Jericho's Philosophy Corner

[JerichoDeath]

Okay. That's enough break time.
-

I'm gonna put aside the issue of religion for now; it's a bit too hot to handle with these kid gloves that I'm wearing. *puts issue aside*
-

Now, it seems that we've essentially answered the question of what Free-Will is, and then we've moved to the next logical step: Does Free Will really exist?

I'm assuming, based on the reactions so far, that everyone is with the Pro-Free Will camp, like me. I also have the feeling that the majority of us here would be Compatibilists. So, in that spirit, I'll advocate the Incompatibilist view of Casual Determinism.
In other words: Cause and Effect

I'll use the example of the "causal chain" to explain. Any action, or indeed any situation, is caused by an event (or events more likely) that led up to that effect. Because the past is what it is, out of our control, what happens now, or in the future, has been determined already. Even a person's thoughts are affected by this chain; The events in their past that led up to this point have caused whatever actions that they are inclined to take.
All of that led to the idea that if one were to know everything in the past and present (but not the future), they could still accurately predict the future down to very small details. (Here, I'm mostly referring to human action, and not anything that would be significantly effected by the processes of Thermodynamics... besides, this is Philosophy, not pure science~)

[Ubiquitor]

No one action has a single well-defined effect. Rather, outcomes derive from a set of effects with varying likelihoods. In this vein of thought, regarding an individual's thought process aspect of the chain, the possible effects are guided by the random variable whose distribution is strongly influenced by one's own Free Will (hoo hoo ~).

I am sure that people do in fact attempt to view the world in terms of Systems, utilizing notions of controllability and observability, but such a model would be rather difficult to devise. I am however reminded of Foundation.

[Nazou]

Yes, choices...

[JerichoDeath]

I didn't mean to imply that a cause has only one effect, or by the same token, an effect having only one cause. No, the chain refers to the chronological order of events, regardless of how many there are. In any case, it seems that you've taken a Compatibilist view on the idea of Free Will vs Determinism: meaning that they are capable of coexistence.

The idea of Incompatibilism shows that these two concepts are inherently opposite from each other, or mutually exclusive.
Here's an example:
Someone decides to take the left path in a fork in the road to get to their destination. They know that either path will take them to their destination. So, why did they choose the left path instead of the right? Well, the answer lays somewhere (or everywhere) in their past. Events in that person's past played out in such a way to make them into a person who would choose to go in that direction. Had events played out differently, the result of the "decision" might have been different, but they didn't and it wasn't. Thus, the choice was already determined ahead of time, by the events that happened in the past, and the Free Will that the person experienced was only an illusion of their own mind.

[Prinapocalypse]

I would say that decisions like the one in that scenario aren't influenced by past events much at all. But lets pretend for a moment that some event in this person's past made them think one path was better than the other, they still have the choice of either path. There's nothing stopping them from taking the other path instead (even though they may think it's the worse choice).

Events can effect decisions, but they don't force you into those decisions. So Free Will remains even when the choices are stacked against you.

[Ubiquitor]

Someone decides to take the left path in a fork in the road to get to their destination. They know that either path will take them to their destination. So, why did they choose the left path instead of the right? Well, the answer lays somewhere (or everywhere) in their past. Events in that person's past played out in such a way to make them into a person who would choose to go in that direction. Had events played out differently, the result of the "decision" might have been different, but they didn't and it wasn't. Thus, the choice was already determined ahead of time, by the events that happened in the past, and the Free Will that the person experienced was only an illusion of their own mind.

As an Engineer, I certainly find the notion of reducing a person to the form of a very complex causal system to be rather amusing, and on some level such an approximation of behavior could be accurate; however, approximations are still approximations. The variance from the expected value of any such prediction model will result from the influence of Free Will (response level: meh).

[JerichoDeath]

I would say that decisions like the one in that scenario aren't influenced by past events much at all. But lets pretend for a moment that some event in this person's past made them think one path was better than the other, they still have the choice of either path. There's nothing stopping them from taking the other path instead (even though they may think it's the worse choice).

Events can effect decisions, but they don't force you into those decisions. So Free Will remains even when the choices are stacked against you.

It isn't that the past is forcing into a decision, but rather, your past has already shaped your "decision" ahead of time. Even those thoughts that you may be having ("this might not be the best idea, but-") only came about due to the events in your past that have shaped you into the person that you are now.
(you being a general term here)

Whether or not you're consciously aware of it, all of the instinctive urges, past experiences, and current circumstances are controlling your ultimate reaction to the situation at hand. Thus, even the illusion of decision making and Free Will were simply fabrications that your conscious mind developed after being taught by people in the past that you can make your own decisions.

One could go far enough to say that the Idea of Free Will is simply a moral excuse for punishing criminals who break the law since they "choose" to act as they did. Punishing, in this case, being a mere way to seek gratification for hurt feelings and such.

(I don't mean to sound angry or anything. I simply have a tendency to ramble a little when I talk about things that I'm interested in.)

Someone decides to take the left path in a fork in the road to get to their destination. They know that either path will take them to their destination. So, why did they choose the left path instead of the right? Well, the answer lays somewhere (or everywhere) in their past. Events in that person's past played out in such a way to make them into a person who would choose to go in that direction. Had events played out differently, the result of the "decision" might have been different, but they didn't and it wasn't. Thus, the choice was already determined ahead of time, by the events that happened in the past, and the Free Will that the person experienced was only an illusion of their own mind.

