Two personal beliefs and their consequences

I am a fatalist; I do not believe in free will. This is because I feel that my actions are controlled by my brain and my brain in turn is controlled by the laws of physics. There is no room in here for independent action.

I also do not believe in the natural value of morality. I do not believe that any actions are in and of themselves inherently right or wrong. While I do in almost all cases act in a moral way (I haven't murdered anyone, for example) I see no real reason to do this.

Because of these beliefs I am ethically off the hock if I kill / rape / steal etc. Not only is it NOT MY CHOICE (because I do not have free will) it's not "wrong" because I don't believe wrong exists.

This seems to me an unsatisfactory solution. What do I do?

Setting aside the issue of free will, I would say that your actions are constrained by the laws of physics, not controlled by them. The actions of an inanimate object like a pen are controlled by the laws of physics--if I hold the pen out to my side and let go of it, it will fall to the ground. If I hold my arm out to my side and let go of it, I can make it do anything I want it to do, within the contraints of the laws of physics. So, instead of falling down, I can actually make my arm rise.

Can you actually? Think about it for a minute. Can you do anything other than what you actually do? What gives you that ability?

We are no different from highly complicated computers / animals.

[imported_luckyme]

Reading Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" would be a good start. It'll give you a grasp of how freedom can exist and the errors of determinism.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to me an unsatisfactory solution. What do I do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Postulate the existance of a superior being who gave you a soul and free will. Problem solved.

Stu

Until you get into the logical inconsistancies with freewill and omniscience. Regardless, I am only willing to believe things which are logical to me. To do otherwise is irrational.

Why don't you explain to me some of the main points? I apologize but I seem to have misplaced my copy of (random book) it must be in my other pants.

"We are no different from highly complicated computers / animals."

Keep thinking like this and it will become a reality.

Or you can change your mind. Or does your mind change you?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Until you get into the logical inconsistancies with freewill and omniscience.

[/ QUOTE ]

A superior being is not by definition omniscience.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, I am only willing to believe things which are logical to me. To do otherwise is irrational

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying its impossible for a superior being to create a biological machine? If so all those scientest working on creating life from scratch are wasting thier time.

Stu

If you are trying to turn this into a god argument well... go for it but I'm not gonna bite.

I am saying I cannot believe in things which are illogical. That is all.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I cannot believe in things which are illogical. That is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing illogical about the existance of superior beings. However, if you're unwilling to go down that road, then perhaps you should just postulate that you have free will and be done with it. The alternative is to live with your problem.

Stu

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We are no different from highly complicated computers / animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

You speak in a lot of absolutes, you need more crayons. The difference in level of complexity between a frog and my laptop is noteworthy, no?

[ QUOTE ]
You speak in a lot of absolutes, you need more crayons.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a lovely turn of phrase and I'm stealing it.

[ QUOTE ]
The difference in level of complexity between a frog and my laptop is noteworthy, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which do you believe to be more complex, your laptop or a frog, just out of curiousity?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] Which do you believe to be more complex, your laptop or a frog, just out of curiousity?

Frogs - 1,000,000 laptops 1 but gaining

[ QUOTE ]
Frogs - 1,000,000 laptops 1 but gaining

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreement and end of curiousity, then. Though there is an interesting model called Rana computatrix out there and I was vaguely thinking you might be thinking of that.

I'm taking PHI 100 right now and some of the stuff is interesting, including the debate over free will and libertarianism and determinism. I don't think the idea of determinism is all that wrong. Would you not agree that all of your actions are caused by previous events? Explain one that didn't?

I'm not saying I'm a die hard determinist, but it is somewhat interesting.

I have yet to see a particularly compelling argument against determinism. That said, it's clearly impossible to base your life on this doctrine. Even your question "what do i do?" makes no sense in a deterministic context. Why seek advice you're powerless to implement? Why complain about a solution being unsatisfactory if you're powerless to change it? Why even ask why about any of these things since you were powerless to do anything but make that post in the first place?

I think the solution is to accept determinism as being true and just file it away in the back of your mind, only to be pulled out in the case of extreme philosophical debate. Then live your life assuming that people have free will. It's not a particularly satisfying option intellectually, but I don't think an option like that exists.

This is exactly the conclusion I have reached. In fact, your post is basically my exact thought process. This makes it at least a little more likely we have hit upon something here. I'm not happy about that : (

Unsatisfactory how? Why not just do what you consider to have value? Go for "+EV" in your life. If raping/killing/stealing will have good consequences for you, go for it.

Keep in mind that emotional consequences are very real, too. Even if doing "bad things" would result in some nominal gain, the feelings of guilt or shame may not be worth it. Reputation and risk of getting caught are also worth considering. But I don't think many "immoral" acts are wise or rational in the first place.

Another thing to consider are your standards of value and success. What are your goals? Objectively being happy is no better than being miserable, but I assume you have an ingrained preference for being happy. You may also have an ingrained preference for helping others to be happy rather than causing them to suffer. You may have a natural or conditioned desire to see yourself as a "good person." There are many reasons to act ethically that have nothing to do with a higher power or with notions of "free will."

Your choices may be predetermined, but that doesn't make them insignificant. The choices you make determine the entire course of your life. In a world with free will, you might be able to "change your ways" at some later date and recover, but in a causal universe there is no escaping the effects of what you do. So the idea of determinism hardly diminishes the significance of your immediate actions.

Because I'm not actually making choices. Because I can't NOT do what I'm doing. Because I must do exactly what I'm doing.

That's depressing; however I am unwilling to simply change my viewpoint because I don't want to believe it.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I cannot believe in things which are illogical. That is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you've decided that what you believe to be the truth about determinism and morality is in some way "bad" even though you don't believe in any absolute standard of goodness or morality. I wouldn't go off impugning other's rationality just yet.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain? When I say this state of beliefs is bad I don't mean bad as in morality, I mean bad as is this sucks.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain? When I say this state of beliefs is bad I don't mean bad as in morality, I mean bad as is this sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]
What difference does it make?

chez

What difference does what make?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What difference does what make?

[/ QUOTE ]
whether your will is free or not?

chez

I think it matters tremendously; specifically in holding yourself and others accountable for what you do. If someone had to do something it can't be right to judge them for what they do.

