a rational investigation of the meaningless is possible.

That's what I disagree with - or perhaps I just misunderstand you. Logic doesn't necessarily lead to a single right and a single wrong answer.

I claim that logic alone leads you to nothing. Bupkiss. Rien. Ingen. Nichts, Nichevo, and indeed Squat. Logic plus knowledge leads to somehting -- one right answer, and any number of wrong answers (not just one wrong answer). But if you hold an opposing view, I want to see your disfunctional argument (plan on words, based on the meaning of "function" in mathematics). In very simple terms, if you know that "A" is a fact, that "A=>B" is a fact, then you can conclude only "B", and you must conclude "B". If you have a counterexample, you can trot it out.

To help you, I suggest that you pursue the consequences of ignorance. When a man does not know exactly why he thinks he loves Sally and Sue and is faced with the absolute dichotomy "Leave that buchiach or I leave you", he must decide what to do, given what he knows. He may value Sally for her physical attributes and Sue for his mental attributes. A rational man would discover which is the higher value, and the irrational man would toss a coin. The process of rational discovery of value is not an irrational magical "intuition".

Basically, the search for merely "feasible" solutions is irrational.

Their second is that having identical knowledge/environment will lead to making identical decisions. You seem to be saying that because the first is impossible the second is unknowable... I'm saying that the second is not dependent on the possibility of the first, as no datum/environmental variable has been evidenced to have a deterministic effect on a human's actions.

Well, I seem to be saying that if a man uses logic then a single set of facts leads to a single conclusion; but if a man abandons logic, then I really don't know what it means to say that a man has irrationally chosen an action at true random, and I don't know whether it is possible for a man to act at random if he abandons logic. I am not actually certain that irrational actions can't be random, I'm just saying that I have not seen the scientific proof that they can be. I don't think that this is a philosophical question, it's a scientific one, unless this becomes a debate over what "random" means.

As far as I can tell, nobody believes that.

Those beliefs don't change the facts. If you can explain how logic can be applied to a set of facts and derive a contradiction, I'll listen (though I will need to build a big fire, because Hell will have frozen over).

[~Sophia~]

The control, the freedom of choice which freewill represents is a result of our ability to think abstractly and of our awareness of ourselves and our own thinking. It is not a choice free from the wiring of our brains, our genes, our biochemistry. Instead it is an ability to evaluate options by projecting and understanding their possible consequences and then making choices based on those evaluations.

[~Sophia~]

The control, the freedom of choice which freewill represents is a result of our ability to think abstractly and of our awareness of ourselves and our own thinking. It is not a choice free from the wiring of our brains, our genes, our biochemistry. Instead it is an ability to evaluate options by projecting and understanding their possible consequences and then making choices based on those evaluations.

To expand,

Both our genes and our environment are not sufficient to uniquely determine us. Our awareness of thought and consequences can override their influence to a great degree. The fact that biochemical processes are mostly deterministic (to be precise there is some statistical randomness involved) does not contradict, change, or affect the concept of free will which is the ability to create and evaluate options by projecting and understanding their implications made possible by our awareness of our own thinking and our ability to think abstractly.

Edited July 13, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Praxus]

I never argued that man doesn't posess volition. I only asked if it is deterministic or not.

Volition is the will set at liberty, we are either free to chose as we please (among certain alternitives) or we are not. Determinism in this context implies non-volition, because a "choice", if it could be so called, could not have been otherwise.

...but it is still unclear to me whether this induction can be stretched to human mind. As of now, I see no reason why it can't, but I am still unsure.

Volition is a self-evident primary, which can't be proved (or disproved), as proof implicitly assumes its truth.

[DarkWaters]

Wait a minute, I am not saying that free will is an illusion. It certainly exists - and each of us can introspect to verify it. The ability to learn, think, make choices, decide to focus or not - all exist. This does not mean that they are "free" (as in non-deterministic). What makes you sure that they are "free"?

I agree with RationalBiker's assessment: I do not understand how you do not see in the contradiction here.

