h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Free Will versus Determinism - A761429
Author: GTBacchus - U166086

Well, the last entry I submitted here was a bit dry. This one's a little more fun, I think.

Share and Enjoy!

I suspect you've opened a can of worms here, GTB. This is an interesting subject.

There's lots of things that touch on it - nature vs nurture being a really good one. That one always reminds me of 'The sins of the fathers shall be visited on the sons' up to the seventh generation or so. Certainly people in societies inherit that society's way of thinking by and large. A few break out, but generally the thoughts we think are not novel - they are shaped by other people and we tend to think them again and again.

The other nice one is the proposition that souls choose their parents as they have a certain lesson to fulfil and then forget everything at birth and spend thier lives remembering what it was they had to do and the tribulations they had to overcome (or not, as the case may be).

I'll watch the conversations on this one with interest.

There is some good discussion about this in the thread F84790?thread=177499 .

also aren't you bundling destiny, predestiny, and causality together unnecessarily?

causality says that the universe follows certain rules deterministically (as opposed to stochastically).

Destiny (as I understand it) refers to that feeling that you (or someone else) are destined to do important things (although it does not necessarily tell you what those things might be).

Predestiny (again as I understand it) refers to that particular destiny being fixed at the moment of birth, and therefore unchangable.

you seem to be using them interchangably.

If destiny is the case, but predestiny is not, then you have room for free will.

As far as I'm aware, the philosophical consensus is that quantum mechanics doesn't help much at all with trying to crowbar in a physical version of free will, and that at best it makes you random rather than giving you choice. They then go on to say that it all comes down to different sides having different ideas of what free will actually is and of course it all goes to being unable to agree on defining the definitions.

Thanks for the comments, everyone!



HenryS - "quantum mechanics doesn't help much at all with trying to crowbar in a physical version of free will..."

I don't care what you say; I'm still not working in that paper mill!

But seriously, Penrose would disagree with you, or with philosophical consensus, as the case may be. He thinks that Quantum Mechanics (more specifically, the as yet non-existent theory of Quantum Gravity) is just the thing to save Vitalism (and he mentions Free Will in there, too). I think he's a raving nutter who should have stuck to Math and Physics, but I wasn't going to mention it, unless someone gave me half a chance.

I should be clearer that it's not at all clear how quantum indeterminacy could possibly save Free Will (unless you're Roger Penrose).

As far as different sides having different definitions, that's what this entry is attempting to clarify. Does it do that, do you think, or is there something I should add (or delete)?



Xyroth - I'm not familiar with the distinction you've made between 'Destiny' and 'Predestiny'. Now that you spell it out, it's clear enough, but is that really how the terms are commonly used? (ie, gotta link, or a reference?) If so, I'll change the entry to reflect that. As for 'Causality', that means to me the general way in which causes lead to effects, and is not synonymous with Determinism.



ZSF - I'm not sure I see that Nature v Nurture addresses the question of Free Will. It seems to be a battle between two different types of determinism, and the question is which one is more significant. I guess 'Nature' says that we're Genetically determined, for the most part, and 'Nurture' says that we're more Socially or Culturally determined, right? I should add a bit to the 'The Social Level' section, I think. Cultural determinism shouldn't be dismissed quite so lightly. I just happen to come from a Culture that... emphasizes individual choice.

As for that bit about souls choosing their parents... how do you see that fitting into the question of Free Will? People have Free Will before they're born, and then their Earthly lives are determined by the choices they made then? Should that be treated in the Theological section?



Keep 'em coming! I'll make a couple of changes today, and post here when I've done it.

OK, GTB, just so you know where I'm coming from (and not as part of the entry) I tend towards the belief of free will within parameters. I think an individual chooses the situation to be born in and the obstacles to be overcome. I also think an individual is responsible for what happens to hir in life and affects the future by hir thoughts. A nation does that by collective thoughts.

I'm not saying that all this is right; I may be wrong, but it makes sense to me at present.

To answer your questions.

The nature vs nurture question could be used to argue both ways. If a person is pre-determined by genetics to behave in a certain way, this argues for pre-determination. The fact that not everyone given a particular inheritance will go that way argues for free will.

The same can be said of social conditioning. People brought up to act in a certain way, will, by and large behave in that way. But not everyone will.

Studies done in the states with a group of (I'm not sure whether it was heart surgery patients or cancer patients - I can check) showed that where the patients were given a support group and taught meditation techniques, the patients had less depression, as was expected. What was not expected was that the patients lived to double their predicted life expectancy. This would support the free will bit. Positive states producing positive outcomes.

If there was a drug which produced similar results, people would be demanding it, however, as there is no money in this type of work and doctors are heavily influenced by the drug companies (and overworked, so they're short of time), how many physicians can you see prescribing support groups and meditation?