You are making choices. The fact that will isn't "free" doesn't mean that will doesn't exist. I think you're overusing reductionism here. You are making choices, you are just making them according to logical processes.

When you make a choice, that whole process may exist as a series of predetermined chemical mechanics in your brain. But you still control the choice you make.

When you say that you can't not do what you are doing, you assume that you yourself are separate from your choice. But you aren't. You are a result of causal mechanics as much as anything else. To say you "can't choose not to choose what you choose" is like asking whether God can create something so heavy even he can't lift it. There is no "you" to not do what you're doing. You are part of your choices, your choices reflect you and you reflect them.

The assumption of some outside "agent" who is limited by determinism isn't consistent with the idea of determinism.

To put it another way, you don't have the ability to float into the air. Does that mean your body limits you? In a certain sense I suppose it does - but there would be no "you" to float into the air without your body. Regardless, being depressed because you can't magically "go against" gravity seems silly to me. I believe determinism and a desire to "go against" determinism are similar.

What is it in particular that makes you feel depressed?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> This seems to me an unsatisfactory solution. What do I do? </font>

Design your life.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it matters tremendously; specifically in holding yourself and others accountable for what you do. If someone had to do something it can't be right to judge them for what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can't be wrong to judge them either.

Can I not make this post?

I'm not really depressed. I'm actually quite a happy person. It's just the idea of not being able to do something else than what I do that get's me down.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it matters tremendously; specifically in holding yourself and others accountable for what you do. If someone had to do something it can't be right to judge them for what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes it right to judge them if they do have free will?

Its not the point I was raising anyway. What I'm asking you is how you would behave differently if you discovered that your will was free?

chez

But you can do whatever you choose to do. The only things you can't do are the things you don't choose to do.

Why not choose to do something enjoyable? That might cheer you up and help you get your mind off it.

If a man driving his car slips on the ice and hits another car filled with black people he should not be punished.

If a man driving his car decides he hates black people and bashes his car into a van full of black people he should be punished.

I can blame the person in the second example but not in the first.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If a man driving his car slips on the ice and hits another car filled with black people he should not be punished.

If a man driving his car decides he hates black people and bashes his car into a van full of black people he should be punished.

I can blame the person in the second example but not in the first.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's because one is an act of will and one isn't, makes no difference if the will is free. In the second case we take action because the nature of that man (free will or not) is unacceptable to us.

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it matters tremendously; specifically in holding yourself and others accountable for what you do. If someone had to do something it can't be right to judge them for what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have it both ways. I'll go along with either. If they can't be judged because they don't have free will, then you can't judge them because you don't either. To judge is about making decisions, zombies can't be said to be doing that.

Determinism is no bar to free will.

[Piers]

Why should an objective reality satisfy you? If anything is at fault surly it’s your expectations.

If you want satisfaction, you should design your own personal perception of reality, which can readily fit in with these expectations. Its what most other people do.

"
Determinism is no bar to free will.
"

Can you expand? I don't see how this is possible.

No offense, but I think anyone who buys completely into determinism either secretly seeks to alleviate their responsibility or has no common sense whatsoever.

While I do not live according to determinism, it does seem more rational. Name one decision you make that isn't due to some past event? I'm actually writing my final philosophy paper on determinism. In the paper, we are to discuss why determinism is right.. and then be able to give problems others will see with your arguments - and then prove those wrong.

My one question for determinists is if our actions are predeterminied, why then try to argue with others to prove them wrong. If they are libertarianists, then they can't help that. So why try to change their mind? (Does this make sense?)

Why? Because we can't not do it. Or, because we will do it.

My present actions are only partly determined by my past actions. I am a thinking individual so I can separate myself from my past, and also get influenced by outside sources, i.e. other philosophy. Sure, to a degree I am determined, I will admit that. But it's not enough to make me stop and think about it or let it affect my life.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My present actions are only partly determined by my past actions. I am a thinking individual so I can separate myself from my past, and also get influenced by outside sources, i.e. other philosophy. Sure, to a degree I am determined, I will admit that.

[/ QUOTE ]
How have you decided that your present actions are only partly determined? What difference does it make either way?

[ QUOTE ]
But it's not enough to make me stop and think about

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds honest to me, but is that your idea of intellectual dishonesty.

chez

Because if you convince them to be a determinist, it was meant to be. If you don't, it wasn't meant to be. But what if you just slept in that day?

[Lestat]

Just how literally are you taking this belief?

If someone is 500 lbs. because (among other reasons), they eat a gallon of ice cream per day, are you implying that they CAN'T stop eating ice cream?

If someone doesn't have enough money because they are (among other things), a lazy procrastinator, are you implying they can't change?

Are these people completely disempowered to change their way of thinking? Their views on life, etc? I'm sure I'm missing your point. Otherwise, you're exactly right. What a depressing way to go through life thinking you do not conrol your destiny.

100% literally. Yes, they cannot stop eating ice cream.

There is no logical way to defeat this argument (that I have seen). I will not accept illogical arguments against it.

You see my problem! (I feel guilty telling people about this and I would much rather never have thought of it).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
100% literally. Yes, they cannot stop eating ice cream.

There is no logical way to defeat this argument (that I have seen). I will not accept illogical arguments against it.

You see my problem! (I feel guilty telling people about this and I would much rather never have thought of it).

[/ QUOTE ]
I still don't understand you point. If they have no free will they may or may not stop eating ice cream in the future. If they have free will then they may or may not stop eating ice-cream in the future.

In all cases it seems like their choice but may not be. How can you tell the difference?

chez

Maybe you won't accept illogical arguments, but would you accept experiential arguments? Just look around you, there's plenty of reason to think we are not completely determined.

If you have free will you can choose either to stop eating or not stop eating.

If you do not have free will you will either stop eating or not stop eating.

In the first case you can make either one happen. In the second case either one will happen.

Does this help at all in your understanding of how they are different?

You must have no confidence in the concept of willpower. I quit smoking. How do you explain that?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have free will you can choose either to stop eating or not stop eating.

If you do not have free will you will either stop eating or not stop eating.

In the first case you can make either one happen. In the second case either one will happen.

Does this help at all in your understanding of how they are different?

