As I have outline repeatedly, philosophy is about finding coherent justifications for beliefs, if you think you can actually 'prove' a metaphysical position then you have not read a sufficient quantity of philosophy. You are trying to justify your belief in some type of free-will, and you can do so using the epistemic cut Pattee talks about. I'm trying to justify a belief in a compatibilist version of free-will and I am doing so by citing the absence of any necessary evidence to the contrary.

We can debate, in the hope of refining each other's justifications, to make them better, but the moment you start suggesting that your evidence makes indeterminism materially necessary, you are no longer debating refinements in justifications, you're evangelising. Why should I provide a detailed neurological outline of the way in which one state transfers to another? It is sufficient justification for me to maintain my belief that no-one has yet provided a testable, pragmatically true, proof that neurobiology does not proceed deterministically, it is not incumbent on me to prove that it does in order to justify my belief.

Statements like;

If you were familiar with biology, then you would find that life actually depends on randomness. — apokrisis

are just nonsensical to produce as if they were 'facts'. Show me a single biology textbook which states that life depends on randomness. Try putting "life depends on randomness" into a Google Scholar search and see how many technical biological papers turn up on the topic. The answer is none (at least not for the first few pages I looked at. Top result at the moment is in fact a mathematician who states specifically (about apparent randomness in nature) "I would go so far as to suggest that most of the randomness that we commonly experience arises from these two factors—complexity and independence." Try 'role of randomness in biology'. The top result is a PlosOne article outlining the debate. Key word there being 'debate' i.e not settled fact.

If all you're going to do is suggest that anyone who continues to disagree with you after the presentation of one article must be closed-minded and have no interest in hearing challenging positions, then you might as well go door-to-door proselytising. This site (as I understand it) is for actual debate.

It is sufficient justification for me to maintain my belief that no-one has yet provided a testable, pragmatically true, proof that neurobiology does not proceed deterministically, it is not incumbent on me to prove that it does in order to justify my belief. — Pseudonym

Eh? You can believe what you want without proof because you are free to ignore opposing positions when they offer proof?

Seems radical.

Show me a single biology textbook which states that life depends on randomness. — Pseudonym

Peter Hoffman has written a really good book - Life’s Ratchet: How molecular machines extract order from chaos.

I summed up the guts of it in this post...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/105999

If all you're going to do is suggest that anyone who continues to disagree with you after the presentation of one article must be closed-minded and have no interest in hearing challenging positions, then you might as well go door-to-door proselytising. — Pseudonym

I just thought you might appreciate some help with concepts you seemed to be struggling with. Would you think it better if I were to follow your approach of just making up my own shit rather than offering arguments based on actual philosophical and scientific positions?

This site (as I understand it) is for actual debate. — Pseudonym

Sure we could debate Pattee when you are up to speed on the biosemiotic position I’m citing.

Eh? You can believe what you want without proof because you are free to ignore opposing positions when they offer proof? — apokrisis

You seem to have misunderstood the scientific process. Theory - Try to disprove theory - If unsuccessful, maintain theory.

The evidence you cite is not proof, it is some evidence. There is a significant difference between 'some evidence' and 'proof'. Proof requires that the evidence is true by necessity, it cannot be explained any other way. Proof is not something a handful of enthusiasts believe in, it is something the entire scientific community agree on. That biology depends on randomness is not one of those things.

Show me a single biology textbook which states that life depends on randomness. — Pseudonym


Peter Hoffman has written a really good book - Life’s Ratchet: How molecular machines extract order from chaos. — apokrisis

Peter Hoffman is a physicist, not a biologist, so if he's written a biology textbook I'd be very surprised, but that's not what this discussion is about. You're claiming proof, not a theory, not that some evidence exists, actual proof. How has is the fact that one single physicist has written a book vaguely related to it constitute proof?

In Mark Haw's review of Life's Ratchet he states "Life's Ratchet starts, like my own book Middle World (Macmillan, 2007), with a somewhat revolutionary premise." Note the words 'revolutionary' and 'premise'. Not "Hoffman's book states what all biologists already agree with and can be taken pretty much as the standard text on the subject"

Life's Ratchet has just 50 citations on Google Scholar. Hoffman's paper on nucleation and growth of copper on TiN from pyrophosphate solution has double that. It's hardly that standard go-to text on the subject.

