Windows 7 Forums

Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Free-Will or Determinism

View Poll Results: Is free will an illusion?
Will 6 37.50%
Determinism 2 12.50%
We can't conclude anything yet. 8 50.00%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

13 Apr 2012   #21
Bongo

Microsoft Community Contributor Award Recipient

Win 7 Pro x64 / Win 10 Pro
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by MilesAhead View Post
I wanted to vote for free will. But I had to vote for determinism since my response was preordained. I must say it pisses me off. But there's nothing I can do about it!!


Thank you Miles you made my day.

I'm pretty sure my response was free will
My System SpecsSystem Spec
13 Apr 2012   #22
Influx

Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1 / WCP x64 / Ubuntu 11 x64
 
 

I think free-will and determinism are the same. While free will suggests that we are free to choose what we want, determinism does not contradict that. Our decisions are based on our wants, state of mind, etc,. Considering that free-will is different from Determinism, is absurd. The only problem is humans perceive determinism as if they do not have the capacity to choose based on their wants.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Apr 2012   #23
smarteyeball

 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Influx View Post
I think free-will and determinism is the same.
By the arbitrary definitions, they can't be.

Assuming determinism is true, where everything is already scripted - from the physical properties that govern the entire gamut of the 'universe' and all that it encompasses; humanity and behaviour being one of small cog in the finite machinations; then free will is just an illusion.

Quote:
While free will suggests that we are free to choose what we want, determinism does not contradict that. Our decisions are based on our wants, state of mind, etc,. Considering that free-will is different from Determinism, is absurd. The only problem is humans perceive determinism as if they do not have the capacity to choose based on their wants.
Again, assuming determinism to be true - then our 'wants, states of mind etc' are already determined. They are already planned.

They are merely illusionary wants and states of mind etc. Ergo, they are not 'free'.

Free will is predicated on the fact that determinism is not true.

Assuming determinism is not true, then free will in humans is just that - Free. Unscripted, unplanned and not pre-ordained.

Wants, states of mind etc become just that. They are no longer an illusion. They are random and subject to flux, and are a diametric to determinism.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

14 Apr 2012   #24
Influx

Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1 / WCP x64 / Ubuntu 11 x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by smarteyeball View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Influx View Post
I think free-will and determinism are the same.
By the arbitrary definitions, they can't be.

Assuming determinism is true, where everything is already scripted - from the physical properties that govern the entire gamut of the 'universe' and all that it encompasses; humanity and behaviour being one of small cog in the finite machinations; then free will is just an illusion. The idea of free will literally suggests that you have the capacity to choose based on your preference. If my biological body likes a certain type of food, then it would eat such if it could and wanted. A robot programmed to catch Birds when something is at a certain level [battery], would do what it's programmed to do. We are complex biological machines which have some sort of module that enables us to feel, be concious and be aware of our existence.

Quote:
While free will suggests that we are free to choose what we want, determinism does not contradict that. Our decisions are based on our wants, state of mind, etc,. Considering that free-will is different from Determinism, is absurd. The only problem is humans perceive determinism as if they do not have the capacity to choose based on their wants.
Again, assuming determinism to be true - then our 'wants, states of mind etc' are already determined. They are already planned. Substantially true.

They are merely illusionary wants and states of mind etc. Ergo, they are not 'free'. Wants and preference do exist and can exist with determinism. That's why I haven't known the main difference and actual sense of Free Will. Since things are already preordained by nature, our wants and preference are rational and non-absurd in the context of Determinism.

Free will is predicated on the fact that determinism is not true. Prove/Explain.

Assuming determinism is not true, then free will in humans is just that - Free. Unscripted, unplanned and not pre-ordained. It's actually absurd to consider that things are unplanned, etc,. that would raise the idea that our wants and preferences have no rational basis, or concern the idea of randomness.

Wants, states of mind etc become just that. They are no longer an illusion. They are random and subject to flux, and are a diametric to determinism. We cannot say something is random and we cannot prove it. Random usually (always) suggests too much complexity
My reply is already pre-ordained
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Apr 2012   #25
seekermeister

W7x64 Pro, SuSe 12.1/** W7 x64 Pro, XP MCE
 
 

Determinism AKA predestination and free will can and do co-exist. Anyone that chooses one mindset blind-siding themselves to the other is predestined to confound themselves. Absolute determinism requires an extraordinary amount of faith in the might of matter...or should I say energy, since matter is only one form of it. Not only would the energy comprising all things have to determine the current and future state of an individual, but at the same time correlate this to the forms and states of all other individuals in the most minute manner. For energy to do this, it would come close to the definition of God, only lacking the aspect of intelligence. Yet, without intelligence, this ability would be incomprehensible. Yet, determinism does exist, ergo God exists.