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand how they are different. I dont understand how you can tell the difference between them - that's what I'm asking you.

chez

I quit smoking too. Isn't it incredible? I am loving it : )

Quitting smoking is really no different from putting your shoes on, or talking to someone, or playing volleyball or doing anything else. You did it because of who you are the experiences / genetics / etc.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You see my problem! (I feel guilty telling people about this and I would much rather never have thought of it).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, sleep easy. You'll have one heck of a time proving determinism exists. Hume will challenge you on the inductive side and the quantum gang will demand evidence that quantum events aren't random. Cause and effect is one of the perspectives we bring to the table, it's a rough one to show to be actually operating.

Your real problem is that free will requires determinism in order to work and there's no known way to prove that determinism exists.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no logical way to defeat this argument (that I have seen). I will not accept illogical arguments against it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Find one action that is completely random and determinism falls apart.

Stu

Free will and determinism are contradictions not buddies.

While quantam mechanics may defeat determinism is doesn't help free will which is the real problem; also quantum mechanics is such a small part of the universe (No Pun intended ha ha) that it's not all that important to consider for this viewpoint.

This may be true but it does not help free will.

[imported_luckyme]

You still have two problems ( given that you can brush away quantum, that operates on every atom in the universe as 'small')
1) prove that determinism exists.
2) illustrate free will without determinism.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You still have two problems ( given that you can brush away quantum, that operates on every atom in the universe as 'small')
1) prove that determinism exists.
2) illustrate free will without determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]
and I think its in trying to demonstrate 2) that you realise the whole free will/determinism issue is a canard.

chez

#1) What else can be?
#2) Free will is impossible.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of these beliefs I am ethically off the hock if I kill / rape / steal etc. Not only is it NOT MY CHOICE (because I do not have free will) it's not "wrong" because I don't believe wrong exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is detrimental to your well-being to kill/rape/steal etc. Your intellect should recognize this, and prohibit such behavior.

Simple.

[ QUOTE ]
You still have two problems ( given that you can brush away quantum, that operates on every atom in the universe as 'small')
1) prove that determinism exists.
2) illustrate free will without determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you illustrate free will with determinism?? If determinism is the opposite of free will, why then would you want to prove free will while trying to prove determinism?? Still no one has given an example of making a choice that hasn't been influenced by past events.

Also Kathleen, (I'm not saying you're wrong) what arguments do you give to prove determinism? (I'm trying to improve my paper on arguing for determinism)

Gravity causes apples to fall out of trees and ugly people don't have sex as often as pretty people.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in china?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> This seems to me an unsatisfactory solution. What do I do? </font>

Design your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best answer yet. Good job.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You still have two problems ( given that you can brush away quantum, that operates on every atom in the universe as 'small')
1) prove that determinism exists.
2) illustrate free will without determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you illustrate free will with determinism?? If determinism is the opposite of free will, why then would you want to prove free will while trying to prove determinism?? Still no one has given an example of making a choice that hasn't been influenced by past events.

[/ QUOTE ]
but free will and determinism are not opposites. Unless you can show 2) then free-will and determisim have nothing to do with each other.

I'm choosing to go to bed now.

chez

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Gravity causes apples to fall out of trees and ugly people don't have sex as often as pretty people.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in china?

[/ QUOTE ]

what does this have to do with anything?

Free will and determinism are opposites. Free will implies you can make a choice; determinism denies a choice exists. I am wishing you a good night because I have no choice not to : )

My point was that those examples and his point were not on topic.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
#1) What else can be?
#2) Free will is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's your rock that you've been building this theory on "what else can it be?". Er,uh, did anyone mention quantum effects and/or humean issues. ( have you been listening in on the ID argumente "I can't explain it, so it must be Y". cheeesh. :-)

2) you say "FW is impossible" .. define it, then we'll see.

If you're going to claim Free Will is impossible because of determnism then you have to show there is determinism else the only obstacle you've placed in the way of FW is unproven.

If you are going to say XY is impossible then you have to tell us what XY is so we can see if we can overcome the claimed obstacles.

Free will is the ability to choose between options. This is impossible.

Choice implies that either option can happen. This cannot be. There is nothing that could allow one option to happen instead of the other given exactly the same circumstances. We are controlled by our minds, which are in turn controlled by the laws of physics.

I have said this a couple of times already.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If determinism is the opposite of free will, why then would you want to prove free will while trying to prove determinism?? Still no one has given an example of making a choice that hasn't been influenced by past events.


[/ QUOTE ]

Laplace's Demon knows all the facts about the past and present and all the natural laws that govern our world, and uses this knowledge to foresee the future, down to every detail.

LaPlace's Demon never lies.

LaPlace's Demon says to you, "I know you are going to eat this bowl of ice cream".

If you could eat that bowl of ice cream but decide not to then determinism is false.

I'm sure I could abstain from eating that bowl of ice cream.

Stu

I agree with you up until your summation. There is no way you could eat avoid eating the ice cream. In addition to this, if you know all the facts past and present and all the forces, you can always predict the future.

[imported_luckyme]

Claim - Free will can't operate because of determinism.

Raises several questions before we accept it by power of repetition.

1) is there determinism? ( in spite of several strong arguments against it). If Determinism can't be proven than there is no obstacle to FW by this claim.
2)Perhaps Determinism is being confused with Fatalism.
3) Can free will operate if there is no determinism? If it can't, what's all the bother about determinism. Perhaps the problem is an ill-conceived notion of FW.

I'm off to bed. good luck with formulating your concepts, luckyme

[hmkpoker]

My point gave reason and purpose to your problematic ethical off-the-hookness.

If that's still unsatisfactory, then you just need to accept your position and quit yo jibba jabba

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way you could eat avoid eating the ice cream.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is preventing me from abstaining?

Stu

[purnell]

Kathleen, you are correct, free will is impossible in a materialistic worldview. However, we are bound to pretend that we have it.

Chez has got it perfectly, IMO. The result is the same either way.

Please re-read this thread.

Good night everyone!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way you could eat avoid eating the ice cream.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is preventing me from abstaining?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

You might abstain, but a determinist would argue that that's really what you were going to do all along anyway, so it does nothing to defeat his argument. Determinism says that whatever you do is predetermined, so whether you eat it, don't eat it, pretend like you're going to eat it and then throw it in the garbage really fast, or do something totally unexpected like stick your cell phone in the ice cream, you're not psyching out determinism. they would say that whatever you ended up doing, you were predestined to do all along.

f

[Lestat]

You guys are (philosophically), WAY over my head on this one! I wish I had more time to partake in this thread. I just want to briefly say I'm a big believer in the pain/pleasure principle, i.e. we are primarily influenced by two motivating factors:

1. The desire to gain pleasure.

2. The need to avoid pain.

Every action we take is motivated in some way by our necessity to either gain pleasure, to avoid pain, or some combination of the two.