Would you think it better if I were to follow your approach of just making up my own shit rather than offering arguments based on actual philosophical and scientific positions? — apokrisis

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no scientists or philosophers who believe in any form of determinism? None who believe that free-will does not exist? That the entire Scientific and philosophical community have adopted the approach of Pattee and Hoffman wholesale without criticism? Determinism is a philosophical position. That neural states are directly causal is a scientific position. That is why the matter remains open.

Sure we could debate Pattee when you are up to speed on the biosemiotic position I’m citing. — apokrisis

This is a standard cop out for people who cannot adequately defend their position, to simply accuse their detractors of not understanding the issue - "when you've finished my reading list we can have a discussion".

Summarise what Patte is saying in your own words and I will attempt to offer counter arguments. If my counter arguments are wrong, explain why they are wrong, in your own words. If you can't be bothered to do that, then this is not a discussion.

If you can't be bothered to do that, then this is not a discussion. — Pseudonym

You’re right. I’m not bothered.

One thing to believe that freedom is an illusion but quite another to carry the concept of it around on one`s mind. Sure, the least healthy of thinking possible.. It is one thing to believe things, but quite another to take life too seriously, and to carry this notion around with one consciously is taking it seriously to the point of self destruction. I`d suggest to it being an abnormality, come serious dysfunction of mind. Few minds could get away with it without a drop in functionality..

I don't believe Determinists for the most part really believe believe what they are preaching.

I'm describable as a determinist; I believe hard free will is a complete illusion. But since the illusion is so complete, pragmatically we're forced to behave in all the same ways that we would if we actually knew we had free will (aside from a couple caveats).

The layman's rebuke of determinism goes something like "Well if everything is pre-determined, then nothing I do matters (or "it's all meaningless"), so I might as well just sit on my couch and do nothing, and even if I didn't want to do that I have no choice in the matter". Functionally though, it's impossible to actually predict future states of overly complex systems with certainty (making any such statement about the future mere speculation), and in-spite of the resentment that a lack of free-will engenders, things do still matter (i.e: pain and pleasure remain powerful motivators).

Just because I think the decisions I will make are inevitable doesn't mean that I don't hope for those decisions to be as optimal as possible for bringing about states of affairs that are intrinsically desirable/good to me (or not bad). (It's not as if I don't think that putting effort into making good decisions is not worthwhile (in fact perhaps I recognize too much the value of planning and well-informed decision making)). And since the total illusion of free will is a pragmatic facsimile of hard free will, why should life be meaningless if all we have is the total illusion? The illusion is so good that people actually "won't believe it's not free-will".

So many people intuitively reject the axioms of materialism and empirical science (that everything has a cause), and meanwhile science carries on demonstrating how the more you know about the basic components, behaviors and interactions of a given system, the more you do actually know about it's possible future states.Free-will is turning into the old "god of the gaps argument" as science continues to clear more and more of it's natural habitat: the tangled forest of ignorance produced by competing historical and contemporary thought leaders.

But since the illusion is so complete, pragmatically we're forced to behave in all the same ways that we would if we actually knew we had free will (aside from a couple caveats). — VagabondSpectre

Apparently it is not so complete. You see right through it. What is odd is that your bouncing particles illusion allows you to see right through it while mine doesn't. One just never knows what bouncing particles might do and what illusions they might create. They are just little magicians. Some even prefer anchovies to pepperoni on their pizza. Probably because they are operating under different Laws of Nature or different Universes.

Philosophy can be so much fun when you put your Mind to it.

I don't see right through the illusion, nobody does, that's my point; the illusion of an uncertain and/or an undetermined future is unbreakable. But we can bend the illusion, and essentially the more we successfully bend it (i.e, making correct predictions about the future), the bigger and bigger the cumulative case against hard-free will gets, and the smaller and smaller the argument supporting free will becomes.

I should point out though that nesting free-will in quantum mechanics is a fruitless endeavor because at best all you can argue is that the undetermined behavior of quantum particles in the world and your brain are what's ultimately governing your actions, not you. If you would like to adopt the position that your consciousness and identity ARE those quantum fluctuations, then your will is therefore determined by this quantum flux right?

