Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XiphosAletheria t1_j1zpvyd wrote

Reply to comment by CryptoTrader1024 in An Argument in Favour of Unpredictable, Hard Determinism by CryptoTrader1024

> No "choices" really exist, except in our imagination. If possessing a mental image of imagined options is "free will" then free will means very little I think.

What makes you think they don't really exist? I mean, the universe as a whole is an non-living system, yet some objects in it have the emergent property of being alive. The universe as a whole is a non-conscious system, yet some objects in it have the emergent property of being conscious. The universe as a whole is a deterministic (non-choosing) system, yet some objects in it have the emergent property of being free-willed (making choices). And that is, after all, how we experience ourselves, as living, conscious, free-willed beings. Mostly the arguments in favor of determinism seem to be arguments from ignorance - I can't explain how free will could exist, so it must not be real! But I think this is just the prejudice of a society that overvalues science, which has little interest in the subjective experiences of people because they are not something science is well-equipped to handle.

3

CryptoTrader1024 OP t1_j1zscfc wrote

I'm not sure you quite understand the argument, or you're arguing for a kind of dualism where the mind is not part of the world. Or you're arguing for magic, such that the laws of causation that govern everything else in the universe, somehow don't govern the electro-chemical reactions in your head? Which one is it?

You seem fine with the idea that the universe is deterministic. But then you say that some parts of the universe (humans, for example) are non-deterministic. How can you claim this, without invoking magic?

8

XiphosAletheria t1_j1ztqek wrote

>You seem fine with the idea that the universe is deterministic. But then you say that some parts of the universe (humans, for example) are non-deterministic. How can you claim this, without invoking magic?

The same way I am fine both with the idea that the universe is non-living and that some parts of it are living. Or that it is non-conscious yet some parts of it are conscious. That you (or I) cannot currently explain a given phenomenon doesn't mean that the answer has to be magic, or that the phenomenon somehow isn't real. That's just an argument from ignorance.

0

CryptoTrader1024 OP t1_j209z8a wrote

I've described a mechanism that suggests that everything follows a deterministic path, including our choices. This mechanism seems to conform to everything we know about how the world works (let's just assume this is so).

You are making a claim about how the universe works that differs from mine, yet you do not support this in any way. You don't propose a mechanism or principle, or reason for why it works the way you say. The only thing you present is a sort of allegory about how parts of something must not share the same qualities as the whole. But how does this preserve free will, or indeterminacy?

4

XiphosAletheria t1_j20jizx wrote

No, I am saying that the universe is deterministic. Its basic particles don't have choices. A ball bearing pushed rolling down a forking path at a particular angle must go left. A person starting on the same path will see that it forks, will recognize that there is a choice, and may shift right instead. You argue that the "choice" is an illusion, because you can't explain how a non-choosing system gave rise to choosing beings. That's fine. I've seen people say the same of consciousness, and even (more rarely) of life. But the truth is that that in all cases amounts to no more than an argument from ignorance, a sort of fit of pique because science not only doesn't explain any of these things very well but probably can't.

0

CryptoTrader1024 OP t1_j20ps5e wrote

again, you seem to fundamentally not understand the problem. What are your choices? They are comprised of some set of neurons firing in one way or the other. Why do those neurons fire the way they do? well, their reactions are electrochemical, based on the strength of the stimulus in and out, and the relative amplification, or damping of the signal within the neuron. This all follows physical laws.

Now tell me... where, in this web of firing neurons is the "choice" exactly? everything just reacts to a prior cause, including all the parts of your brain. Unless, as I've stated before, you are willing to argue that the brain is magic, and is not beholden to these laws.

This is the opposite of an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying "I have no idea how free will could work", I'm saying that based on everything we know about how the brain works, and how physics works, the illusion of choice does not translate to actual choice.

7

XiphosAletheria t1_j20x5uk wrote

>Now tell me... where, in this web of firing neurons is the "choice" exactly?

No idea! Nevertheless I am aware of having choices. I still don't see why your inability to explain why should cause me to doubt the reality of my experience.

>This is the opposite of an argument from ignorance. I'm not saying "I have no idea how free will could work", I'm saying that based on everything we know about how the brain works, and how physics works, the illusion of choice does not translate to actual choice.

Yes, physics can't explain it, any more than it can explain life or consciousness, because those things are all emergent properties of complex systems, not direct consequences of simple actions.

−1