The overweight person who does nothing to change his/her condition remains idle either because the pleasure from eating ice cream is greater than the pleasure from being fit and trim. OR... The pain that would come from dieting and exercise is greater than the pain of remaining obese and out of shape.

YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR AXIOMS!!

You can be at your ideal weight. You can have exactly the amount of money you need. You can design your life exactly how you want it. There is give and take, but it is mainly a matter of changing your axioms on what you derive pain and pleasure from.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Free will and determinism are contradictions not buddies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say I tap the ruby slippers and grant you free will. So, elated, you make a choice ( process skipped over for now). How will you implement it? You can't "cause" anything specific to happen unless you have determinism to rely on.
Free will needs determinism. And in more ways than this obvious one.

luckyme

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If determinism is the opposite of free will, why then would you want to prove free will while trying to prove determinism?? Still no one has given an example of making a choice that hasn't been influenced by past events.


[/ QUOTE ]

Laplace's Demon knows all the facts about the past and present and all the natural laws that govern our world, and uses this knowledge to foresee the future, down to every detail.

LaPlace's Demon never lies.

LaPlace's Demon says to you, "I know you are going to eat this bowl of ice cream".

If you could eat that bowl of ice cream but decide not to then determinism is false.

I'm sure I could abstain from eating that bowl of ice cream.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]


Determinism is the theory that all events are influenced by past events. And therefore, if you were to choose not to eat the ice cream, it could be because you were not hungry, or you were trying to prove determinism wrong. No matter what, there is something causing you to not eat the ice cream. By not eating the ice cream does not disprove determinism.

I knew this was coming /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. Luckily I had an answer ready. The intellectual honesty I'm concerned with is more for myself and my thoughts, not for the sake of argument. (That's not to say intellectual honesty isn't also important for argument. It's just not as strict.) So while I disagree with determinism for now, I'll keep an open mind about it.

[Double Down]

Hey guys. Really enjoying this thread. I actually have a good argument on how both free will and determinism can co-exist. But I'm out the door right now! I will post my thoughts later tonight.

Perhaps we have a misunderstanding on what these words mean. Determinism (fatalism) to me is that we cannot make choices. Everything happens because of what has happened. Everything that does happen MUST happen and could not have not happened. Free will means we can make choices. We can choose between two options; things that happen could have not happenend.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Determinism (fatalism) to me is that we cannot make choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ??!! you mean to say that determinism doesn't mean you're very stubborn? No wonder none of your statements made any sense to me.

I'll reread your evidence and logical steps you demonstrated that led you to that belief....

I realize you are joking; none the less.

2 entries found for fatalism.
fa·tal·ism Audio pronunciation of "fatalism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ftl-zm)
n.

1. The doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable.
2. Acceptance of the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable.

[imported_luckyme]

I was only joking in the sense that you stumbled into a forum for DEBATING/Discussing ideas. That means it's not a matter of proclamation like graffiti or bumper stickers. You will be questioned and expected to logically lay out your evidence and reasoning.

Not that you HAVE to, it's just seems to be the norm. Saying "I believe X" around here means you're about to have your brain opened up and the connections checked. Nobody seems to be granted omniscient status, not even HE.

Now, get over here on this table ! , luckyme.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Determinism is the theory that all events are influenced by past events. And therefore, if you were to choose not to eat the ice cream, it could be because you were not hungry, or you were trying to prove determinism wrong. No matter what, there is something causing you to not eat the ice cream. By not eating the ice cream does not disprove determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP is expressing the viewpoint that there is no free will. She believes all our actions are the result of biological processes which in turn are simply chemical reactions, which in turn are simply molecues behaving in the manner prescribed by physics. Human diliberation is pointless becuase what ever happens will happen according to the law of physics.

If what the OP is expressing is true than it is possible to accurately predict future events if one has enough knowledge about present and past events as well as a complete understanding of the laws of nature that govern our world. For instance it should be possible to predict the weather with 100% accuracy, but we would need to know when the peruvian yak farts, where it farts, in what direction it farts, how forcefull the fart, etc.

LaPlace's demon should be able to accurately predict wether or not I eat the bowl of ice cream. However the rules of the thought experiment present a problem for the demon. If the demon predicts I will eat the bowl of ice cream, I can simply abstain. If the demon predicts I will not eat the bowl of ice cream, I can chow down. The demon knows this before it makes the prediction. It knows that whatever prediction it makes will be wrong. Since the demon cannot lie it cannot make any prediction at all.

Even with all the knowledge and thought power at the demon's disposal, it simply cannot overcome my ability to change my mind.

Stu

[lastchance]

The argument is not that it overpowers your mind, but simply knows what your mind will do given all possible situations, and will calculate accordingly.

The best counter-argument to this, by far, IMHO, is the very simple Quantam Physics = you cannot predict the future to 100% degree of accuracy, no matter how much information you have available to you.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is not that it overpowers your mind, but simply knows what your mind will do given all possible situations, and will calculate accordingly.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the demon knows what my mind will do given this specific situation why can't it make an accurate prediction?

[ QUOTE ]
The best counter-argument to this, by far, IMHO, is the very simple Quantam Physics = you cannot predict the future to 100% degree of accuracy, no matter how much information you have available to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are trying to show that it is impossible to predict the future even if you have complete information. I am trying to show free will exist.

Stu

[AlwaysWrong]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a fatalist; I do not believe in free will. This is because I feel that my actions are controlled by my brain and my brain in turn is controlled by the laws of physics. There is no room in here for independent action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are your actions really controlled by your brain? Your brain has influence on your actions, but it isn't clear that your brain controls your actions. For instance, if my brain directs my body to leap small buildings, my body will fail to comply. Also, as they say, my brain is often controlled by my penis. (Which is a crude way of denying that I'm some sort of ideal rational actor with a puppet-body controlled by a computer brain.)

