Do you think that all our moral decisions are pre-determined, and we have no real choice in them? Or do you think that consciousness involves something more than a chain of cause and effect, and we are free in our actions?

I fully side with determinism. Whether our thoughts are the product of genes or our experiences or both, they must be predestined. I'm not saying they could practically be predicted, because that would obviously be incredibly complicated, but everything we do must be pre-destined. The experience of choice is an illusion - there's a lot of evidence to suggest that our decisions are instantaneous, and the reasoning 'behind' them is made up afterwards.

What are your thoughts? I wanted to make this a poll but I couldnt work out how

I'm not sure at all, but I'm guessing that only mods can make polls.

I've argued this with my friends, a ton. I completely agree with you. I didn't know that the two sides were labeled what they are.

It's obvious. An insanely powerful computer could, theoretically, given all the starting information, calculate the future.

Yes, free will is an illusion in my book. Does that mean I won't try in life as hard? Nope.

I don't see why people can't reconcile this. Just because the decisions we make aren't predetermined doesn't mean we don't make decisions. Why would the experience of choice be an illusion? You consider your options and make a decision, and that decision determines what you will do. That the process of consideration is deterministic is irrelevant; it still occurs. The only 'illusionary' aspect would be the idea that either outcome is somehow abstractly possible, but that's just a way of conceptualizing the process. What matters is that before you make your decision you don't know what you will do, and though you yourself are hypothetically a product of deterministic systems, you still make choices.

Ive thought about this some time ago, and I came to the conclusion that both determinism and non-determinism do not allow free will. To have that, your choices must both be caused and be random.

perhaps you may find a pattern in the choices you make, but I think any trend or otherwise found in your decision making history, is nothing more than the effect of your personality over the decision making process. In no way would I consider your choices predetermined by any means though, that's just silly. When you simplify things, there's not that many possibilities while making a decision for yourself anyways really. There are certainly a great deal of restrictions placed on your decisive outcome, but any illusion created in the process, is not that of any type of fate or destiny in my opinion...

Exactly, the real, 'radical' notion of free will (ie non-Aquinian tautological definition of free will) is completely inane and not only does it not exist, it would not be a good thing if it did exist.


I've thought a lot about the machine that could take all the input of the universe and predict outcomes, but I do not think it is possible. I'd have to get back into the mindset of thinking about if for a long time to remember all the problematic nuances of such a machine, but I am currently a bit inebriated. Basically, the machine would have to take itself into account, because anyone reading the machine's output of the future could possibly do differently, but that would be impossible. Therefore, the machine must take into account for itself, before it does what it does. It seems paradoxical to me and mindfucks me everytime I try to think about it. Maybe I need to try making a sort of paradigm or model for how such a system would work. Anyone have any thoughts on the 'Prediction Machine Paradox'?

I have not given this any thought whatsoever, but I expect the existance of quines (programs that output their source code when run without resorting to external data sources) means something.

Libertarianism is not equal to randomness. Most people who hold to a libertarian view about free will believe that there is something special about consciousness that allows it to influence possibilities/probabilities such that we are actually making we choices.

There are other options, though. I myself tend toward compatibilism, which is the notion that some degree of freedom is compatible with causal determinism.

I'll say more about this later, but for now I have to go teach. I'll also make a poll for this.


Entheogenic

Unless you don't believe in the laws of Physics, it is very clear that there is a set way the universe would've run from the beginning. And it's running that way right now. Cause and effect. Nothing is random. Therefore, if I were nearly godlike in my mental capabilities and I was given the starting information of the universe, I could tell you what you're going to decide (though doing that would probably change your mind).

So, believe in Physics?

Not necessarily true. There is evidence to suggest that at very low levels the universe might not be quite as deterministic as it appears at higher levels. It is conceivable that the confluence of these "little indeterminacies" could produce some indeterminacy at the higher level.

However, there is also evidence to suggest that this is not the case, and we must consider the fact that indeterminacy does not equal freedom, as someone else pointed out.

On lunch; more later.


Entheogenic