As an Engineer, I certainly find the notion of reducing a person to the form of a very complex causal system to be rather amusing, and on some level such an approximation of behavior could be accurate; however, approximations are still approximations. The variance from the expected value of any such prediction model will result from the influence of Free Will (response level: meh).

Assuming, of course, that any such variance would be generated, and further assuming that the variance isn't generated from a lack of complete information with which to test. Still, you couldn't go back into the past to test the reaction again either.
Remember, this is philosophy. We ask a question not to find the answer, but to widen our own minds through intelligent discourse.

[Ubiquitor]

Assuming, of course, that any such variance would be generated, and further assuming that the variance isn't generated from a lack of complete information with which to test. Still, you couldn't go back into the past to test the reaction again either.

Assumptions are made on all accounts. One potentially flawed assumption is that with the possession of all information, variance in outcome no longer becomes a factor due to "accounting for its cause" (though in truth it may be reduced to minimal significance).

[Prinapocalypse]

It isn't that the past is forcing into a decision, but rather, your past has already shaped your "decision" ahead of time. Even those thoughts that you may be having ("this might not be the best idea, but-") only came about due to the events in your past that have shaped you into the person that you are now.
(you being a general term here)

Whether or not you're consciously aware of it, all of the instinctive urges, past experiences, and current circumstances are controlling your ultimate reaction to the situation at hand. Thus, even the illusion of decision making and Free Will were simply fabrications that your conscious mind developed after being taught by people in the past that you can make your own decisions.

One could go far enough to say that the Idea of Free Will is simply a moral excuse for punishing criminals who break the law since they "choose" to act as they did. Punishing, in this case, being a mere way to seek gratification for hurt feelings and such.

(I don't mean to sound angry or anything. I simply have a tendency to ramble a little when I talk about things that I'm interested in.)

An interesting theory but the thought that past events dictate future events to such a degree, is simply not something I feel to be true. Though of course there's really no way to disprove such a theory either, that I can think of.

There are cases where people let the past dictate their futures, but that is a subconscious decision with them being aware of that choice, in my opinion.

(And no worries I didn't think of your reply as sounding angry anyway. I tend to ramble on about stuff too )

[Redhorse]

@Procalypse: I don't think Jericho is merely talking about conscious decisions. He's also saying that past events determine what state of mind you have too. Past events influence your choices by making you the person you are, etc.


I agree with Ubiquitor's position.

[Prinapocalypse]

^Yeah I got that and the first part of my reply was answering it. I just don't feel the past influences people to that degree or even close to that degree.

[Redhorse]

Jericho hasn't added a new question yet, so while I'm waiting I decided to ask mini-questions! o:
The reason for this can be found here. Also because it's fun.

What is good and what is bad? Is there some sort of absolute moral standard? What difference does it make whether something we do is bad or good? What if we feel we have no choice but to do something bad? If so, are we still responsible? Which matters more, the intention or the action? Should the question of what is good and what is bad be left up to individuals?
Also, how should it be decided? Should what is bad and what is good be determined by the situation, by laws, by tradition?

[ShadowJetX]

@Procalypse: I don't think Jericho is merely talking about conscious decisions. He's also saying that past events determine what state of mind you have too. Past events influence your choices by making you the person you are, etc.


I agree with Ubiquitor's position.

So in the end, its basically that through past experiences, such and such person became more likely to pick the left path over the right path. Its a watered down explanation but it works for me. I totally agree with the free will thing though.

@Redhorse: From the looks of things, there is no such as an absolute moral standard, nor an absolute common sense standard (as far as I'm concerned both are just words meant to summarize why we think in certain ways). What one person thinks as "truly wrong" might be considered a less offense by some other persons. In the same sense that one person feels its right to do it "that way" while another feels its right to do "the other way."

[Prinapocalypse]

What is good and what is bad? Is there some sort of absolute moral standard? What difference does it make whether something we do is bad or good?

There's a few factors IMO.

-Whether or not you're religious, what religion or even whether you believe in God in general or not
-The culture you grew up in
-The laws of your country and how much you respect those laws

What if we feel we have no choice but to do something bad? If so, are we still responsible? Which matters more, the intention or the action? Should the question of what is good and what is bad be left up to individuals?
Also, how should it be decided? Should what is bad and what is good be determined by the situation, by laws, by tradition?

I would say you are still responsible, because you always have a choice even if that choice leads to your death , etc. To what degree you're responsible and what should be the punishment is questionable to me though.

That's my view on it all. Perhaps it doesn't really give a very clear opinion though.

[vampko]

There are certain things which are absolutes. Just because someone doesn't believe they are wrong, does not make them right. Of course, this is only from my own perspective, as most will likely not agree with this perspective. My guidebook for what is wrong and what is right would of course be the word of God.

Now, as for free will, since I feel like discussing this. I believe in free will. I've changed my future before. Multiple times actually. And my mind is similar to a...white board you could say. It's not exactly the same, but it's similar. My past is nearly non-existent. I am told what happened, I do not know if it really did happen. How can that shape who I am, or what I do? I am constantly treating every day as a new life. For me, there is today. Yesterday is not much of anything. I have reason to believe it happened, but there's no 100% certainty. I don't even have 100% certainty that I am me. Not like I'm in a dream or anything. But, that the me that was me, could have died, and I could have been put inside of the body to make it seem like the old me never died.

This is all only plausible because my 'memories' are barely there. I've also reacted in ways that aren't befitting of someone with these 'memories'.

I figured I should post in here since I am taking a Philosophy in the Cinema course, and this would be a way to study without actually doing schoolwork.

Also, keep in mind, not everything I say is literal, just an example to try and understand the situation.