Your evidence (and the only evidence) is introspection. But I claim that introspection is not a proof, since all the actions you are taking, including the decision to focus, including considering the ideas involved in this thread, etc' are deterministic.

My evidence is that consciousness cannot exist without a brain (this is known since when you remove a piece of the brain, a certain mental function disappears, and also because when someone is experiencing something, there is brain activity). And since the brain is a wholly physical organ, it's action is deterministic.

My evidence is not introspection. I sincerely hope that you are not advancing Immanuel Kant's claim that we can never know anything about reality; only what is in our mind. My evidence is the observation that men, in reality, are exhibiting free will.

You have not provided any evidence that free will is deterministic. Your argument essentially amounts to:

Given:

A1.) Human volition is highly correlated with brain activity.

A2.) Consciousness cannot exist without a properly functioning brain.

A3.) The brain is a physical structure that obeys deterministic physical laws.

Therefore:

B.) Free will obeys deterministic laws.

Some corollaries of your argument are:

C1.) Knowledge cannot be validated since it was the inevitable result of external conditions.

C2.) No individual can be held responsible for anything he does since it was the inevitable result of external conditions.

I agree with the premises: A1, A2 and A3 but I strongly disagree that (given our present context of knowledge) they imply B.

You are asking me to prove a negative.

I don't think that your claim is a negative one. We could reverse the sentence to say "volition is free" and then I would say "volition is not free" and then the burden of proof would lay on you. How do you like that smartypants? :lol:

That is cute but I regret to inform you it is also incorrect. You cannot arbitrarily shift the burden of proof by stating the contrapositive of a claim. The burden of proof is on you, because there is observational evidence that men do possess free will, which is by definition non-deterministic.

I am not sure what else to say on this matter at present. Do you wish to argue that free will exists but invariably involves deterministic biological processes (such as the complex interaction of signals between the primary motor cortex, the peripheral nervous system and the muscular system during locomotion) during its execution? I do not contest this.

[Ifat Glassman]

I don't understand how you can put this string of sentences together and NOT see the contradiction.

From the Wikipedia;

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.

How can man have free will (the ability to make a choice) if in fact he could not have chosen or decided any other way than was casually determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences? Determined means that the man could not have decided or acted in any way other than the way he did. No choice exists there, no free will. The concepts by definition are not compatible with each other.

I will go for a question first, and only then add an answer.

Here is the question: You sit at home, in front of your computer, reading the thread. You then decide to validate your ability to decide the operation of your mind (why? Because the topic of the thread brought it to your attention). You decide that at a certain moment, you will shift your focus to some other topic of your random choice. You succeed and start thinking of the wonderful desert from lunch. You then conclude that you validated your ability to make choices and control your mind (which is true), AND, that this could have ended with a different result if we went back in time to the moment before the decision to make a choice. Why? The last idea is not supported by evidence! I bet the evidence is that you think to yourself; "if I didn't DECIDE to think of something else, nothing would have happened". Which is also true. But still, what makes you think that this fact means that the chain of events including the choice could have happened differently if we went back in time? Again, there is no evidence. You ADD an extra interpretation on top of observable results.

Nobody is arguing that you do not possess the ability to think, conclude and decide, but what is the evidence that if this process has repeated itself with the same conditions - that the result could have been different? No evidence.

The only evidence your experiment suggests is that you are capable of thinking, shifting focus and making decisions. Not that those could have been different if you went back in time.

You say your ability to decide proves that will is "free" in the sense that it is not-deterministic. I say that your ability to decide proves that you have an ability to decide. Period. Now I ask you: What makes you think that your ability to decide, control your mental focus etc' ALSO means that it could have happened differently given the exact same conditions (same period of time)? <-- this is the question

Somehow your understanding of choice is all tied up, mixed and inseparable with non-determinism. But why? nothing in fact suggests it. Think about the evidence you have in fact, and explain how it follows that if you went back in time, it could have happened differently (which is the positive claim that ya' all are making).