P.S, why did you capitalize the word Mind after suggesting that tiny ungoverned particles in your head are what dictates your personal preference for anchovies (yuck!)? It seems like a mind full of quantum noise isn't any more appealing than taking in the results of materialist/empirical science as a whole to explain behavior. (along with the indications we are getting out of quantum science).

Nobody thinks that if you throw a rock that the quantum particles it consists of ill ever spontaneously change the rock's direction. Throw a single quantum particle, sure, for now it's behavior is mostly mysterious, but your "Mind" isn't merely quantum particles, is it?

All that said, IF the undetermined behavior of quantum particles is what constitutes free will, then any old rock has free will by virtue of having un-coutnable numbers of those quantum particles. And so it seems that you're agreeing with me and with science in the hope and assumption that cause and effect is all pervasive, but only up to a point. You're then taking exception with the smallest of possible issues and contending that this renders the human mind, your mind, free from "ThE LaWs Of NaTuRe".

I don't see right through the illusion, nobody does, — VagabondSpectre

Don't sell yourself short. Despite the best efforts if these (presumably) illusionary particles and equally illusionary Laws of Nature (everything is an illusion), you are able (or should I say that the illusion allows you) to see right through it as an illusion. This is no small feat. On the otherhand, understanding that all be is an illusion, then everything you see as materialistic is an illusion, in which case you are having an illusion about illusions as is all is science. My best guess this is the case.

I have no idea what any one is talking about when they talk about Free Will. It is as silly as Determinism. What we clearly have, is the ability to make choices in the direction we wish to take action, but that is all. We have willful energy directed by the mind, both being non-material in nature.

There is no such thing as the Laws of Nature, and the last time I asked someone to enumerate them he just fabricated some. Why not? Would you like to take a stab at it? I don't suppose you are going to include quantum mechanics in your Deterministic theory if nature (which is necessarily an illusion)?

(everything is an illusion), — Rich

No, free will is an illusion. Can you see how going from X is an illusion to EVERYTHING is an illusion is over-blowing things just a bit?

We have willful energy directed by the mind, both being non-material in nature — Rich

Care to substantiate or explain this "non-material in nature" part? Sounds like metaphysical supernaturalism...

There is no such thing as the Laws of Nature, and the last time I asked someone to enumerate them he just fabricated some. Why not? Would you like to take a stab at it? I don't suppose you are going to include quantum mechanics in your Deterministic theory if nature (which is necessarily an illusion)? — Rich

We can only better and better approximate the laws of nature using empirical observations, from an epistemological point of view, but if you wish and for example: the strength of attraction between two masses (gravity we call it) is proportional to their masses and the distance between then. If you double the mass of one of the objects, the strength of attraction between them is doubled, and if you double the distance between them, then the strength of attraction is quartered. This is a well tested physical "law" and I can assure it's no illusion.

One can argue that the World or reality is deterministic.

But that is a useless model for us to use in many instances, because we are a) part of the World and b) many times we cannot evade our subjectivity. Hence we get a far more accurate, or should I say useful model of reality when we assume randomness and free will.

That "I can either write something or don't" has all the possibilities what I can do, hence has the correct model of what I will do. Yet the information is totally useless to me.

All this isn't about existence. It's about perspective.

No, free will is an illusion. Can you see how going from X is an illusion to EVERYTHING is an illusion is over-blowing things just a bit? — VagabondSpectre

Really? I am afraid your own illusions have caught up with you. Everything you claim about illusions is still illusion - unless you have somehow self-inoculated yourself against your in admitted illusions. Absolutely everything your mind imagines is an illusion including your illusion that there is no Choices. That's the way illusions work. As much as this may surprise you, but materialism is a kindred spirit to Hinduism. They have all kinds of recommendation in how to break through the Maya that all materialists
are suffering from.

We can only better and better approximate the laws of nature — VagabondSpectre

You are making some major call claims about v the Laws of Nature and how they create materialistic, mind illusions of all sorts, including want of Big Macs. It would be nice if you could enumerate them. Maybe it is just a nice myth?

