Is Human Behavior Determined or Free?

[Mistress Lilith]

It has been argued that determinism is essential for psychology... the 'free' (or self-generated) kind of behaviour does not exist. So.. is our behaviour determined or is it free? How can we chose one over the other? On what basis can you chose one over the other? Are there implications of this question for the science of psychology?

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
It has been argued that determinism is essential for psychology... the 'free' (or self-generated) kind of behaviour does not exist. So.. is our behaviour determined or is it free? How can we chose one over the other? On what basis can you chose one over the other? Are there implications of this question for the science of psychology?

Our behaviour shows signs of both free will and determinism.
So the issue is not that these have to be taken as absolute contradiction.

 

[Deslaar]

I think it is important to first identify whether we are autonomous agents in a strict unified sense. This is a variation on the question of free will but I think it's important to make the distinction. In my opinion we are not and are instead at the mercy of a collective of potential executive officers each taking turns to issue orders to our body and constantly revising their respective beliefs.

 

[Another God]

When I am honest with my logical self, I cannot fathom how we could be anything other than determined without free will.

Either, the universe obeys set laws, or it does not. If it does not, then it doesn't act. It must obey set laws.

Either those set laws dictate exactly what happens, or those laws allow for 'chance' (genuine chance, not pretend chance) to play a role in the process. If chance plays a role, then as the small chances add up into the bigger picture, every single thing in the universe ends up being dicated by 'randomness'...the 50 50 chance faced by every single quark as it spins one way or the other, x 60 billion = what I consider randomness. Now the universe does not behave randomly. It is quite apparently very consistent. So the laws dictate exactly what happens.

That means the universe it deterministic.

With the last point though, even if the universe did behave on some sort of 'random' level, or the laws interacted with 'chance' in some way..then chance is chance. It is just as much uncontrollable as a determined law is. And so, in a 'chance' universe, free will is still an illusion.

 

[FZ+]

Either those set laws dictate exactly what happens, or those laws allow for 'chance' (genuine chance, not pretend chance) to play a role in the process. If chance plays a role, then as the small chances add up into the bigger picture, every single thing in the universe ends up being dicated by 'randomness'...the 50 50 chance faced by every single quark as it spins one way or the other, x 60 billion = what I consider randomness. Now the universe does not behave randomly. It is quite apparently very consistent. So the laws dictate exactly what happens.

Well, one way to argue this is that the quarks etc do not form a full system - the small chances and probabilities do not accumulate, as they are not passed on to each other.

 

[Another God]

How could that be the case though? I mean, under this conception the universe is stil obey laws right? And the laws dictate how things behave. Now if one quark has a 50 50 situation, then whichever way it happens to go, will affect the next interaction it has. It must build up...musn't it?

 

[Royce]

No. If it has a 50/50 chance then it and every other one has a 50/50 chance every time; like flipping coins. I believe that the randomness and uncertainty at the quantum level go all the way up the ladder to include the whole universe itself. The laws of physics rule and operate within the laws of propability; therefore, we do not live in a deterministic universe. Does this have anything to do with free choice as far as our lives are concerned? I don't thinks so other than making it not physically impossible.
IMO We as human beings are at least influenced by our genes, the way that we were brought up and the sum total of our experiences and knowledge and our intellegence, wisdom and personallities. When we come to a point were we have to make a choice one way or the other all of those thing plus the present circumstances and our mood at the that time all influence our choice. Not only that but we never have all the information we need to make the best or wisest choice. Having said all of that, I believe that within those limits yes we have free will. We even have the freedom to not decide or toss a coin. The coin BTW that has no memory of the results of the last time it was tossed.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Another God
If chance plays a role, then as the small chances add up into the bigger picture, every single thing in the universe ends up being dicated by 'randomness'...the 50 50 chance faced by every single quark as it spins one way or the other, x 60 billion = what I consider randomness. Now the universe does not behave randomly. It is quite apparently very consistent. So the laws dictate exactly what happens.

If I understand correctly, you are saying that, once we accept an element of chance in the microscopic realm, we should expect everything to be "random".

That is not the case, since you can have (as QM says) well defined probability distributions that "add up" in the larger scales to well defined behaviors.

A simple example would be a flash light. When you turn it on in front of a wall, there is no way of saying where each individual photon will interact with matter (it may do so scattering from an air molecule, or with the first atom in the wall, or with an atom that is many layers into the wall). However, when you combine that with the fact that your retina will synthesize an image only after having received some million scattered photons, it turns out that your optical nerve will fire for sure after a couple milliseconds; strictly speaking, you may still have an uncertainty of some picoseconds, but the general behavior you will follow will most probably not change due to that tiny difference.