Even if my brain has some control over my body, and even if it is at all fair to distinguish between my brain and my body, how exactly does phsyics "control" my brain? Physics is a discipline practiced by physicists. You can't mean that the work of physicists controls my actions. Perhaps what you want to say is that the laws of physics determine what my brain does. The laws of physics are descriptive. They do not have any normative power to control action. What you want to say is that your brain is composed of fundamental particles that act in regular, determined ways. Of course this is an open question given quantum mechanics. But even if our universe is deterministic as you suppose, it doesn't follow that you lack free will.

What would it mean for the universe to be indeterministic? It would mean that to some extent it is impossible IN PRINCIPLE to pretict the future. That is, our ability to predict the cosequences of our actions would be comprimised. As RE Hobart says, indeterminism, rather than granting us free will, actually takes it away, by denying us predictive power.

Try to formulate what you mean by "there is no room for independant action." What practical consequences does this sentence hold? If you consider yourself scientifically-minded, how would you scientifically test this statement? How is it falsifiable? If you cannot do any of these things, how is this belief anything but wasted neurons?

Thinking that you are a puppet controlled by the laws of physics is at best useless. Free will is a lack of power. There is nothing in the laws of physics that denys you the power to make your own choices. There is nothing hindering you from getting out of bed tomorrow or staying in bed, except perhaps fear of getting fired.

Trying to get from a theoretical belief in fatalism or determinism to a practical plan of action is self-defeating. As with extreme skepticism, fatalism offers no rewards for those who subscribe to it. To bend an old example, a skeptic does not pause to consider if the car speeding toward him is real or not; the skeptic just gets out of the way. Similarly, don't ponder whether you have free will or not; just act as if you do. If you don't, then it's not your choice anyways - you'll believe whatever you were fated to.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you actually? Think about it for a minute. Can you do anything other than what you actually do? What gives you that ability?

We are no different from highly complicated computers / animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about it for a minute? Is that an argument? Am I supposed to 'think about' whether I'm really choosing to move my arm in a certain direction, and from that realize that I'm not? Why? I don't get it.

How about this--you tell me before my arm moves which way it will move--up or down. Now, since I have no say in the matter, you should miss on your prediction about half the time. But I think you will find, amazingly, that you are 100% accurate in your predictions. How could that be if I have no choice in which way my arm moves?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is not that it overpowers your mind, but simply knows what your mind will do given all possible situations, and will calculate accordingly.

The best counter-argument to this, by far, IMHO, is the very simple Quantam Physics = you cannot predict the future to 100% degree of accuracy, no matter how much information you have available to you.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you are right than as quantam physics is compatible with determinism it follows that detreminism does not mean you can predict the future.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I am a fatalist; I do not believe in free will. This is because I feel that my actions are controlled by my brain and my brain in turn is controlled by the laws of physics. There is no room in here for independent action.

I also do not believe in the natural value of morality. I do not believe that any actions are in and of themselves inherently right or wrong. While I do in almost all cases act in a moral way (I haven't murdered anyone, for example) I see no real reason to do this.

Because of these beliefs I am ethically off the hock if I kill / rape / steal etc. Not only is it NOT MY CHOICE (because I do not have free will) it's not "wrong" because I don't believe wrong exists.

This seems to me an unsatisfactory solution. What do I do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you do please don't have children. We don't need more people with your strange views.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to me an unsatisfactory solution. What do I do?

[/ QUOTE ]
Look to the Bible, and turn to God.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument is not that it overpowers your mind, but simply knows what your mind will do given all possible situations, and will calculate accordingly.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the demon knows what my mind will do given this specific situation why can't it make an accurate prediction?

[ QUOTE ]
The best counter-argument to this, by far, IMHO, is the very simple Quantam Physics = you cannot predict the future to 100% degree of accuracy, no matter how much information you have available to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are trying to show that it is impossible to predict the future even if you have complete information. I am trying to show free will exist.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]


Whatever the demon predicts, you WILL do.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you actually? Think about it for a minute. Can you do anything other than what you actually do? What gives you that ability?

We are no different from highly complicated computers / animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about it for a minute? Is that an argument? Am I supposed to 'think about' whether I'm really choosing to move my arm in a certain direction, and from that realize that I'm not? Why? I don't get it.

How about this--you tell me before my arm moves which way it will move--up or down. Now, since I have no say in the matter, you should miss on your prediction about half the time. But I think you will find, amazingly, that you are 100% accurate in your predictions. How could that be if I have no choice in which way my arm moves?

[/ QUOTE ]


You must be purposely trying to not understand what I am saying. I have no doubt the ILLUSION of free will is present. I certainly APPEAR to make choices every day. You APPEAR to choose which way to move your arm. My problem is that you do not actually CHOOSE in the strictest sense (that is, being able to move it one way or the other).

You are living up to your name by calling black white and white black.

"Are your actions really controlled by your brain?"
Yes.

", how exactly does phsyics "control" my brain?"

If you want to split hairs about the words, fine, but I'm not playing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you actually? Think about it for a minute. Can you do anything other than what you actually do? What gives you that ability?

We are no different from highly complicated computers / animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about it for a minute? Is that an argument? Am I supposed to 'think about' whether I'm really choosing to move my arm in a certain direction, and from that realize that I'm not? Why? I don't get it.

How about this--you tell me before my arm moves which way it will move--up or down. Now, since I have no say in the matter, you should miss on your prediction about half the time. But I think you will find, amazingly, that you are 100% accurate in your predictions. How could that be if I have no choice in which way my arm moves?

[/ QUOTE ]


You must be purposely trying to not understand what I am saying. I have no doubt the ILLUSION of free will is present. I certainly APPEAR to make choices every day. You APPEAR to choose which way to move your arm. My problem is that you do not actually CHOOSE in the strictest sense (that is, being able to move it one way or the other).

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand perfectly what you're saying--I know what it means to believe that we do not have free will. I just haven't seen you give any reason for believing it, and when you said 'think about it' it seems to me that thinking about whether or not I can freely choose to move my arm in a certain direction makes it seem very much like I do have free will--as in, "look, I'll move it this way, now this way," etc. So, I don't understand what 'think about it' was supposed to show me. Can you give me a reason for believing that we do not have free will then?