The bit about souls choosing their parents. People have Free Will before they're born, and then their Earthly lives are determined by the choices they made then. Yes. People start their lives immersed in the culture and beliefs of their parents and then they have a journey of discovery to make which they can choose to make, or not.

A story that illustrates this would be that before the age of forty, people (but this is usually said about women) have the face they are born with, beautiful or plain. After that time (and in fact there is a transitional period) a person makes their own face. If you have lived a life where you have chosen to be sour and bitter in response to life's challenges, you will tend to have a sour and bitter face. If you have chosen equanimity, your face will tend to be more peaceful and contented looking.

Should it go in the Theological section? Good question. If you think that spirituality = theolology then yes. I think spirituality is different to theology, but then, that's just me.

Hmmm. I hope it's not clear from the entry what I actually believe about this subject. If it is, I haven't done my job right.



ZSF, I wouldn't agree that the evidence you cite supports Free Will. For example, on genetics: "The fact that not everyone given a particular inheritance will go that way argues for free will."

No it doesn't, necessarily. It argues that some factor(s) other than genetics must be at work. I don't think anyone would disagree that *some* factors other than genetics determine our actions. To say that one of those factors must be something called 'Free Will' is a major conclusion-jump.

Here's a way of looking at it (and this applies mostly to the 'Physical' level of analysis, though also to the 'Psychological level', insofar as that level makes any sense at all):

(CAUSES) --> (EFFECTS)

(Genetics, Upbringing, Education, Life Experiences, Other Factors?) --> (Thoughts, 'Choices', Actions)

A Determinist will argue that the 'Other Factors' category includes only physical, mechanistic factors, which science is working on explaining. An advocate of Free Will will argue that 'Other Factors' has to include some non-mechanistic element, called 'Free Will'.

No Determinist would argue that there is only one factor that should be listed under CAUSES, yet many arguments against 'Determinism' are actually arguments against some such silly position, taken as a straw man for Determinism.



Is that clearer than what's in the entry?

Simplistic? Yes, I suppose I was being simplistic. I'll give it some more thought.

Is what you've just written clearer than the entry? Not to me at the moment, but then, I'm trying to cook and think at the same time. Possible, but you don't get the best results at either.

I just looked at the entry again and found something else.

'Actually staying out of the paper mill is more a question of willpower than Freedom of Will, and saving up enough cash to get that bus ticket.'

I agree with this, however to get out of the paper mill, you first have to recognise that you have a choice in the first instance. So many people don't see any option other than staying inside.

Another thought strikes.

I work in the area of accident prevention. Colleagues working with populations who believe that everything is foreordained have reported difficulies on persuading people to take sensible precautions. If someone is going to get knocked over by a bus, they're going to get knocked over by a bus. No sense in worrying about it.

Yes, I know this is fatalism, as opposed to determinism, but it is interesting.

Yeah... I've heard of that kind of fatalism, and I find it incomprehensible. I don't believe in Free Will, and I take precautions (dodge busses), and break with traditions, and behave spontaneously, and believe that I'm determined (fated?) to do these things. It's worth mentioning, though. I think the idea is, "I'll die when God wants me to die, and not a moment before or after that, and no smoke detector you sell me is going to change that one bit."

I've been thinking, and I think that fatalism, or a belief in fate/destiny is a very different thing from determinism. I'll have to see how I can change the entry to reflect that...

That's a good point about the paper-mill. Incidentally, that example is based on someone I knew, with whom I actually had an exchange very much like the one at the end of the entry! I wonder what happened to that guy.

Yes, I agree with you on all three points.

There was a religion (and I can't remember which one - Bels would probably know) where they believed in determinism - you were pre-destined either for heaven or hell, so it didn't matter what you did on earth and they practiced all sorts of (mainly licentious) behaviour.

Having thought it through, I'm not really sure if I believe in Free Will or not. I think that if you are a soul having a physical experience and your destiny is to go back to spirit, then whatever you do doesn't ultimately harm your soul. However, you might or might not achieve your soul's purpose for that lifetime. That's what I meant by 'free will' within defined limits.

In the end, none of us really knows. You would have to be outside the system (and then would the act of observing alter the system?).

I've made some changes in the definition of Determinism and in the Social section, which was a bit too flippant before. I'll do more later. Gotta run now.

Yes, Penrose is not with the philosophical consensus here. He's not real clear on how QM is going to fix things either but he thinks there is room (maybe he's right, who knows). Re: definitions - the entry does a very good job of showing how many things people can mean by 'free will', in fact thats more the point of the entry (title change to reflect this perhaps?). There has to be hundreds of shades of interpretation between the versions you've given too - I think most pro-free-will philosophers are taking definitions somewhere between psychological and physical in your list, but then again where does Searle end up?