Really? I am afraid your own illusions have caught up with you. — Rich

I'm afraid this isn't an argument ;)

" Everything you claim about illusions is still illusion - unless you have somehow self-inoculated yourself against your in admitted illusions. " — Rich

I'm claiming that a specific thing is an illusion, not that everything is an illusion. this is a straw-man of my own position at best, and a non-sequitur position in your own at worst. If I say that your belief in something is incorrect because the thing you believe in is illusory, I'm not also tacitly saying that anything and everything is or could be an illusion. Your belief that your choices are not determined by the physical states of the universe is an illusion that results from your inability to imagine how complexity emerges from large systems with basic rules and dynamic elements (see: evolution).

Absolutely everything your mind imagines is an illusion including your illusion that there is no Choices. — Rich

You can keep repeating this as if it represents my position, but more likely it points to the gaping hole that is left in your own world view when you imagine removing the cog of free will. I cannot say why free will is so important to you and why without it everything else becomes a false illusion, so perhaps we will get to this another time.

You are making some major call claims about v the Laws of Nature and how they create materialistic, mind illusions of all sorts, including want of Big Macs. It would be nice if you could enumerate them. Maybe it is just a nice myth? — Rich

Maybe you could enumerate which quantum bits in your brain take part in your decision making processes?

I've given you the first physical law, and it's not mythical. If you want me to provide more you should demonstrate how the first one is a myth!

Maybe you could enumerate which quantum bits in your brain take part in your decision making processes? — VagabondSpectre

They all do including the enteric mind.

They all do including the enteric mind. — Rich

So what you're saying is that your behavior is determined by a conglomeration of quantum fluctuations (as opposed to some kind of ethereal spirit or eternal soul or otherwise god-like-source of hard free will)?

Interestingly, indeterminacy in the smallest particles must somehow average out overall when they're in large enough groupings, otherwise matter in Newtonian scales would have no consistency.

I've seen you state elsewhere that determinism makes everything meaningless, and so my question to you would be to explain how quantum randomness/fluctuations/indeterminacy/what-have-you actually makes things meaningful???.

Free Will is an illusion in the same way a field goal is an illusion.

So what you're saying is that your behavior is determined by a conglomeration of quantum fluctuations (as opposed to some kind of ethereal spirit or eternal soul or otherwise god-like-source of hard free will)? — VagabondSpectre

I think I said Mind. Quantum fluctuations are Mind.

ply="VagabondSpectre;145538"]

But we do KNOW that we have free will, for here resides the weight of public perception and knowing.. Sure, we may be wrong in thus knowing, I`m convinced that we are, it may well be known mistakenly, it may well not be that which actuality is, but it is known all the same. Faith is knowing, but those, for instance, that have faith that there is God may still be proven wrong. I know that free will does not exist, but because I do n`t carry this thought around with me it affects me not at all. Should I do it likely would, Just how it negatively affects people is already documented, so there is no philosophy to be done there. Knowing changes nothing for we already know.

We are flooded with data, like a computer, and we have added to this the ability for both decision making and reasoning, but that decision making and reasoning is set in an environment only of total data and total programming, and we are programmed by the early environment in which we live. Beyond this is not philosophy, philosophy directs science, but it stops short of doing the science.

Free Will is an illusion in the same way a field goal is an illusion. — Cavacava

I'm pretty curious as to how these things are similar! How is a field goal illusory like free will is?

I opened with the term "Illusion" because the OP uses it, but perhaps the word I should have used is "delusion". Most people in the west who subscribe to this delusion have originally had it thrust upon them by family/community/religion, etc, and have simply not learned enough about physics, biology, and psychology (human behavior) to imagine things differently.

I think I said Mind. Quantum fluctuations are Mind. — Rich

So your "Mind" doesn't determine your behavior? I'm suggesting that quantum fluctuations are the only possibly undetermined phenomena that you can point to that can be your source of hard free will. So if the quantum fluctuations determines your Mind, and your Mind determines your will, then you don't have "free" will, you have "quantum fluctuating will" which is really quite a silly notion when you think about it.

This is like saying an AI has free-will because it's programming could spontaneously change. Not only would spontaneous changes to programming potentially cause critical failure, there's no existential value difference between an AI and a randomly reprogrammed AI. (Personally I would rather be the AI whose "Mind" isn't subject to the random throes of quantum particles).

