Reason, Purpose

[Oli]

I have always been a dis-believer in fate. Mainly due to the fact that if it were true, and that parts of our lives are already pre-determined, how can we have control? or "free-will"?

However, recently i began to think of it differently. I looked at it as two beliefs, the belief that everything has a reason, and that "shit happens". When things that we cannot explain happen, some people simply believe that things just "happen", and may not necessarily have a reason. And on the other hand, science tries to prove that everything in fact does have a reason and nothing simply just "happens". We have dealved into quantum physics to understand why and how things happen, giving things a 'reason' to be.

I then linked this with the matter of fate; if everything does have a reason, then there is a reason for reason and a reason why everything does happen. This made me question whether my actions and the things happening around me had a deeper meaning, a bigger reason, a purpose. What i am refering to is that what religious people call "Gods plan". That everything in life has a deeper meaning and purpose, that things are meant to happen, due to everything having a reason.

I do not however believe in God. I am an atheist. I have just started to think that maybe things are meant to happen, if everything has a reason. I do strictly believe that everything has to have a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be, so maybe why certain things happen at certain times has a reason. All a part of God's Plan.

[locomotive]

What does god have to do with this?

[Smurf]

Free will is an illusion, you think what you think because your brain has limits, you have principles and beliefs with a bit of human instinct thrown in to make your decisions.

Although then it doesn't have to be "God's Plan", it could be fate and destiny, or why call it something anyway? just say life? :unsure:

Everything has a reason, otherwise we wouldn't exist. What makes you think that we could be apart of this existence, with some sort of free will?

[Kether]

I have always believed that every event and object has a cause; this is why I reject free will. The universe does indeed appear to be a great causal system of which the human mind is a part; we can affect events ourselves, sometimes very powerfully, but our doing so is itself an effect.
I think you need to be careful with the word 'fate', however; fatalism differs from determinism in that it implies that the system is beyond human control, which determinism does not maintain; determinism differs from libertarianism in that it holds that human control is itself controlled.
In response to your question, free will can be and has been reconciled with fatalism. Stoicism had a strong belief in individuals' inescapable destiny, but still maintained that they could choose whether to rebel, futilely, against it.

[scameter]

I personally think that the huge argument, especially amongst those supporting science, is rather futile and should not be seen as an argument with concrete answers. Yes, if the question "Does free will exist?" is examined scientifically, there can be definite answers. But, to consider something called free will at all takes a sort of philosophical, or perhaps religious, position, and because of this, and because of the aspects of philosophy, no definite answer to the question should be expected. However, the asking of the question is definitely fine, and to pose opinions on it I think is both good and necessary. But, if one is to have a philosophical opinion on it, one must not automatically make concrete answers, but rather to consider *all* that goes into the concept and the argument, the arguments of all who have contributed to the main argument, and the opinions and views of yourself and what is within you, as well as scale. And by scale, I mean the scale of free will. I think that free will exists, but perhaps not in the customary format people usually think of it as being in. I think that free will is the ability to realize, to imagine, to take interest, and to decide, among other things. I'm sure this would get immediate responses of "influence, genetics, influence, genetics" but really that doesn't change my argument. Yes, our genetics predispose us with the ability to think and to live, but we are able to realize that. Yes, we are influenced, but we are able to choose differently. If by free will one means the ability to choose with absolutely no influences, genetics, preconceived notions, emotion, body, spirit or self, then no free will doesn't exist, but that definition of free will is contradictory in and of it's self, because for one, the very fact that an individual is asking the question, and can conceive of what call free will shows that it does exist, if only as a non-actual concept or neuro-chemical thought and/or memory; and for two, to make such a definition of free will is to go beyond what free will is even supposed to be linguistically, and would I think be titled "godliness".

[locomotive]

What would excersize a free will scam?

[TruthSeeker]

It's all about probability.

[locomotive]

what is?

[TruthSeeker]

Everything

[scameter]

Anything that is able to locomotive. And I firmly disagree with that accusation truthseeker; probability is an ability of people to use their logic to act as if the future is certain, which it is not. But for security, they say "this is probable", instead of "this is definite".

[TruthSeeker]

Probality implies certainty? That's not the definition I expected.... <_<

[scameter]

No, I said it acts as if the future is certain, or perhaps predictable would be a better word.

[lenin32]

Probability makes the unknown known.
think about it

[locomotive]

"Anything that is able to locomotive"

and what is able to do that?

[TruthSeeker]

The keyword is "predictable".

[scameter]

Lenin, how is that possible? Probability, as with prediction, is done with things that are known which are then used to predict what could possibly be the future. How could probability be a means of discovery?

[Kether]

Anything that is able to locomotive. And I firmly disagree with that accusation truthseeker; probability is an ability of people to use their logic to act as if the future is certain, which it is not. But for security, they say "this is probable", instead of "this is definite".
Security against what? If they think something is definite, then why do they bother saying that it isn't? After all, certainty is far more cosy and comforting than mere probability.
Probability is the deduction of how likely something is, based on what limited knowledge is already possessed: it says what is most likely, rather than what is certain. This is elementary.