I haven't read this long thread yet, but let me first agree with you. I don't believe in free will either. I believe in free "agency" -- meaning that I am responsible for my own actions. However, my will is not free. It is a product of a lot of things -- genetics, biology, environment. In the end, I cannot control my brain, because "I" am an emergent property of my brain. Freewill is an illusion -- but a very handy one. Now, on to how this matters:

[ QUOTE ]
Because of these beliefs I am ethically off the hock if I kill / rape / steal etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are only off the hook, in that there is no "you" apart from your functioning brain. Un/fortunately, society will do things to either change your brain, or keep it from hurting their brains. So, you should use your free agency to try to adapt your brain in such a way so that soceity doesn't think they need to adapt your brain for you (or lock it up, or destroy it).

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the demon predicts, you WILL do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I don't do what the demon predicts, does that mean I have free will?

Stu

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the demon predicts, you WILL do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I don't do what the demon predicts, does that mean I have free will?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless you were privy to the demon's prediction and that would influence your behavior, then yes.

[AlwaysWrong]

If you wish to be simply factually incorrect, that is your right.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
1) prove that determinism exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to know what you will do in the future, just go to the appropriate point in space-time and see. Whatever you do, is what you were always destined to do. There is nothing you could possibly have done to change this.

The universe is its own model. A list of everything that has is and will happen. To see the future just go look it’s as simple as that.

However I should add that its my belief that its impossible to improve on this. To be able to predict the future with 100% accurately before hand is not possible, at least not without in effect reconstructing the whole universe, but I do not that believe that a being can achieve this either directly or indirectly.

LaPlace's Demon cannot be shown to exist, so his argument disappears in a puff of smoke.

[ QUOTE ]
2) illustrate free will without determinism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Free will exists at the level of human experience. If we construct a model of the universe to examine the details of interpersonal behaviour of humans, it makes sense to include the assumption of free will into the model. This does not mean we believe that the assumption of free will is a true and accurate reflection of reality. It just means that the assumption of free will is useful for our current purposes.

When we create models of the universe, we do it to achieve certain ends and it is those ends that are important. It is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions known to be false if they make the ends easier to achieve.

Consider the large amount of our current technology base that has been developed using principles of Newtonian mechanics. People, who firmly believe that the assumptions of Newtonian Mechanics are wrong, still use the theory successfully.

We can only reason within the models we create. It is impossible for us to accurately model the universe. It makes sense to construct the models we reason within to reflect practical needs rather than impossible fantasies.

It is very useful to assume humans have free will, irrespective of whether they do or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Free will exists at the level of human experience. If we construct a model of the universe to examine the details of interpersonal behaviour of humans, it makes sense to include the assumption of free will into the model. This does not mean we believe that the assumption of free will is a true and accurate reflection of reality. It just means that the assumption of free will is useful for our current purposes.

When we create models of the universe, we do it to achieve certain ends and it is those ends that are important. It is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions known to be false if they make the ends easier to achieve.
...
It is very useful to assume humans have free will, irrespective of whether they do or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is useful, but not necessary. It's just as good of a model (if not better, actually), to have physiological &amp; environmental factors determine people's behavior. We can still alter people's behavior by changing their physiology (medication, education) or environment (rehab, prison).

It also helps in realizing the importance that people are raised in healthy environments that promote good behavior. We can't just hope that once a kid grows up and leaves a very bad environment, that their free-will will be able to choose to behave appropriately in society.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you were privy to the demon's prediction and that would influence your behavior, then yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that matter if my action was already determined at the big bang?

Stu

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless you were privy to the demon's prediction and that would influence your behavior, then yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that matter if my action was already determined at the big bang?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Your knowledge of the demon's prediction would also be the result of prior events.


edit: removed an incorrect statement about Pierre-Simon Laplace. (Heh, I still learn something every now and then)

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Laplace's Demon knows all the facts about the past and present and all the natural laws that govern our world, and uses this knowledge to foresee the future, down to every detail.

LaPlace's Demon never lies.

LaPlace's Demon says to you, "I know you are going to eat this bowl of ice cream".

[/ QUOTE ] If you are not going to eat the ice cream, at least one of these three premises has to be false. It could just as well be the second or third as the first. All you have done is set up a scenario with premises that contradict each other. Doesn't prove anything.

(Does the demon have the ability to shut up?)

[ QUOTE ]
All you have done is set up a scenario with premises that contradict each other. Doesn't prove anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's more of a paradox than a contradiction. But not even a very good paradox -- the demon can accurately predict your action by not letting you know what it is. Then, after you act, he can show you he was right.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's more of a paradox than a contradiction. But not even a very good paradox -- the demon can accurately predict your action by not letting you know what it is. Then, after you act, he can show you he was right.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes he can. That would mean premise 3 is false. All four premises cannot logically be true at once:

He can predict the future 100% accurately.
He doesn't lie.
He tells you what you are going to do.
You act differently.

You say he can refrain from telling you what you're going to do, and the contradiction is gone. You are correct. Remove premise nr. 3, or any other one of the four premises above, and the scenario is no longer impossible and does no longer claim to tell us anything about fatalism.

edit:

(If you remove nr. 3, you will also remove nr. 4, because there will be no statement to differ from. In case that confused someone.)

(And English is not my first language. You might very well be correct that contradiction is not a good word in this context.)

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes he can. That would mean premise 3 is false. All four premises cannot logically be true at once:


[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously one of the premises has to be false. I'm saying premise 1 is false because fatalism is false.

If my fate was set at the big bang, why should it matter that the demon tells me what I am going to do. Fatalism holds that I must do what I am fated to do. It only matters if the demon cannot accurately predict the future. However fatalism(or determinism for that matter) says the demon must be able to predict the future. The reason fatalism falls down here is becuase of free will.

You people need to watch the Matrix trilogy again.

Stu

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]

Obviously one of the premises has to be false. I'm saying premise 1 is false because fatalism is false.

[/ QUOTE ] Yeah, but your statement boils down to "fatalism is false". There is no reason why the premise that he doesn't lie can't be the false one. Or the premise that he tells you anything at all.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]

If you are not going to eat the ice cream, at least one of these three premises has to be false. It could just as well be the second or third as the first. All you have done is set up a scenario with premises that contradict each other. Doesn't prove anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thought experiments never prove anything. They are just an excercise to clarify what is already intuitive. Its my position that premise 1 has the highest probability of being false(however fatalism says it must be true).

