I'm currently teaching an introductory course in philosophy, and am in the middle of a unit on free will. I proposed the following argument to my class and asked for their responses. I thought it would be interesting to do the same here. The following argument is deductively valid, meaning that IF the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true. In other words, if you think the conclusion is false (as most people do) then you're committed to claiming that one or more of the premises is false. So the game is to tell me which premise(s) are false. I don't have any correct answer in mind...if I could show the argument to be unsound I'd be famous.
1. Your actions are events.
2. Every event is either caused or uncaused.
3. If an event is uncaused, it is random.
4. Thus, your actions are either caused or random.
5. If your actions are caused, then your will is not free.
6. If your actions are random, then your will is not free.
7. Thus, your will is not free.
Notice that many will want to say that their will is the cause of their actions. Fair enough. But your willing is also an event, and as such is itself either caused or random. So we are left with two options. Either your actions result from an chain of causes regressing backwards in time (causes precede their effects, after all), or your actions are random. In either case it seems like free will is ruled out. If your actions result from a chain of causes regressing backwards in time, then it seems like your actions were determined by causal forces occuring prior to your willing. But if your actions are random, then it seems they are independent of any willing on your part.
So, what do you think?
Originally posted by maggoteerAnd this answer constitutes a rejection of which premise? Presumably yoo mean to reject the dichotomy between caused and random. But, the complex physical processes characterized by 'strange attractors' are surely fully determined. It is not as though there is any indeterminacy in the process itself, every aspect of these processes is completely causally determined. It just happens to also be the case that these processes are extremely sensitive to initial boundary conditions, so we are unable to effectively model these processes and predict them. But this is a mere epistemic limitation on our part, akin to calling a coin flip random, even though if we knew all the forces acting on a coin we could infallibly determine the results of a flip. Whatever indeterminacy you think "chaotic' processes have is merely a function of our limited understanding of them. Certain quantum phenomena are importantly different from this, they are random in a more robost sense. Their probabilistic nature is not merely a function of our limited understanding, rather, they are somehow not causally determined.
Perhaps free will is the chaotic Lorenz attractor separating the preordained from the random. 😛
Originally posted by bbarrI essentially agree with this argument; the reason many people find its conclusion impalatable is that 'free' is a rather loaded word. In this context it means (I think) 'independent', and the lack of any conditions on it means it says 'independent of everything'. This for me is obviously not the case unless people have a soul which is external to the material world and unaffected by anything in it; some would argue that this soul is, for example, the source of good and evil, and this view of the world cannot be disproved logically, though it does not appeal to me at an intuitive level. But the aspect of your decision-making, and hence your actions, which is dependent on experience is by definition not free.
I'm currently teaching an introductory course in philosophy, and am in the middle of a unit on free will. I proposed the following argument to my class and asked for their responses. I thought it would be interesting to do the same here. ...[text shortened]... dependent of any willing on your part.
So, what do you think?
In summary: I believe that I do not have a soul, and hence I have no free will, but this is not something that bothers me.
PS: You could also interpret 'free' as 'without any constraints', in which case I find 'free will' difficult to imagine even with the inclusion of a soul; there are some things a person will never wish to do, because they are inconceivable by people. Even the Christian God is subject to some such constraints, specifically that he is always good; he could only have free will if his thoughts and actions defined 'good'.
Bennett, why cannot it not be that behavior is caused and random. It is caused in a mechanical way in that our brains are sensory/motor- stimulous response, but there is also part of the brain which takes in prior experience and processes it- thank God for the frontal lobes. The tension between these two realities is what makes mankind so complex- physically and psychologically. What is the Lorenz factor?
Oh yea, thanks for starting this stimulating thread which should be an insentive to stay in school. Kirk
Originally posted by AcolyteI have always been a proponent of "soft determinism", in that you are free to choose A over B, but you are not free to choose which appeals to you more. It is predetermined which choices you are likely to make, but you still have the capacity to override this impulse.
...But the aspect of your decision-making, and hence your actions, which is dependent on experience is by definition not free...
Originally posted by bbarrWrong sir! Take two lashes, and go learn what chaos is, as well as the difference between complexity and complicated.
And this answer constitutes a rejection of which premise? Presumably yoo mean to reject the dichotomy between caused and random. But, the complex physical processes characterized by 'strange attractors' are surely fully determined. It is ...[text shortened]... understanding, rather, they are somehow not causally determined.
Hint: part of your failure to understand chaos is tied to this statement:
"It just happens to also be the case that these processes are extremely sensitive to initial boundary conditions, so we are unable to effectively model these processes and predict them"
Yup, they are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, but that's only part of the story...and as even more of a hint, they are effectively modeled, if you will, since the Lorentz attractor is after all it's own exact model (it was initially worked on as a very very simple model of weather). Can't know a system any better than perfectly, and the Lorentz attractor arises from just a simple set of equations, and yet the only way to know what it will do is to let it do what it's gonna do and wait and watch....