[TruthSeeker]

What if we knew everything? Would that make all probability equal to 100%? ;)

[Kether]

Yes it would.

[TruthSeeker]

And how does that affect free will? B)

[scameter]

Ok Kether, you're right.

[Kether]

And how does that affect free will?
If a totally accurate knowledge of the future would make the probability of a prediction equal to 1, then uncaused things, like free will, could not exist - if a person has free will, then their actions could not be accurately predicted.

[TruthSeeker]

Yes. Do we know the future? B)

[scameter]

Could their actions be accounted for? By this, I mean, say, if free will does not exist, and if we simply act on chemicals and environmental influences with no choice ability, how could anything we do, from something scientific to murder, be held against us? That would be like calling a lion evil because it murders; it simply does what it does.

[Kether]

Determinism, if it is correct, would indeed strike a blow to the idea of personal responsibility. But is this such a bad thing? All the recognition that free will is an illusion would do, in the sphere of morals and of social institutions, would be to encourage the idea that it is possible to prevent evils from occurring. Russell had an analogy: if a car does not work, one attempts to fix it. It would be seen as ridiculous to call the car wicked, and to refuse to give it any petrol until it went again.
Do we know the future?
Of course not. But the question should really be: is it theoretically possible for something to know the future? I think that the answer is yes. It is of course practically impossible to know everything and to make utterly accurate predictions. But the universe can transcend the limits of our minds: the argument that 'the universe can't be like this, because we aren't clever enough do the sums' is a flawed one.

[locomotive]

indeed kether.

[TruthSeeker]

Of course not. But the question should really be: is it theoretically possible for something to know the future? I think that the answer is yes. It is of course practically impossible to know everything and to make utterly accurate predictions. But the universe can transcend the limits of our minds: the argument that 'the universe can't be like this, because we aren't clever enough do the sums' is a flawed one.
Free will exists only if the probability of future prediction is equal to less then 1. If determinism is right, then the probability of the future is 1.

We can't see the future. In a determinist universe, we would clearly be able to see the future, just as we see the past.

Once again, the suicide example. The probabilty that I'm going to commit suicide tomorrow is very small, because I have no reason to commit suicide. But it could still happen. Besides, I can do whatever I wish regardless of how random it is. How can you explain randomness in terms of determinism?

[TruthSeeker]

Determinism is like a plan. You know the plan, and you know where to go.
Free will is what happens next.

To believe in determinism but deny free will is to look at the plan and expect it to carry itself out by itself! :wacko: :duh:

[Kether]

We can't see the future. In a determinist universe, we would clearly be able to see the future, just as we see the past.
How could we possibly ever be omniscient? That would entail knowing everything about every single subatomic particle and the laws that govern it, and then processing that knowledge to predict the future accurately. Are you saying that, in a deterministic universe, that is how we would be?
A Laplacian computer that can predict the future dynamic of the universe is almost impossible, because of how complex causality is. The universe is extremely unpredictable, and causality is immensely complex and sometimes non-linear - but that does not mean that it is nonexistent in certain cases, as libertarianism supposes.

I most certainly do not think that randomness can exist on the level of human behaviour. Think about it: the mind is (if we accept a materialist premise) a product of the brain, a complex system composed of nerve cells. Could such a large and complex system behave randomly? If randomness does exist, then it probably only exists on a subatomic level - not on the level of something as huge as a mind. And even if elements of the brain system were to behave randomly, this would not be caused by conscious action on the part of the conscious self.
Free will exists only if the probability of future prediction is equal to less then 1. If determinism is right, then the probability of the future is 1.
Again, you are confusing a device used by those with limited knowledge with the actual reality that they attempt to know. The existence of probability does not prove anything about the certainty or randomness of the universe. It is perfectly plausible that the future is certain - the fact that those who predict it can predict it wrongly or uncertainly does not disprove this.

[Oli]

I most certainly do not think that randomness can exist on the level of human behaviour

I agree, back to the point that everything has a reason. I think that even on a atomic level things are not random, they may appear random to us, but i simply think that we do not fully understand it. Everything has a reason. Thats my theory anyway.

[Kether]

Yes, the fact that subatomic events can appear random may just be a transitory phase between the observation of their existence and the discovery of their true nature.

[TruthSeeker]

Free will, determinism and randomness are just human concepts. There's no reason for everything. We create a reason by analyzing it. You see... even a very complex universe that appears to be random can be seen as determnistic from an omniscient point of view (that is, if you understand all the processes that are occuring, you can define an affect by simply looking at the cause). Those things are purely subjective, depending completely on the observer. In reality, the universe is nothing more then that- it just is.

[scameter]

Determinism, if it is correct, would indeed strike a blow to the idea of personal responsibility. But is this such a bad thing? All the recognition that free will is an illusion would do, in the sphere of morals and of social institutions, would be to encourage the idea that it is possible to prevent evils from occurring. Russell had an analogy: if a car does not work, one attempts to fix it. It would be seen as ridiculous to call the car wicked, and to refuse to give it any petrol until it went again.