Think about the thought experiment this way. Suppose you know with absolute certainty that premise 2 and premise 3 are true. Which is more likely to be true

A)I can act differently than the demon predicts.

or

B)My freewill prevents the demon from actually being able to predict the future give the constraints of this senario.

Stu

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Think about the thought experiment this way. Suppose you know with absolute certainty that premise 2 and premise 3 are true. Which is more likely to be true

A)I can act differently than the demon predicts.

or

B)My freewill prevents the demon from actually being able to predict the future give the constraints of this senario.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
If we knew with absolute certainty that premise 2 and 3 were true, I would say what is most likely to be false is the first part of premise 1. Premise one is divided in two parts:

The demon knows everything about the present and the past.
Therefore it must know everything about the future.

But I suppose you also postulate that I know the first part of statement one with absolute certainty, and your question is "what is more likely to be false: the second part of premise one or premise four". You see how you are just as well off just stating that it is intuitively true for you that you have free will, than to call this far fetched scenario a refutation of determinism?

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously one of the premises has to be false. I'm saying premise 1 is false because fatalism is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had no idea you seriously thought this thought experiment disproved determinism/fatalism. Here, I have one for you:

1) I create a computer program that prompts you to choose either "0" or "1" to predict what # the computer will next print on the screen.
2) If you predict correctly (by entering the # into the computer), you win $1million.
3) The computer will print the inverse of whatever you enter ("1" if you enter "0", and "0" if you enter "1") [and you know this].
4) You are unable to enter the predition of the # the computer is next printing on the screen.

Conclusion: the computer has free will, because you can't enter the prediction of what # it will pick, even though you know the exact rule it is using to pick the #.

[wtfsvi]

Yes, yes. Good one.

[ZZZ]

[ QUOTE ]
LaPlace's Demon says to you, "I know you are going to eat this bowl of ice cream".

If you could eat that bowl of ice cream but decide not to then determinism is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you built a robot that was programmed to do the opposite of what the demon said, is it your position that the robot would have free will? Is it your position that the robot's behavior is not governed by a set of deterministic laws?

If that is not your position, please explain why your argument in favor of free will applies to humans but not to robots.

I actually thought of your exact argument a few months ago and had briefly changed my mind into thinking that free will exists, but a friend set me straight. The demon cannot exist as specified. It is similar to why the halting problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) cannot be solved.


Z

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
So if you built a robot that was programmed to do the opposite of what the demon said, is it your position that the robot would have free will? Is it your position that the robot's behavior is not governed by a set of deterministic laws?

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot prove man has free will although I suspect it exist. I believe there is a cause for every action. That being said I do not believe my actions are predetermined or a matter of fate. Human deliberation matters.

Stu

[ZZZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot prove man has free will although I suspect it exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. It certainly does feel like free will exists, although I suspect it doesn't. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But from where I stand, the illusion of free will is just as good as having it, so I'm not going to lose any (more) sleep over it.

Z

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion: the computer has free will, because you can't enter the prediction of what # it will pick, even though you know the exact rule it is using to pick the #.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know I would not even bother to play such a game against the computer becuase it would be a complete waste of time. However against Bill Gates I might play a few rounds.

The difference between a man and robot is that a man can let the demon be right.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism)

Determinism in the West is often associated with Newtonian physics, which depicts the physical matter of the universe as operating according to a set of fixed, knowable laws. The "billiard ball" hypothesis, a product of Newtonian physics, argues that once the initial conditions of the universe have been established the rest of the history of the universe follows inevitably. If it were actually possible to have complete knowledge of physical matter and all of the laws governing that matter at any one time, then it would be theoretically possible to compute the time and place of every event that will ever occur (Laplace's demon). In this sense, the basic particles of the universe operate in the same fashion as the rolling balls on a billiard table, moving and striking each other in predictable ways to produce predictable results.

I believe all actions follow to a degree deterministic laws, but I wholeheartly reject this view of determinism. If this veiw was correct nothing could prevent the demon from making an accurate prediction(including the stringent constraints of the thought experiment).

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
If this veiw was correct nothing could prevent the demon from making an accurate prediction(including the stringent constraints of the thought experiment).

[/ QUOTE ]

What prevents you from accurately predicting the # the computer will print on the screen? Free will?

The fact is, the demon CAN predict what you will do -- it's just that by telling you in advance of your action, he is adding another cause into the equation. Just like entering a # into my computer program adds a cause in determining what # is printed on the screen.

I don't believe in fatalism, by the way. I think QM makes it impossible to accurately predict outcomes, but you can still accurately predict probabilities, as well as know exactly which variables would tip the scales even more in favor of whatever outcome you wanted.

[atrifix]

[quoteObviously one of the premises has to be false. I'm saying premise 1 is false because fatalism is false.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to claim that this is a refutation of fatalism, then your argument is viciously (badly) circular. It reduces to "Fatalism is false because fatalism is false."

"

If I don't do what the demon predicts, does that mean I have free will?

Stu
"
Yes. But you CANNOT do something other than what the demon predicts.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to claim that this is a refutation of fatalism, then your argument is viciously (badly) circular. It reduces to "Fatalism is false because fatalism is false."

[/ QUOTE ]

It reduces to Fatalism is false becuase the future cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy. This is true even with total knowledge of all facts past and present down to the smallest detail and complete understanding of all physical laws that govern our world. Quantum Mechanics backs this up.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is, the demon CAN predict what you will do -- it's just that by telling you in advance of your action, he is adding another cause into the equation. Just like entering a # into my computer program adds a cause in determining what # is printed on the screen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but the demon knows this just as I know the computer program will display a "1" if I input "0". The difference is every prediction I make with the little computer game is supposed to be wrong and I am most certain they would all turn out wrong. I know that it is impossible for me to make an accurate prediction.

According to determinism every prediction the demon makes is supposed to be right. Determinism also holds that there is nothing the demon is unable to predict. It holds that if the demon predicts that I will eat the ice cream, then I will eat the ice cream. If the demon predicts the next character printed on the computer screen will be an "0", then a "0" will be displayed regardless of what key is actually pressed (the demon already knows what key is going to pressed).

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I don't do what the demon predicts, does that mean I have free will?


