Are free will and determinism logically compatible? I am really interested to see where this goes.

The traditional definition of free will seems to be the ability to choose to do something free of constraints. On the other hand determinism says that all actions are "causally determined by the environment". Examples would be social determinism, biological determinism, genetic determinism, neurological determinism, and behavioral determinism, economic determinism, etc. Economic determinism is obviously Marx and behavioral determinism is Skinner.

Now, are free will and determinism compatible or are they incompatible?

Compatible/Incompatible popcornTM

"Free" and "will" aren't even compatible.

The Doctor wrote:The traditional definition of free will seems to be the ability to choose to do something free of constraints.

I don't even get past this part. How can anything be "free of constraints"?

PhiloKGB wrote:

The Doctor wrote:The traditional definition of free will seems to be the ability to choose to do something free of constraints.

I don't even get past this part. How can anything be "free of constraints"?

Hence, this is the dilemma I am noticing. I have not spent much time reflecting on this subject, but there are extremely brilliant philosophers that are compatibilists [Hobbes, Hume, Dennett, Kagan, etc.]. I guess they are using a different definition of free will?

Ughhhh....

I am yet to be convinced that anything can be done free of constraints.

I just grabbed a book by William Rowe, and he gives two definitions of "acting freely":

(1) consists in doing what you want or choose to do.

(2) consists in doing what you want to do when it was in your power not to do it.

Now, I would challenge (1) as being false, as I don't see it is ever in our power to do one act, rather than another if we are already determined to do a certain act. A good example would be B.F. Skinner's behavioral determinism. In such a case, only will would be compatible with determinism, and not free will, as we are are already determined to choose action a, and are prevented from choosing action b.

I think most of the time when compatibilists talk of free will being compatible with the idea that our genetics and environment predict and control our behavior, they are referring to something different than what most people mean by "free will". Dennett's "free will", for example, is essentially the belief that your actions are your own, even though the behaviors and the belief itself are determined. It seems like desperate grasping to me.

The Doctor wrote:
Now, I would challenge (1) as being false, as I don't see it is ever in our power to do one act, rather than another if we are already determined to do a certain act. A good example would be B.F. Skinner's behavioral determinism. In such a case, only will would be compatible with determinism, and not free will, as we are are already determined to choose action a, and are prevented from choosing action b.

Perhaps a little off-topic, but a small correction here: Skinner's ideas were composed of both genetic and behavioral determinism. He essentially argued that the sum of a man was the direct product of evolution, with innate predispositions, behaviors and traits, combined with environmental learning over the subject's lifetime - in other words, the product of phylogeny and ontogeny. (He also suggested a third factor of "culture", but I think that just falls into a subset of ontogeny really). Often he's misunderstood as advocating a "blank slate" approach, but anyone who has read a small collection of his writings (or even just the wikipedia page) will know that such a claim is ridiculous.

So, the fact that I could scratch my itchy balls in the Post Office queue suggest I have free will, the fact that I don't because the old lady by the birthday cards might see me suggest my actions are determined to some extent by social conditions.

Damn!

What if I ask the old lady to scratch my balls...?

Mr.Samsa wrote:I think most of the time when compatibilists talk of free will being compatible with the idea that our genetics and environment predict and control our behavior, they are referring to something different than what most people mean by "free will". Dennett's "free will", for example, is essentially the belief that your actions are your own, even though the behaviors and the belief itself are determined. It seems like desperate grasping to me.

It seems to me that it would be more correct for Dennett to take the "free" out of the "will".

Perhaps a little off-topic, but a small correction here: Skinner's ideas were composed of both genetic and behavioral determinism. He essentially argued that the sum of a man was the direct product of evolution, with innate predispositions, behaviors and traits, combined with environmental learning over the subject's lifetime - in other words, the product of phylogeny and ontogeny. (He also suggested a third factor of "culture", but I think that just falls into a subset of ontogeny really). Often he's misunderstood as advocating a "blank slate" approach, but anyone who has read a small collection of his writings (or even just the wikipedia page) will know that such a claim is ridiculous.

Skinner's ideas seem to be compatible with "tabula rasa". Couldn't we just say that one is preprogrammed to process information and impressions, which lead us to act one way rather than another. For example, humans desire their own survival, as they are preprogrammed to avoid pain, and will act accordingly. So in this case we are determined to act one way rather than another.

The Doctor wrote:Are free will and determinism logically compatible? I am really interested to see where this goes.

The traditional definition of free will seems to be the ability to choose to do something free of constraints. On the other hand determinism says that all actions are "causally determined by the environment". Examples would be social determinism, biological determinism, genetic determinism, neurological determinism, and behavioral determinism, economic determinism, etc. Economic determinism is obviously Marx and behavioral determinism is Skinner.

Now, are free will and determinism compatible or are they incompatible?

It's a stupid question. Compatibilist free will is compatible with determinism and incompatibilist free will is not. They are two completely different things, not one thing which might or might not be compatible with determinism.