I never said it was bad, but I personally don't like your reply to it either; you said that it would encourage the idea that it is possible to prevent evils from occuruing. From the deterministic point of view, evil, nor good, exists, not even from a mechanical point of view as with Russel's analogy you posted. From determinism, everything is perfectly fine; if I wish to come to your house and shoot you in the face, as long as I'm strong enough, I should be able to, and I shouldn't be blamed or punished, if free will doesn't exist. The chemicals in my brain simply made me do it, and my genetic phenotype simply allowed my chemicals to take physical action. If the subject of my actions isn't strong enough to prevent me from doing my bidding, I shouldn't be blamed or punished. Mainly, the view I am posting about determinism applied moreso to human behavior than to mechanics; if a car doesn't work, and that displeasures the human owner of the car, the owner should attempt to fix it in whatever means possible. If the person doesn't mind if the car works or not, the person should simply not use it anymore. I personally have been thinking about this since you Kether started posting on here about free will not existing, mainly because of deterministic factors, and in my thought experiments, oddly enough, I seem to know more about science and psychology than I thought, but that's not really the point; the point is that I think this issue is quite large, and could make quite an effect on society, if it is truthfully and honestly considered.

Free will, determinism and randomness are just human concepts. There's no reason for everything.

I disagree. I think that they are all physical aspects; honestly, I dislike the constant use of "conceptual" (and not just by you my friend) in order to dismiss something. Why is conceptuality any less effective or real or meaningful than physical things? Is conceptuality not physical too? Does it not affect everything we do as people? I think concepts such as determinism, free will and randomness pose a great impact, especially on society; they simply need to be truthfully considered with an entirely open mind, and with all things taken into logical consideration amongst many people able and willing to do so.

In reality, the universe is nothing more then that- it just is.

And conceptually, you can know that.

Now, by my recent preoccupation with determinism, I am not saying that totally believe in it, and/or that I believe in nothing else, which is why above I said that conceptual things must be taken into consideration open-mindedly and with all things taken into consideration amongst many people, and even then it is very difficult to make a definite judgement.

[TruthSeeker]

And conceptually, you can know that.

You can know that, but you have to experience it in order to truly understand it.
That's where Taosim and Zen Buddhism come in handy... ;)


Concepts are not real. They are mental constructs used by the brain to process information. It's not real.

As a side note, I have carefully observed my child and he is communicating with his hands. We never taught him any sign language. So... if he doesn't have free will, then what has caused him to communicate with his hands!? Determinism would suggest that the only way he could possibly communciate with his hands is if we would teach him, so that there is a cause to his hands actions. But contrary to that, he came up with those hand actions compeltely by himself, which denies determinism.

[scameter]

And you experience and understand it conceptually.

Concepts are not real.

lol They don't exist?

So... if he doesn't have free will, then what has caused him to communicate with his hands!? Determinism would suggest that the only way he could possibly communciate with his hands is if we would teach him, so that there is a cause to his hands actions. But contrary to that, he came up with those hand actions compeltely by himself, which denies determinism.

From the view of determinism, genetically his mind, as with most people's, is naturally disposed to use body language, and using his hands to convey emotion is simply natural. And, I personally think this is true, but not entirely. I think that genetically, everyone has emotions, and that emotion is similar to many people, but I think decision and choice exist, and that this, through the existence of realization, gives everyone the ability to be different and to have different emotional responses to things; not that emotional responses are choiceful, but I think that not everyone's emotional responses are the same, but not because of environment or genetics, but because of the natural differentiation of selves between individuals. And be choice, I don't mean free will in the sense of being able to choose beyond the affects of anything as Kether defines free will; I mean the ability to realize, and then choose between many different options of courses of action. From the view of deterministic no free will, one would only have a single available action: that which one's body/mind provokes one to take. But, because of realization, I disagree with that.

[TruthSeeker]

Concepts exist in your mind... ;)

And what do you mean by "realization"? <_<

[scameter]

Then they exist. Why do they have any less existence for being within the brain? If conceptuality meant nothing, we would be like any other animal; I believe conceptuality is what gives us the ability to realize, as well as to think abstractly, and to be willing to care enough to put forth effort to do something with the assertion of belief into the action, such as fighting for a cause, studying science, or doing martial arts or a sport. None have any real practical application towards our survival, and even if they do help it it is not the main goal of the action, yet we still do it, for conceptual reasons.

By realization, I mean:

Noun
realization

1. The act of realizing; an act of figuring out or becoming aware.
He came to the startling realization that he had never really known.
2. The act of realizing; the act of making real.
He did not stay around long enough to see the realization of the idea.
3. The result of an artistic effort.
The painter's realization of her concept was breathtaking.
(from wikitionary, a subunit of wikipedia)

[TruthSeeker]

I never said they don't exist. I said they exist, but only in the mind. Isn't that what makes them "abstract"?

[scameter]

Yes, but they still exist. And as their own, real entities.