P.S: I still really want this answered: I've seen you state elsewhere that determinism makes everything meaningless, and so my question to you would be to explain how quantum randomness/fluctuations/indeterminacy/what-have-you actually makes things meaningful???.

Both are social constructions, which are not constituted in nature, only made real by the existence of society who believes in their reality, same goes for cash.

But we do KNOW that we have free will, for here resides the weight of public perception and knowing.. Sure, we may be wrong in thus knowing, I`m convinced that we are, it may well be known mistakenly, it may well not be that which actuality is, but it is known all the same. Faith is knowing, but those, for instance, that have faith that there is God may still be proven wrong. I know that free will does not exist, but because I do n`t carry this thought around with me it affects me not at all. Should I do it likely would, Just how it negatively affects people is already documented, so there is no philosophy to be done there. Knowing changes nothing for we already know. — celebritydiscodave

Knowing that we don't have free will does change a few minor things. The main change it brings is the understanding that our actions do not inherently stem from some eternal blame-worthy soul or intrinsic "nugget of essence of being" that gives rise to free-will. Pragmatic blame is still necessary to dole out, but there is something about belief in souls and free-will that allows to despise someone to their very core. What we really should be hating is the entire set of circumstances that gave rise to a persons despicable actions, not the "person" themselves.

Intuitively most people might give a moral nod to the idea of torturing Hitler (were he not dead), but along with the dissolution of free will, the moral jusitifiability of revenge dissolves too. Intrinsic moral guilt resting in the individual is certainly bonkers once we can understand the kinds of things that drive human behavior, and so rather than punishing (torturing) criminals for their actions what we really ought to be doing is rehabilitating them; (if someone is a criminal and cannot be rehabilitated, then permanent segregation from society would be the next best option). For, if you, lacking free will, one day finds yourself in the situation of committing criminal acts (or your children, friends, etc...) would you not want to be rehabilitated instead of punished to deter others?

I must say I do agree. Volition seems coherent enough, and even the compatibilist sense of un-coerced volition makes sense; I can see how these concepts would arise as a direct product of observation and reason, but where exactly did "free"-volition come from?

Perhaps it arises out of a need to emotionally justify the reciprocation of harmful actions without actually thinking of ourselves as "bad" for committing the same kinds of actions (or worse) as the harmful transgressions inflicted upon us in the first place. It's too easy to forgive when you truly understand someone (morally forgive, not pragmatically forget; rapists still need to be incarcerated and rehabilitated for our own safety). We forgive children all the time because it's so easy to understand their ignorance, but at what point do we actually grow up and free ourselves from pervasive ignorance? (We don't! We just slowly become a bit less ignorant).

So your "Mind" doesn't determine your behavior? — VagabondSpectre

Can please think your questions through?

Can please think your questions through? — Rich

I couldn't have thought them through any differently, but I don't see what the problem is. You can start capitalizing words arbitrarily, and I can pretend you're using those words normally in order to maintain my own sanity.

If capitalized "Mind" has some kind of special meaning that makes my question incoherent, please explain that meaning to us.

And/or, answer this question: I've seen you state elsewhere that determinism makes everything meaningless, and so my question to you would be to explain how quantum randomness/fluctuations/indeterminacy/what-have-you actually makes things meaningful???

To many people seem to just react negatively when you suggest that they don't actually have free will. Instead of arguments in response all I ever seem to get is magical thinking and emotional resistance...

Here's a documentary video of what happens when you suggest someone doesn't actually have free will:

xplain how quantum randomness/fluctuations/indeterminacy/what-have-you actually makes things meaningful??? — VagabondSpectre

The creative, explorative, evolutionary aspects of the Mind brings meaning to life. Arguing about Free Will vs. Determinism, or whether God is logical, is an amusement of the Mind. Philosophy is about understanding this Mind.

Can you define "Mind" please? And how it's creative, explorative, and evolutionary aspects relate to quantum indeterminacy or actually bring meaning to life?

Can you define "Mind" please? — VagabondSpectre

It's what is peering out of your eyes and asking questions.

It's what is peering out of your eyes and asking questions. — Rich

Can you be more specific? A network of neurons doesn't seem exempt from causation.