So you would like to know the result of a certain program. Under what circumstances can you approximate the end the result of the program in less time than it would take to run the program, and in what circumstances can you NOT approximate the end result of the program in less time than it would take to run the program?
Oh, and I'll reject 2-6 until such time as I understand the definitions of "caused", "uncaused", "random", and "event" and "free will"😉
Originally posted by maggoteerCute, maggoteer. After I try to answer your original post you come back again with a dismissive, ad hominim attack. It's like you missed the day in school when they taught people what constitutes a good argument. Can you tell me what precisely was wrong in my answer? Or shall I just take your words as Gospel? But just to settle this, here is what the Swinburne Center for Astrophysics and Superconducting has to say about the Lorenz Attractor:
Wrong. Go learn what chaos is, as well as the difference between complexity and complicated.
"The so called "lorenz attractor" was first studied by Ed N. Lorenz, a meterologist, around 1963. It was derived from a simplified model of convention in the earths atmosphere. It also arises naturally in models of lasers and dynamos. The system is most commonly expressed as 3 coupled non-linear differential equations.
dx / dt = a (y - x)
dy / dt = x (b - z) - y
dz / dt = xy - c z
One commonly used set of constants is a = 10, b = 28, c = 8 / 3. Another is a = 28, b = 46.92, c = 4. "a" is sometimes known as the Prandtl number and "b" the Rayleigh number.
The series does not form limit cyles nor does it ever reach a steady state. Instead it is an example of deterministic chaos. As with other chaotic systems the Lorenz system is sensitive to the initial conditions, two initial states no matter how close will diverge, usually sooner rather than later."
Deterministic Chaos, Maggotteer. There is no Randomness in this system, it is just extremely sensitive to initial boundary conditions. That sounds familiar....oh, that's because it's what I said originally.
Originally posted by maggoteerWell if it arises completely from a simple set of equations, then any process that evolves in accordance with those equations will be determinate (although perhaps not determinable). And if we know the system perfectly, then it is clearly determinate. So like I said, it's determinate, all your hand-waving to the contrary notwithstanding.
[
Hint: part of your failure to understand chaos is tied to this statement:
"It just happens to also be the case that these processes are extremely sensitive to initial boundary conditions, so we are unable to effectively model these processes and predict them"
since the Lorentz attractor is after all it's own exact model (it was initially worked on a ...[text shortened]... the only way to know what it will do is to let it do what it's gonna do and wait and watch....
Originally posted by bbarrCompletely deteriminate yet completely unpredictible. No handwaving.
Well if it arises completely from a simple set of equations, then any process that evolves in accordance with those equations will be determinate (although perhaps not determinable). And if we know the system perfectly, then it is clearly determinate. So like I said, it's determinate, all your hand-waving to the contrary notwithstanding.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
I touched on free will vrs determinism in my economics masters, the only conclusion I came to was that determination wins every time, the only way you can have free will is to assume that you live only ever in the present, the past and future will determine the outcome.
As an economist I could actually stick this in a theory by assumption, but what was the point - it would just be as usless as most economic theories, so I gave up.
Did you know that most of the macro-economic models that governments and their populations, loved, lived and went to war over were proved to be wrong when the computer was invented. Someone got the sums wrong and up till then no one was smart/brave enough to challenge the mathematic proofs laid down!!!
Andrew
Originally posted by latex bishopKarl Marx challenged them.
Did you know that most of the macro-economic models that governments and their populations, loved, lived and went to war over were proved to be wrong when the computer was invented. Someone got the sums wrong and up till then no one was smart/brave enough to challenge the mathematic proofs laid down!!!
Andrew
[/b]
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by rwingettMarx and economics never really got on, not because it is politically biased, more that it is an attempt to explain in a mathematical model what is going on in the real world. Since all the captitalist nations moved against Marx so did economics - determinism for you!!!
Karl Marx challenged them.
Most of the economic theories I was talking about were post Keynesian (1930's). You had all these complex mathematical models of how labour, interest rates, emplyment, exchange rates, inflation etc all worked and they got it very wrong in some cases. Most of the 1970's were a case of economists saying "well this should not be happening", rather than "maybe we were wrong".
But enough about ecomomics, its a cross I will bare alone!!!
Andrew
Originally posted by bbarrI don't see what's being argued here. I think Acolyte may have hit on this before, but certain parts of the argument seem ill-defined. Also, I think your argument should be extended backwards a bit so it can rest on sounder axioms; statement #3 is quite weak. I think if you defined "caused" and "random" better, and had some more fundamental basis for this, you are okay. However I challenge you to give an example of an uncaused event 9an event with no cause).
1. Your actions are events.
2. Every event is either caused or uncaused.
3. If an event is uncaused, it is random.
4. Thus, your actions are either caused or random.
5. If your actions are caused, then your will is not free.
6. If your actions are random, then your will is not free.
7. Thus, your will is not free.
But I would tend to agree with the conclusion, through other arguments I have seen. Where is this from?