And here is the (partial) answer:

My concept of choice is the action of considering available information, and deciding between several options. The fact that it could not have happened differently does not mean the option that was not decided on never existed. Just that the only possible outcome was to make that specific choice.

This also does not mean that if you decide to do nothing that other decisions will happen automatically in your mind, and things would start happening by themselves. Just like something cannot fall if it is not above the ground. For something to happen in your life you need to decide and make it happen. But, the fact that you did does not mean it could have happened differently if you went back in time.

I'll go back to this later when I have more time.

[Ifat Glassman]

To expand,

Both our genes and our environment are not sufficient to uniquely determine us. Our awareness of thought and consequences can override their influence to a great degree.

Where is the evidence that our awareness of though is not a result of our biological structure, which is a result of genes and influence of environment?

Where is the evidence that a mind or a thought can exist without a brain? (Answer: there is none).

I agree with RationalBiker's assessment: I do not understand how you do not see in the contradiction here.

I can understand why. It's because you inserted into your concept of choice the unsupported idea that it means non-determinism. Your concept of choice is extremely tied up with non-determinism. Mine is not.

My evidence is not introspection.

So what is it then?

I sincerely hope that you are not advancing Immanuel Kant's claim that we can never know anything about reality; only what is in our mind.

How on earth did you get this idea?

My evidence is the observation that men, in reality, are exhibiting free will.

Your evidence is that men in reality are exhibiting the ability to consider ideas, think, decide etc'. NOT that if you went back in time things could have happened differently. Can you see the difference?

You have not provided any evidence that free will is deterministic. Your argument essentially amounts to:

Given:

A1.) Human volition is highly correlated with brain activity.

A2.) Consciousness cannot exist without a properly functioning brain.

A3.) The brain is a physical structure that obeys deterministic physical laws.

Therefore:

B.) Free will obeys deterministic laws.

About A1 : this is not merely "correlation". Let's start with examining what we do know about the nature of the mind. We know that the existence of consciousness is only enabled by the existence of a functioning brain. This fact tells us about the nature of the mind and ties it in bonds of causality to the brain. No brain--> no mind. Mind is caused by brain. The existence of the brain is not caused by the existence of a mind, since a mind cannot exist without a brain, and one person's mind cannot create a brain. Cells create a brain. So this much is known.

Next: It is known that stimulating certain cells in a certain way produces certain awareness or thought. This means that we KNOW that stimulation of cells in that certain way causes that specific consciousness. Again, a relation of causality. X causes Y.

What we don't know yet, is the mechanism that gives rise to consciousness. But we do know that this mechanism is generated by the brain.

Brain activity generates consciousness. How do we know? Plenty of evidence. How do we know if there isn't something else that generates consciousness as well? we don't. Just like I don't know, and can't disproof that god almighty, the great pink elephant is in control of my mind. But just because I cant disprove it, does not mean it exists. And there is no evidence for something else that generates consciousness other than the brain for now.

Some corollaries of your argument are:

C1.) Knowledge cannot be validated since it was the inevitable result of external conditions.

C2.) No individual can be held responsible for anything he does since it was the inevitable result of external conditions.

C1 is not a corollary of anything I said.

You cannot arbitrarily shift the burden of proof by stating the contrapositive of a claim. The burden of proof is on you, because there is observational evidence that men do possess free will, which is by definition non-deterministic.

I was not aware that non-deterministic is the meaning of "free" in "free will". I thought it meant something else (that man controls their mind, and not some god or other men).

You said: "there is observational evidence that men do possess free [non-deterministic] will" - This exactly what does not exist. You claim that if you go back in time things could have happened differently. There is no evidence for it. The positive claim is yours.

[Tenure]

The evidence that man has free-will is not that if we went back in time, he could have chosen to think or do anything. The evidence is that volition, indeed man's life, rests on the fundamental decision to focus or not to focus. Agreed? Man's mind is capable of choosing whether or not to focus - this is what volition is, our ability to decide whether or not to use our only tool for survival, and indeed, whether or not to live, by extension. Volition isn't the ability to make any random decision, it's the ability to focus our minds, to think logically and rationally.