IOW, there are many instances in which systems behave like a ball in the bottom of a parabolic surface. There are many sources for perturbations that will give tiny kicks to the ball in all directions, but there is a big amount of information you do know about the ball in general; maybe not the position of all individual atoms (which is random due to thermal motion), but you know that it will stay around the center of the surface.

Another example that may be useful is your behavior morning, while preparing a cup of coffee. There are zillions of random movements in the boiling water, and yet they can be completely inconsequential for the fact that you will end up at work the same morning.

Of course, there are also instances in which small changes do induce big macroscopic differences (like in the case of Schrodinger's cat, or the butterfly effect in chaotic systems, or maybe even quantum fluctiations in a neuron sometimes).

It is not a white/black issue.

With the last point though, even if the universe did behave on some sort of 'random' level, or the laws interacted with 'chance' in some way..then chance is chance. It is just as much uncontrollable as a determined law is. And so, in a 'chance' universe, free will is still an illusion. [/B]

Excellent point.

 

[particlehead]

It seems clear that there is a chain of causality - that each event in our universe occurs, not in a vacuum, but as part of a continuum, and as such, is an "outcome" of all previous events, in a rapidly widening cone stretching back from event x .

Does this mean that from the moment of the birth of the universe, all things were predetermined? In a sense, it does, but the equation governing something like that would be so huge as to be, for all practical purposes, infinite.

In terms of the complexity and messiness of our lives, that causal chain is very hard to see, but still, every decision we make, every physical motion, every thought, every word we speak, is also building on and produced by that chain.

But because that chain is so complex and hard to see, for all practical purposes we may as well think of ourselves as having a "free will."

 

[Kerrie]

i believe we have choices with wide boundaries...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
It has been argued that determinism is essential for psychology... the 'free' (or self-generated) kind of behaviour does not exist.[/color] So.. is our behaviour determined or is it free? How can we chose one over the other? On what basis can you chose one over the other? Are there implications of this question for the science of psychology?

Otherwise, how are they going to rake in all the dough?

I can, of my "own volition," come over and smack you on the side of the head, if you don't watch out!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Free will is acausal, and therefore illogical. It does not exist.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Free will is acausal, and therefore illogical. It does not exist.

Are we speaking to a robot here? Or, is it because this is what you "choose" to believe? Of course you can state there is no choice in the matter, but then why do I choose otherwise? If that's not good enough, then who needs to know? And what's the point in answering the stupid question in the first place?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
It has been argued that determinism is essential for psychology... the 'free' (or self-generated) kind of behaviour does not exist. So.. is our behaviour determined or is it free? How can we chose one over the other? On what basis can you chose one over the other? Are there implications of this question for the science of psychology?

My sister is a psychologist and I once had an insightful conversation with her about this issue. She championed the position of assuming everything involves free will until proven otherwise. I reminded her that this stance has in the past led to psychologists locking up and medicating people with purely physical ailments such as Huntington's disease. She claimed that this was simply the price of progress.

This kind of dogmatic and at times inhumane stance is what leads to the necessity for outside agencies to examine the fledgling field of psychology itself in my opinion. Because it is a dogmatic stance based largely on culturally acceptable philosophies in the absence of medical evidence, that is where the attention is often being focused today. By definition psychology deals in issues of mental health and illness, a dialectic perspective demanding a well defined metaphysical stance along the classic western lines of idealism or realism.

These either-or, free will vs determinism views of classical western philosophies have proven too limited for the task. It is not nature vs nurture, nor is it a question of free will vs determinism. These are convenient dividing lines for processing people like so much meat and justifying the use of any means necessary for attaining the implicite and explicite goals of societies. Nature, however, objects and is finally reasserting herself after a hundred years of absurdity.

 

[Iacchus32]

Just give me the drugs! ... Yeah, once they have you under their control you have no free will.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
It has been argued that determinism is
essential for psychology...

The partially paradoxical nature of that
statement is humorous indeed.

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
the 'free' (or self-generated) kind of
behaviour does not exist.

Determinism is an abstract concept, not
a practical one for us. Hence, even if
free will does not exist we can't
practicly prove it, I believe.

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
So.. is our behaviour determined
or is it free?

Absolute answers to any questions regarding
reality do not exist. I'd say that observation
so far (which is all we got) supports the
absense of free will.

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
How can we chose one over the other?

Through observation (in a "total" sense - all
our data input).

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
On what basis can you chose one over the other?