[/ QUOTE ] Yes. But you CANNOT do something other than what the demon predicts.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are indeed a true fatalist.

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is, the demon CAN predict what you will do -- it's just that by telling you in advance of your action, he is adding another cause into the equation. Just like entering a # into my computer program adds a cause in determining what # is printed on the screen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but the demon knows this just as I know the computer program will display a "1" if I input "0". The difference is every prediction I make with the little computer game is supposed to be wrong and I am most certain they would all turn out wrong. I know that it is impossible for me to make an accurate prediction.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not. You can tell me: I will enter a "0" and the computer will print a "1". You can do this as many times as you need to convince me that the computer output does not have free will, and that you have sufficient understanding of the working of it to predict its output. The demon can do the exact same thing.

The fact that your entering of the # into the computer, or the demon entering his "prediction" into your head makes you do something other than what was entered or "predicted", does not mean the demon didn't know what you would really end up doing -- it just means that he can't tell you before hand, because then you would act differently.

If you don't get this, I give up. This is very simple.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
it just means that he can't tell you before hand, because then you would act differently

[/ QUOTE ]

Determinism holds that once the initial conditions of the universe have been established the rest of the history of the universe follows inevitably. That means that wether or not I am fated to eat the ice cream was written 15 billion years ago at the big bang. It doesn't matter if the demon reveals to me his prediction unless I have a choice in the matter. If I have a choice then history is not inevitable as determinism holds.


Stu

[wtfsvi]

Meh. It would also be decided before hand what the demon would tell you. Really, the scenario doesn't show anything.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh. It would also be decided before hand what the demon would tell you. Really, the scenario doesn't show anything.

[/ QUOTE ]


If Determinism is true then the demon also does not have free will and the history of his actions were inevitably set at the creation of the universe. It would be impossible for the demon to make a prediction you could go against. The demon would either make a prediction you fulfill or make no prediction at all.

However if the demon does make a prediction and your action is opposite of that prediction, then determinism has failed. Free will exist.

The only way the senario can prove or disprove determinism is if it is actually played out. Unfortunately that will not happen and we can only think about it as a thought experiment. Its only usefulness is to clarify the intuitive.

The reason the thought experiment leads me to believe determinism is false is because I believe that if the demon made a prediction I could take the opposite action, and I can't envision a reliable process that would block the demon from making a wrong prediction. I suppose the demon could have a coronary and die just before making a wrong predicition but the probability of that is pretty low.

Stu

[Piers]

I think the demon is made of straw.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason the thought experiment leads me to believe determinism is false is because I believe that if the demon made a prediction I could take the opposite action, and I can't envision a reliable process that would block the demon from making a wrong prediction. I suppose the demon could have a coronary and die just before making a wrong predicition but the probability of that is pretty low.

[/ QUOTE ]

To say the demon is impossible is a bit strong. Rather it is impossible for anyone to confirm the demons reliability.

If the demon predicts something and it does not happen, that just demonstrates that the demon is a fake.

Determinism is not proved false, the demon is just revealed as a fake, or more likely you just confused yourself and the demon was in fact correct the whole time.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
If Determinism is true then the demon also does not have free will and the history of his actions were inevitably set at the creation of the universe. It would be impossible for the demon to make a prediction you could go against.

[/ QUOTE ] No. Because determinism doesn't say, that such a being, if it existed, couldn't lie or couldn't shut up. You are the one saying that.

I have a mission for you. Go to the store tomorrow, and test out this scenario:

Assumption 1: You have money and the store has apples. They are willing to trade with you. You will try to buy apples.
Assumption 2: You can only utter the words: "I want to buy bananas." Nothing else.
Assumption 3: Except for moving your lips to say you want bananas, you can't move.
Assumption 4: The clerk will not give you apples.

Now, if we know with absolute certainty that 2 and 3 is true, we are left with 1 or 4. Which one is most likely wrong?

I have shown that it is impossible to buy apples.

[ QUOTE ]
However if the demon does make a prediction and your action is opposite of that prediction, then determinism has failed. Free will exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

So by that reasoning, my computer program would have free will too. You KNOW the inner workings of the program. And you can predict with certainty what it will do. But you have no way of entering that prediction into the program and have it come true. I've just created a computer program that has free will. I'm a genius, no?

Paradoxes (however absurd) do not mean free will exists.

Yours is somewhat like saying time travel is impossible because of the grandfather paradox. But, it's not even as impressive as that, really. The demon could still predict your action (but not tell you), and you could still go back in time (but not kill your grandfather).

At this point, you either realize you were wrong, and your stubbornness is causing you to continue this line of reasoning; or you don't realize it, and you... well... nevermind.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
If the demon predicts something and it does not happen, that just demonstrates that the demon is a fake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Determinism holds that it is theoretiically possible to make 100% accurate predictions about the future. The demon is just a thought experiment to help us examine and discuss that issue as well as other issue associated with determinism. To facilitate this we assume the demon is not a fake.

I agree with you that in a "real life" situation we would have to consider the possibility the demon is a fake.

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the demon predicts something and it does not happen, that just demonstrates that the demon is a fake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Determinism holds that it is theoretiically possible to make 100% accurate predictions about the future. The demon is just a thought experiment to help us examine and discuss that issue as well as other issue associated with determinism. To facilitate this we assume the demon is not a fake.

I agree with you that in a "real life" situation we would have to consider the possibility the demon is a fake.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]


If you did something other than the demon said you would, then determinism would be rendered false. Note, the unpredictability of the future does not in and of itself prove free will true AND I hold it true that you could not disobey the demon (I think we established this earlier, sorry to repeat myself).

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Determinism holds that it is theoretiically possible to make 100% accurate predictions about the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

Maybe our definition of determinism is different. I would claim that it is impossible to make 100% accurate predictions about the future, however the future is still completely determined beforehand.

[ QUOTE ]
To facilitate this we assume the demon is not a fake.

The reason the thought experiment leads me to believe determinism is false is because I believe that if the demon made a prediction I could take the opposite action, and I can't envision a reliable process that would block the demon from making a wrong prediction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ether you cannot falsify the demons prediction or the daemon is fake. You have only showed that your model is logical flawed and have said nothing about determinism.

Irresistible force – immovable object
Demons that never lie, but who never the less tell porkies.