Now, if a man were thinking rationally and logically, then every time we went back in time, he would always make the same decision. This isn't determinism, this is causality. The facts presented to him, combined with his choice to approach them logically, will always lead him to the same conclusion. If he chose to think (or as it were, to not even think) irrationally, to try and go by some sort of intuition or random chance, then he's going to make different decisions if we play this scenario over and over again.

I think the confusion in this argument isn't about whether or not volition exists, but what volition actually consists of. I think my argument here should clear it up (although it may be very arrogant for someone with far less experience than any of you to try and come in and set things straight, so I expect to be slapped back down ).

[DavidOdden]

Volition isn't the ability to make any random decision, it's the ability to focus our minds, to think logically and rationally.

This is the point that the determinists misunderstand.

[Seeker]

This is the point that the determinists misunderstand.

I think there's more to it though - that's just clarifying the type of decision, right? Not whether it's determined or not, which is the essence of the argument. So whether the decision is to focus or not focus, or to eat pancakes or waffles for breakfast, the same arguments are still going to be made on either side, no?

I think the confusion runs deeper, down to the level of epistemology in regards to the human mind, what it is and how we know it.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Seeker

[Tenure]

But the decision to focus is not automatic, it is not instinctual. One must choose to focus - it's as simple as that. Men cannot be carefully programmed to make the decision to choose, though of course they can be trained from a young age to make the decision to focus more often, when they see the benefits it brings.

[Seeker]

Well sure, but I don't see that as an answer to the charge of determinism as such. It just emphasizes what the free choice is about. The determinists will assuredly argue in response that the firing of neurons determines whether you focus or not just as it determines whether you eat pancakes or waffles for breakfast.

The way to attack this is at the juncture of the brain versus the mind, how we know what each is and what separates the two concepts. Make sure to retain the context of the mind, not merely the brain, and free will is irrefutable.

[Marc K.]

The control, the freedom of choice which freewill represents is a result of our ability to think abstractly and of our awareness of ourselves and our own thinking.

Actually volition is the axiomatic concept here -- it is presupposed in our ability to think, awareness, evaluation, rationality, knowledge ... in fact the whole of epistemology would not exist without volition.

[~Sophia~]

Where is the evidence that our awareness of though is not a result of our biological structure, which is a result of genes and influence of environment?

Where is the evidence that a mind or a thought can exist without a brain? (Answer: there is none).

That has not been my claim here.

[Marc K.]

Volition is a self-evident primary, [...]

Yes, it is axiomatic.

[...] which can't be proved

And it can be proved. Introspection and induction are valid forms of proof.

[Praxus]

And it can be proved. Introspection and induction are valid forms of proof.

Would you say that you have proven existence exists simply by looking at reality? All you can do is say "look, that is reality", or "focus and that is volition", but you can't "prove" it without implicitly assuming it's true, ergo the assumption of its truth is prior to any attempted proof.

An example...

P1: Volition exists because you can introspect and use induction to discover it.

P2: How can you be sure that is actual knowledge of reality?

P1: Because of the axioms (one of which being Volition)

P2: Therefore volition exists because volition exists.

As we can see, its a bit like saying god exists because god says so, the important difference of course is that volition is indeed an axiom.

[Marc K.]

You decide that at a certain moment, you will shift your focus to some other topic of your random choice.

But it isn't some random shift of focus that a rational man performs when he shifts his focus, it is a deliberate, purposeful choice, it would have to be.

What makes you think that your ability to decide, control your mental focus etc' ALSO means that it could have happened differently given the exact same conditions (same period of time)? <-- this is the question

Ifat, you conceded this point in the previous discussion we had on freewill here.

You didn't like the way I had answered somebody and I asked you if I could have done it differently and you answered yes.

As to your argument that since the elements of the brain operate deterministically the mind must work deterministically, it is plainly fallacious. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Otherwise we could also say that since the human body is made of a bunch of inanimate atoms it must be inanimate.