All our data input ?

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
Are there implications of this question for
the science of psychology?

Yes, if there's no free will the effectivness
of psychology is partially diminished
and more effective alternative methods
are possible.

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Free will is acausal, and therefore illogical.

That is certainly a very strong point.
(Though not absolute, of course.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[Iacchus32]

The only reason why there's the appearance of no free will, is because society is always dictating what to do. Do you know what else, we don't know how to be ourselves. And, although we may have fooled ourselves into believing otherwise, we're a bunch of "genuine fakes."

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only reason why there's the appearance of
no free will, is because society is always
dictating what to do. Do you know what else,
we don't know how to be ourselves. And,
although we may have fooled ourselves into
believing otherwise, we're a bunch of
"genuine fakes."

I think that if you're put in a box with
no windows you'll still want to eat/drink
and you'll still want to get out.

Peace and long life.

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by particlehead
It seems clear that there is a chain of causality - that each event in our universe occurs, not in a vacuum, but as part of a continuum, and as such, is an "outcome" of all previous events, in a rapidly widening cone stretching back from event x .

Does this mean that from the moment of the birth of the universe, all things were predetermined? In a sense, it does, but the equation governing something like that would be so huge as to be, for all practical purposes, infinite.

Factually, this is not true (i.e. there is no such causal chain). Quantum mechanics asserts the opposite, that much particle behavior does not have a root cause. QM is the reigning theory of physics. The existence of predetermined outcomes has been disproven by experiment. (See EPR/Bell/Aspect for example.)

Admittedly this is counterintuitive for most people (you said "It seems clear...") but facts are facts. Our universe allows for the physical existence of free will (assuming that indeterminism is required for free will).

 

[Mentat]

This issue has been argued before. The inevitable conclusions are:

1) It is impossible to know, and

2) It doesn't matter.

Let me explain. It's impossible to know because any action that we take to find out could be determined, or it could be of our own free will. Thus, trying to find proof of free will could just be part of "the plan".

It doesn't matter because, as point 1 shows, we can never know, and the outcomes are the same.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Admittedly this is counterintuitive for most people (you said "It seems clear...") but facts are facts. Our universe allows for the physical existence of free will (assuming that indeterminism is required for free will).

All too true, and I would add that the assumption of indeterminism is not necessary for free will either. A monist pantheist, for example, can believe wholeheartedly that determinism rules everything in the universe including themselves, yet also believe that the universe itself is free if for no other reason then that by definition there exists nothing else to constrain the universe. As an indivisible part of the whole then, they can perceive themselves as being both deterministic and possessed of free will.

No matter which approach you take to the issue, it apparently always leads inevitably back to paradox.

 

[Mentat]

In resonse to AG's point about the laws of the universe:

The laws of the universe are things like gravity (and the other forces). Sure, these forces limit the choices that one can make, but they don't restrict every action that we wish to take. More importantly, sentient beings have the capability to leave the path of least resistance, and try something that is really difficult instead (even if the wanted outcome has nothing to do with anything they need, but just has to do with what they want). This may be a luxury of sentient beings only, but it still exists.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
The inevitable conclusions are:

1) It is impossible to know, and

2) It doesn't matter.

Let me explain. It's impossible to know
because any action that we take to find
out could be determined, or it could be
of our own free will. Thus, trying to find
proof of free will could just be part of
"the plan".

It doesn't matter because, as point 1 shows,
we can never know, and the outcomes are the same.

Indeed. A minor correctin though - there is
no real impossible, just extremely unlikely.

Originally posted by Mentat
Sure, these forces limit the choices that
one can make, but they don't restrict every
action that we wish to take. More importantly,
sentient beings have the capability to leave
the path of least resistance, and try something
that is really difficult instead

Well, I'm not certain which aspects you're
refering to but in simple terms of energy,
for example, we can't "leave the path" or
"chose" an action, it's strictly guided
by quantum probability predictions. We're
made out of the same particles after all.
Otherwise, you're opposing science (physics).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

Obviousely, every decision we make is the result of physical processes in our brain, which in turn are governed by physical laws.

Feel free to label those processes either as "free will" or as "nonfree will".

Some like first label more than the second one, some vice versa.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I think that it was Einstein who said something like "You can do what you choose, but you can't choose what you choose." Or maybe it was "You can do what you want, but you can't want what you want."

Originally posted by drag
Absolute answers to any questions regarding
reality do not exist. I'd say that observation
so far (which is all we got) supports the
absense of free will.

