Is Human Behavior Determined or Free?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether human behavior is determined by external factors or if it is a product of free will. Participants explore the implications of this question for psychology, examining both determinism and free will, and the interplay between the two concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that determinism is essential for psychology, suggesting that free will does not exist.
  • Others propose that human behavior exhibits characteristics of both free will and determinism, indicating that these concepts need not be absolute contradictions.
  • A participant emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between being autonomous agents and the influence of various internal and external factors on behavior.
  • One viewpoint asserts that if the universe operates under set laws, then it must be deterministic, as randomness does not align with observed consistency in the universe.
  • Another participant challenges the deterministic view by arguing that quantum mechanics introduces genuine randomness, which could affect macroscopic behavior without leading to a deterministic universe.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of chance at the quantum level, suggesting that while individual events may be random, they do not necessarily lead to a completely random universe.
  • A later reply highlights that even with randomness, the overall behavior of systems can be predictable, as seen in examples like the behavior of light or boiling water.
  • One participant posits that human choices are influenced by genetics, upbringing, experiences, and current circumstances, suggesting a nuanced view of free will within limits.
  • Another participant notes the complexity of causality, suggesting that while events may be interconnected, the vastness of the governing equations makes determinism practically unfeasible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus reached on whether human behavior is ultimately determined or free. Multiple competing perspectives remain, reflecting the complexity of the topic.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in assumptions about determinism and free will, as well as the dependence on definitions of randomness and causality. The interplay between quantum mechanics and macroscopic behavior remains unresolved.

  • #31
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
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.
 
  • #33
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.)
 
  • #34
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!
 
  • #35
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. :wink:
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.
 
  • #36
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.
 
  • #37
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 ? :wink:
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. :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #38
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?"
 
  • #39
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?"?
 
  • #40
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 ? :wink:

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?
 
  • #41
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. :wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
Does that make sense?
Perfect sense, and the answer you're looking
for is right above this one. :wink:

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

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #42
By the way, what is the definition of free will?
 
  • #43
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.
 
  • #44
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
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?
 
  • #46
I, personally, meant ANY effect Alexander.
At present I don't think there's evidence
of anything like that.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #47
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 ? :wink:
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:wink: "Pink elephants", real original .
 
  • #48
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...:wink:
Originally posted by Mentat
You've been hanging around Wuliheron too much:wink:
Hey, sometimes it's worth hanging around
some people. I mean, I can really improve
my poetry skills...

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #49
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".
 
  • #50
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". :wink:
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.
 
  • #51
Originally posted by drag
Greetings Mentat !

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

Very funny.
 

Similar threads

Initial Academic Exposure by means of books for a curious layperson
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
"New" theory of human movement as described by Tesla. Right?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Do Humans Have Free Will in a Deterministic Universe?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
The Illusion of Free Will: A Scientific Perspective
  • · Replies 199 ·
7
Replies
199
Views
36K
Graduate Does superdeterminism undermine the scientific method?
  • · Replies 89 ·
3
Replies
89
Views
8K
High School What is Consciousness? How does it affect our Physical Universe?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Undergrad Anton Zeilinger's comment about free will being required for science
  • · Replies 213 ·
8
Replies
213
Views
15K
Philosophy of Science: Discussing Maths, Physics, Mind, & AI
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Does Neuroscience Challenge the Existence of Free Will?
  • · Replies 379 ·
13
Replies
379
Views
53K
Free Will, Soul & Determinism/Probabilism: Debate Consequences
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K