A soon-to-be-philosophy-graduate friend of mine asks you to read this:
http://icg.harvard.edu/~mr56/handouts/week4_frankfurt_notes.pdf

He also said (about your entry):
"y, but i think he focuses away from the main points. the debate centres around how you characterise free will itself, and whether the notion is intelligible. some people define FW in terms of counterfactuals, i.e. whether i could have done otherwise. frankfurt characterises FW in terms of second-order desires/volitions, whether i would want to have done otherwise (i.e. roughly, in terms of whether my actions fit with my character). basically, the usual approach is to separate it out into 2 questions: is the world determined? if so, is determinism compatible with free will, and how?"

Oh: misspelling: "philisophical" should be "philosophical"

Isn't there already a (vastly inadequate) entry on free will already?
A301122

I propose solving this clash by nuking the previous version and beating the author with sticks. Suggestions?

*ahem*

Nice entry. Good to see a clear seperation between determinism and fate. Fate is fated to be dealt with in another entry, and is compatible with both determinism and free will, so it's a seperate issue, imo.

-Martin (with bonus lynching proposal supplied by Xanthia)

I'd not seen the one on 'The problem of free will'. Can't the two co-exist? It wasn't as thorough as this one, however it was quite jolly, IMO.

Nice entry, GTB. I particularly liked "experienced through the venal senses". You lay out the issues well, IMO, leaving the reader prepared to take on (or refuse to take on) the Problem for themselves.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P-C - Glad ya liked it!



Lucinda (and Xanthia) - It had to come up eventually. I've been wanting to write something more definitive than A301122 for some time now. Whether the Powers will decide that this should replace that one, or that they coexist... is beyond my control, I guess. I don't think the old entry really comes to terms with the issues involved, but rather exhorts the reader to act *as if* they had free will, which is one of the more aggressively meaningless suggestions in the Edited Guide right now, IMHO. It approaches the problem at the Psychological level of analysis, and demonstates exactly why that level is problematic - it doesn't begin to address the question of whether the brain is ultimatly a mechanistic system, but assumes the conclusion that free will exists, and that one can choose (freely?) to exercise it.

I'm doing revisions, and, just like two days ago, I'm as far as 'The Social Level'. There'll be another mention of Fate in The Theological Level', I was thinking, but maybe that's not appropriate?

An entry on fate and fatalism would be super.

Oddly, and this threw me off for years, until about 2 days ago, the book /Jacques the Fatalist/, by Denis Diderot (more highly recommended than most other books), portrays a *determinist*, not a *fatalist*, and that has led me to confuse the terms for quite a while now. I'm going to blame translation, and not the author. I could add a second epigraph with the opening of that book...



Henry S - Thanks for the detailed feedback! And thanks to your friend, too, for commenting. I will read that link later today, I expect, and see what changes I feel should be made afterwards. In defense of my not focusing where a modern philosopher sees the heart of the problem, I think many people interpret Free Will in ways that philosophers may have dismissed before breakfast, and I'd like to address those people, too. The philisophical (spelling fixed, BTW) rigor only really comes in at the last two levels of analysis or so, but when it does, I want it to really be there, so I'll be taking those comments very seriously.

My first instinct is to say, what's the difference between asking whether I could have acted differently and asking whether I could have wanted to act differently? Both are different universes from the actual one, in which I wanted to shoot that man, and I shot him. But I'll read that link...

That last section, GTB reminds me of Bel's 'The Structures in our Lives' - A701162 - which is 'recommended' at present. It's not *quite* the same argument, but appears closely linked.

People tend to do the same things because they have set up patterns of habitual thinking and those thoughts build up 'thought forms', which are very powerful.

So if you recognise that you would like to make a change, say to get up an hour earlier in the morning (I would have used give up drinking, however that has a chemical component), it's difficult to achieve initially (Oh, just a few more minutes!), but once you have done it for a lengthy period, it becomes easy.

The original thought form has a tendency to pull you back into habitual actions and thoughts. You would have liked to have done it, but in the event, you did what you've always done.

Not sure whether that's helpful or not, but there!

Updates:

One small rephrasing in the talk about 'levels of analysis'. ('Post-Traumatic fugue' --> 'dissociative fugue', because I finally bothered to read that entry on triggers)

'The Historical Level': Added dates of publication for War and Peace. (Most novels don't take longer than one year to publish )

'The Psychological Level': Added a couple of sentences, changed a word or two.

'The Theological Level': Prayed. Does anyone know any dirt on John Calvin? His footnote's boring. Maybe he's boring. ()

'The Physical Level': I think I left this section alone.

Added another section ('In the Final Analysis') with some general stuff that didn't fit in the other sections.

One minor rephrasing in the summary.

Now I'm off to read HenryS' friend's link, and then see about the Bels entry that ZSF just mentioned. Maybe I'll want to link to it.

Henry, I'm not having any luck with that link. Is it working for anyone else? If so, maybe it's just this computer.