Now what's wrong with that statement?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Factually, this is not true (i.e. there is no such causal chain). Quantum mechanics asserts the opposite, that much particle behavior does not have a root cause.

Rationally, having a root-cause which cannot be discerned is not the basis for saying that there is no root-cause.

QM is the reigning theory of physics. The existence of predetermined outcomes has been disproven by experiment. (See EPR/Bell/Aspect for example.)

Again, this doesn't prove that there is no root-cause. It just infers that the source of quantum-events is unpredictable by nature.

Our universe allows for the physical existence of free will (assuming that indeterminism is required for free will).

Physics has not proved that quantum-events have no root cause or source. Physics has just expressed an inability to see such a cause, by observation.

 

[FZ+]

Rationally, belief in a root cause without observation of one, and with a system that appears both theoretically and experimentally to be utter random, is irrational.
But irrational beliefs are non-disprovable by definition.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Rationally, belief in a root cause without observation of one, and with a system that appears both theoretically and experimentally to be utter random, is irrational.

Sensation does have a source. This is a fact. Clearly, there is a source beyond sensation. And therefore, there is a source of sensation which is beyond sensation itself. You cannot sense the source because the source precedes sensation.

 

[FZ+]

Sensation does have a source. This is a fact.

Good. Then let's ditch this confidence in the mind hypothesis then.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Sensation does have a source. This is a fact. Clearly, there is a source beyond sensation. And therefore, there is a source of sensation which is beyond sensation itself. You cannot sense the source because the source precedes sensation.

And what source would fit the sensation of a chair?
Would the chair itself perhaps be a good candidate for the sensations we have of the chair?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If I we live in a Many Worlds Multiverse [I’m not saying we are just what if] could both propositions - Determinism and Free will - be true?

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Physics has not proved that quantum-events have no root cause or source. Physics has just expressed an inability to see such a cause, by observation.

Again, this is factually incorrect. Physicists went looking for an underlying cause, and found it did NOT exist. They did not come up empty-handed, as you imply. The theory of determinism is incompatible with experimental evidence.

As FZ points out, there are some people will hold on to irrational beliefs. If you have not taken the time to study Einstein's 1935 paper on the subject (EPR) and the related Bell paper, then you are working with incomplete understanding of the depth of the issue.

 

[Royce]

A "genuine fake" really?

"stricktly guide by probability" how?

"found the underlying cause did not exist." Just because they couldn't find it is no proof that it doesn't exist.

I'm really not just trying to be nasty. I'm trying to point out how muddled our thinking can become while discussing free will and other emotionally charged subjects. I do agree with mentat that we can never really know with certainty and therefore what difference could it possibly make. I for one am going to go ahead and do and think what I want to. (with my wife's permission of course.)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
A "genuine fake" really?

"stricktly guide by probability" how?

"found the underlying cause did not exist." Just because they couldn't find it is no proof that it doesn't exist.

I'm really not just trying to be nasty. I'm trying to point out how muddled our thinking can become while discussing free will and other emotionally charged subjects. I do agree with mentat that we can never really know with certainty and therefore what difference could it possibly make. I for one am going to go ahead and do and think what I want to. (with my wife's permission of course.)

Nonsense! You can't have determinism without free will. Period.

It can make a great difference. Hence you can become a good little Nazi, and do as you're told. Or, you can become a bad little Nazi, and say "Hey, I'm not going to have anything to do with this," and get the hell out!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Indeed. A minor correctin though - there is
no real impossible, just extremely unlikely.

This may be your opinion, but it is not necessarily true. In fact, it's paradoxical. Can you see why?

Well, I'm not certain which aspects you're
refering to but in simple terms of energy,
for example, we can't "leave the path" or
"chose" an action, it's strictly guided
by quantum probability predictions. We're
made out of the same particles after all.
Otherwise, you're opposing science (physics).

Live long and prosper.

Well I know that it's all governed by Quantum probability predictions, but "probability" allows people (who believe in free will) to say that there are many choices, and that we can choose whichever one we want.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
And what source would fit the sensation of a chair?
Would the chair itself perhaps be a good candidate for the sensations we have of the chair?

Heusdens; "the chair" is what we think it is. Itself is something-else.
I can promise you that "the chair itself", is not "a chair".
Knowledge is born of the sensation. But the sensations are representations of a reality. It may look; feel; smell; taste; and sound like 'a chair'. But there are no looks; feelings; smells; tastes; or sounds from It. It is the mind which has those sensations. Not the chair itself.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Now what's wrong with that statement?

I don't know, what do you mean ?

Originally posted by Mentat
This may be your opinion, but it is not
necessarily true. In fact, it's paradoxical.
Can you see why?

