What is your opinion on Free Will versus Determinism? My feeling on the subject is pretty schizophrenic. As a person, I believe in Free Will. As a scientist, I believe in Determinism.
Duns, et al, Free Will Vs. Determinism
by larc 58 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
dunsscot
:What is your opinion on Free Will versus Determinism? My feeling on the subject is pretty schizophrenic. As a person, I believe in Free Will. As a scientist, I believe in Determinism.:
I am getting ready for bed, so I will try to give a more complete answer later, if time permits. First let me say that you sound somewhat Kantian in your approach. No wonder Kant said: "I have limited knowledge to make room for faith." He too knew about the antinomies raised when one grabs either horn of the free will/determinism dilemma.
Personally, I fall on the side of free will. But I would love to hear what makes you limp on two different opinions. :-) There are good arguments on both sides (Thus the antinomies of reason). But for reasons that may be delineated later, I favor free will.
Night,
DanDuns the Scot
-
larc
Duns,
While you are gone, I will give you some things to chew on upon your return. There are several factors beyond our control that influence our behavior. Two major ones are genetics and culture.
For example, people do not choose to be Schizophrenic or autistic. These predetermined conditions greatly limit free will. These are extreme examples, but there may be more subtle examples that we are not aware of yet. For example, there is some evidence that sociopaths do not have the proper circuitry between their cerebral cortex, the center for rational thought and the emotional centers of the brain. Therefore, their lack of concern for others and their willingness to do harm to them, may not be a moral problem, but a brain deficiency problem.
Culture: Our culture and the particular subculture of our childhood also has major impact on our behavior. A simple, almost trivial example, is language formation. It is an easily learned skill for the average person within every culture. How much of our temperment, proclivity for agression, etc, are a result of the combination of these two powerful forces? After this, what is the residual amount of latitude we have it terms of free will?
According to the Logical Positivists, and the general theory of science, there is nothing left over, and if we knew all the variables involved, we could predict a person's behaviour exactly.
-
Zep
According to the Logical Positivists, and the general theory of science, there is nothing left over, and if we knew all the variables involved, we could predict a person's behaviour exactly.
Larc, have you ever considered quantum mechanics. Not that i understand it greatly, its very hard to get your head around. But As i understand it, a mechanistic view of the world is ultimately thrown out the window with quantum physics. We can predict with great accuracy the orbits of the earth and of the planets but when you get down to the sub-atomic level this kind of exact predictive ability gives way to just probabilty. That there is no way of determining exactly how a particle will behave. There is only a certain probability that it will behave a certain way, but no guarentee. Since everything is made of sub-tomic particles, this idea has lead physicists to postulate multiple realities. One reality where i chose to do a certain thing and another where i chose to go the opposite way. I find it hard enough to understand these ideas let alone explain them here, but i've heard this idea of multiple realities come from the likes of Paul Davies etc...not just fringe quacks!
-
trevor
Larc,
I am not a scientist, more of a scientific experiment,
The issue of whether we can accurately predict how a person will act in a given circumstance give all knowledge of his genetically and cultural background is an interesting one. It is impossible to know for sure.
The only sure evidence we can rely on is reality. Our own history is a part of reality – that is to say it took place – in reality.
If each of us were again, in the same place, at the same time, with the same set of emotions as we had then, we would act in the same way again. We know that because when we were in that known situation, with the set of emotions we had at that moment that is how we did act.
Unless one of the variables was changed we would be ourselves - identically. How could we be anything else? We may act differently now because we have changed and we have the benefit of hindsight.
We may condemn the way that someone has acted because we would have acted differently, but we are not them. If we were we would act the same. We know this because when that person was put in that situation with his/her emotional state and cultural/genetically history, the result was a product of the reality of those factors coming together.
I know this suggests that we have no freewill and are therefore not responsible for our actions but reality is difficult to ignore.
I like to think I am responsible for my actions but it could be that I am just a part of the life’s random game and my actions are all an unavoidable part of my conditioning and genes.
Why do I post these thoughts ? It’s not me I had no choice – Blame the Jehovah's Witness’s they damaged my mind!
-
larc
Duns,
Several comments have been made, but you are conspicuously absent. You said that you were going to get back with us with more detailed thoughts.
-
Zep
Larc, i think he might be too busy with his reply to AF. Good luck to him huh! Personnally, i quite interested in what he might have to say...just hoping it's no toooooo wordy.
-
larc
My thinking is very similiar to Trevor's including the implications he has drawn. Of course, this could be because we have a similiar cultural heritage and a similiar educational background. Therefore, we can't help it if we think alike.
I have written down what I think Duns response will be and will report honestly if I am right or wrong, if he ever does respond.
-
dunsscot
Dear larc,
Sorry about the delay.
larc: There are several factors beyond our control that influence our behavior. Two major ones are genetics and culture.
For example, people do not choose to be Schizophrenic or autistic. These predetermined conditions greatly limit free will. These are extreme examples, but there may be more subtle examples that we are not aware of yet. For example, there is some evidence that sociopaths do not have the proper circuitry between their cerebral cortex, the center for rational thought and the emotional centers of the brain. Therefore, their lack of concern for others and their willingness to do harm to them, may not be a moral problem, but a brain deficiency problem.
DUNS: You know much better than I do that biological factors alone do not account for the presence of schizophrenia in some people. The illness may be the result of a predisposition to schizophrenia coupled with certain environmental factors. But I really do not think schizophrenia or autism vitiate the Christian or philosophical view of free will since these illnesses (schizophrenia and autism) may be limited to humanity's infralapsarian state. As far as sociopathy is concerned, one of my former psychology professors thought it was primarily a result of home environment. But there could be a biological reason for the disorder, I guess. But we would then have to accept the implications you mention above.
larc: Our culture and the particular subculture of our childhood also has major impact on our behavior. A simple, almost trivial example, is language formation. It is an easily learned skill for the average person within every culture. How much of our temperament, proclivity for agression, etc, are a result of the combination of these two powerful forces? After this, what is the residual amount of latitude we have it terms of free will?
DUNS: I am not sure one can make the leap from language formation, which I think is an innate ability anyway, to temperament and proclivities for aggression. What about those who are brought up in a certain culture, but then refuse to emulate certain negative behavior patterns? I once heard a sociology teacher talk about "invulnerables," that is, persons who functioned well mentally and socially despite their traumatic home environment.
larc: According to the Logical Positivists, and the general theory of science, there is nothing left over, and if we knew all the variables involved, we could predict a person's behaviour exactly.
DUNS: If we are not free, how can we "do" science? How can we engage in metascience if we cannot transcend ourselves in some way? What about those therapists who have discovered an element of self-transcendence in their patients? Additionally, I am not sure that positivism is equipped to answer the question about free will. Lastly, are we anywhere close to knowing all the variables involved in human behavior?
Duns the Scot
-
dunsscot
Do you think that it is possible to be proactive, larc? I'd also like to ask you what scientific basis therapists who believe in free will have for their position.
Duns the Scot