Mr.Samsa wrote:I think most of the time when compatibilists talk of free will being compatible with the idea that our genetics and environment predict and control our behavior, they are referring to something different than what most people mean by "free will". Dennett's "free will", for example, is essentially the belief that your actions are your own, even though the behaviors and the belief itself are determined. It seems like desperate grasping to me.

Or, as Kant put it, "a wretched subterfuge."

Compatibilist free will isn't free will. It's psychological compensation for being asked to accept that determinism is true.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I think most of the time when compatibilists talk of free will being compatible with the idea that our genetics and environment predict and control our behavior, they are referring to something different than what most people mean by "free will". Dennett's "free will", for example, is essentially the belief that your actions are your own, even though the behaviors and the belief itself are determined. It seems like desperate grasping to me.

Or, as Kant put it, "a wretched subterfuge."

Compatibilist free will isn't free will. It's psychological compensation for being asked to accept that determinism is true.

You're inclined to seek compensation for being asked to accept that determinism is true?

Woo is the Paris of intellectual suburbia. "How're you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"

You'll find "mysticism" somewhere near Pigalle, where people are receiving compensation for all sorts of stimulating acts.

Cito di Pense wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I think most of the time when compatibilists talk of free will being compatible with the idea that our genetics and environment predict and control our behavior, they are referring to something different than what most people mean by "free will". Dennett's "free will", for example, is essentially the belief that your actions are your own, even though the behaviors and the belief itself are determined. It seems like desperate grasping to me.

Or, as Kant put it, "a wretched subterfuge."

Compatibilist free will isn't free will. It's psychological compensation for being asked to accept that determinism is true.

You're inclined to seek compensation for being asked to accept that determinism is true?

I'm not, no. But that's because I don't accept determinism is true. However, the compatibilists are still offering compensation...they are trying to say "isn't our sort of free will enough?"

Woo is the Paris of intellectual suburbia. "How're you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"

Paris stinks of dogshit.

If there's no "free will" and we live in a deterministic universe it still won't grant any being to predict the decisions one will make with absolute certainty and consistency. Only the person itself is always capable to control its own decisions. And the choices one makes are specifically tailored to one's status quo, unless one is in a state where one is unable to make decisions, e.g. whilst sleeping. That to me is free will. And now I feel like something died in my brain

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
You're inclined to seek compensation for being asked to accept that determinism is true?

I'm not, no. But that's because I don't accept determinism is true. However, the compatibilists are still offering compensation...they are trying to say "isn't our sort of free will enough?"

Oh, and that's not why you reject determinism? You have your noble commitment to an opposing, equally-unfalsifiable wibble. And make fun of determinists employing compatibilist free will by portraying them as sucking on a lolly.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Woo is the Paris of intellectual suburbia. "How're you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen Paree?"

Paris stinks of dogshit.

That was my point about the woo. Apparently the diffuse compensations exceed the unpleasantness of the stench. My point is more or less along the lines of pointing out that the pot is calling the kettle black when wibbling about compensation. For many an enterprising lad or lass, though the work is dangerous and sometimes stinky, there are a few shiny sous to jingle in the psychological pocket, as bliss ninnies whistle their way past the cemetery toward what they hope is not oblivion.

But you're welcome to putain your two cents.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Paris stinks of dogshit.

The dogs are all poodles, but the shit smells the same.

I was just thinking about this this morning (actually I think about it a lot but I've been too afraid to make a post about it).
If I have no free will, I mean none at all, then how can I make plans or dream abut the future? Do I have any decisions? How is it people can change their life if they've no free-will?
I read Dennet's Freedom Evolves a few years ago (I should probably read it again I can't remember much from it) and he argued the case their is determinism but we have a bit of "wiggle-room". To me this sounds more like reality. Or at least like my rationalization of reality. I'm pretty much stuck with who I am but surely I have some choices in what I do within the limitations set by my genetics and opportunities?

I know I've posted it before but can't hurt to post it again, since it's a nice summing-up and videos tend to be quite accessible

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U[/youtube]

Someone made a transcript of this monologue somewhere on the board here...

I love that one too. Although this is my fav from that film. It cracks me up (Sorry. OT.)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwMJZLS4xHQ[/youtube]

Animavore wrote:I was just thinking about this this morning (actually I think about it a lot but I've been too afraid to make a post about it).
If I have no free will, I mean none at all, then how can I make plans or dream abut the future?

Easily. Just like my computer makes a plan before it installs some piece of software.

Do I have any decisions?

Which operating system is this computer running?

How is it people can change their life if they've no free-will?

How could their lives do anything but change?

I read Dennet's Freedom Evolves a few years ago (I should probably read it again)

You could always use it as toilet paper instead!

I'm pretty much stuck with who I am but surely I have some choices in what I do within the limitations set by my genetics and opportunities?

This isn't about genetics. It's about the laws of physics. The limitation in question is whether our behaviour and thinking is entirely governed by physical laws, or only partially governed by them.

UndercoverElephant wrote:This isn't about genetics. It's about the laws of physics. The limitation in question is whether our behaviour and thinking is entirely governed by physical laws, or only partially governed by them.

The rest of your post answers nothing but interested in what other types of laws are there besides physical ones with regard to governing the universe? How can our brains work apart from them?