Yes, because it leaves an openning for the
possibility that we could prove we have no
free will or do have it and that doesn't seem
to make sense for now, so ?

Originally posted by Mentat
Well I know that it's all governed by
Quantum probability predictions, but
"probability" allows people (who believe
in free will) to say that there are many
choices, and that we can choose whichever
one we want.

How convinient. Reminds me of religions'
"adaptation" to modern science.
They should stick to the "impossible to prove"
part, it's a lot safer.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by drag
Absolute answers to any questions regarding
reality do not exist. I'd say that observation
so far (which is all we got) supports the
absense of free will.

This is the statement. Isn't that a self-contradicting statement? Isn't "Absolute answers to any questions regarding
reality do not exist." an absolute answer to the following question regarding reality?: "Are there any absolute answers to questions regarding existence?"

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by drag

Absolute answers to any questions regarding
reality do not exist. I'd say that observation
so far (which is all we got) supports the
absense of free will.

Isn't "Absolute answers to any questions regarding
reality do not exist." an absolute answer to the question regarding reality "Are there any absolute answers to any questions regarding reality?"?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Yes, because it leaves an openning for the
possibility that we could prove we have no
free will or do have it and that doesn't seem
to make sense for now, so ?

No, that's what makes it inconvenient. It is paradoxical (self-contradictory) to say that nothing is impossible, because that would mean that it is impossible for something to be impossible. But that means that there is one impossibility (the impossibility of impossibilities), but that one impossibility contradicts itself (because it doesn't allow for it's own truth, but it cannot be the reason for it's being found false either). Does that make sense?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Isn't "Absolute answers to any questions
regarding reality do not exist." an
absolute answer to the question regarding
reality "Are there any absolute answers
to any questions regarding reality?"?

Did you think that if I did not
understand you enitially you need
to post your clarification twice ?

Anyway, there is that contradiction in that
statement, but it is the result of my
laziness - I'm simply too lazy to write
"that's not an absolute claim" in an infinite
series.

Originally posted by Mentat
Does that make sense?

Perfect sense, and the answer you're looking
for is right above this one.

How about I ask a question for a change :
Why would you guys think anything's certain ?
Can you prove it ?
What is more certain - God or pink
flying ellephants (of course the latter are
probably much prettier) ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

By the way, what is the definition of free will?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Alexander
By the way, what is the definition
of free will?

I suppose it's total lack of cause to observable
effects in "sentient" beings.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

What if effect (cause, actually) is not observable directly (say, by human senses) but is observable indirectly (say, like chemical processes in brain seen by MRI), but you don't know about that or don't have the device to see it?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mistress Lilith
It has been argued that determinism is essential for psychology... the 'free' (or self-generated) kind of behaviour does not exist. So.. is our behaviour determined or is it free? How can we chose one over the other? On what basis can you chose one over the other? Are there implications of this question for the science of psychology?

Are you sure it's not just a matter of put up or shut up? Where those who hold the "prevaling view," are empowered over those who don't? By which it becomes a means to "take liberties" over those who are unable to speak for themselves?

 

[drag]

I, personally, meant ANY effect Alexander.
At present I don't think there's evidence
of anything like that.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
How about I ask a question for a change :
Why would you guys think anything's certain ?

Because, if all things were uncertain, then the fact that everything is uncertain would be certain (paradoxical/self-contradictory postulation).

Can you prove it ?
What is more certain - God or pink
flying ellephants (of course the latter are
probably much prettier) ?

You've been hanging around Wuliheron too much "Pink elephants", real original .

 

[drag]

Greetings Mentat !

Originally posted by Mentat
Because, if all things were uncertain, then
the fact that everything is uncertain would
be certain (paradoxical/self-contradictory
postulation).

No, there are turtles all the way down...

Originally posted by Mentat
You've been hanging around Wuliheron too much

Hey, sometimes it's worth hanging around
some people. I mean, I can really improve
my poetry skills...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by drag
I, personally, meant ANY effect Alexander.
At present I don't think there's evidence
of anything like that.

If you don't know evidence does it mean that evidence does not exist? I don't think so.

Many don't know that heart is just a blood pump and often say: "my heart knows that this is wrong, so you have to trust me".

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Alexander
If you don't know evidence does it mean that
evidence does not exist? I don't think so.

That's why I said "at present".

Originally posted by Alexander
Many don't know that heart is just a blood pump
and often say: "my heart knows that this is
wrong, so you have to trust me".

Hey, I'm on your side here !

Peace and long life.