Does this mean that we are simply puppets of a creator which is beyond our senses and understanding...no, we do have free will as well. As I attempted to illustrate in my previous post, determinism only dictates the boundary of our actions which are possible, and since that boundary impels us in certain pre-defined directions, it could be viewed as a road map, which would appear maze-like if we could actually see it laid out. Within these boundaries, we are given a great deal of latitude in determining our actions, yet we do not have free choice, otherwise many of us would select a clear, straight expressway to travel.

Philosophy can often be a useful tool, but it cannot be used to explain many things about our existence, because much is beyond the scope of our understanding, regardless of how sophisticated science and philosophy may be or become. To say that one thing or another is impossible is not possible, because too much is beyond our ability to comprehend. We have only scratched the surface of understanding those things that we can sense in the tangible reality, and nothing about that which is beyond.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Apr 2012   #26
smarteyeball

 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Influx View Post
The idea of free will literally suggests that you have the capacity to choose based on your preference. If my biological body likes a certain type of food, then it would eat such if it could and wanted. A robot programmed to catch Birds when something is at a certain level [battery], would do what it's programmed to do. We are complex biological machines which have some sort of module that enables us to feel, be concious and be aware of our existence.
No dispute there. However...



Quote:
Wants and preference do exist and can exist with determinism. That's why I haven't known the main difference and actual sense of Free Will. Since things are already preordained by nature, our wants and preference are rational and non-absurd in the context of Determinism.
But if wants and preferences have already been outlined, they aren't truly wants and preferences. They are only perceived to be wants and preferences.



Prove/Explain.

Ahh, This is the crux of the argument - there will never be enough proof that either will ever be fully explained or proven by mankind. It shall forever remain theoretical, no matter how 'clever' it's calculated or presented.

For example, we can limit our scope and 'prove' certain elements of determinism within an a smaller arbitrary chosen scope. ie Any science experiment.

It does not matter that even with a particular physical test that can be/is repeated 1000 times with 1000 exact same outcomes. Current/future human technology will never be adequate enough to measure the minutia of aberrations within those tests. And those minutia exist. Therefore, those 1000 outcomes are actually different.

We can sufficiently predict a result within accepted levels of tolerance. That can, and is, erroneously labelled as determined. ie "We can determine an outcome". The aberrant minutia exist, so we simply accept the tolerances between the arbitrary boundary.

Yet, even with the unmeasurable aberrations - assuming the 'core' of determinism to be true - those aberrations are already determined. They are already scripted. There is nothing free about them.



Quote:
It's actually absurd to consider that things are unplanned, etc,. that would raise the idea that our wants and preferences have no rational basis, or concern the idea of randomness.
It's no more absurd than accepting things are planned. Randomness, or continual flux, may just be that.

Existence itself may indeed be ultimately pointless. Accepting that idea is difficult to grasp, but in the absence of proof to the contrary - it's just as valid as existence actually meaning something.



Quote:
We cannot say something is random and we cannot prove it. Random usually (always) suggests too much complexity
No, we cannot prove it - and we never shall. Proof will forever be beyond us.

Randomness does suggest complexity, because it it is. Very complex.

However just because something complex is beyond comprehension does not make it invalid. It simply makes too complex to ever ever understand.


Both schools of thought involve complexity.

The major difference is that one allows the idea/concept of randomness to exist in an unplanned, non-scripted existence devoid of pre-ordainment. The other suggests that existence no matter what/why/when/whatever is already set in stone and unchangeable.

Neither are provable/dis-provable and both have ramifications far beyond comprehension. The main difference is the leading questions. ie A God vs no God, linear vs cyclic time and so on and so forth.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Apr 2012   #27
Influx

Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1 / WCP x64 / Ubuntu 11 x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Influx View Post
The idea of free will literally suggests that you have the capacity to choose based on your preference. If my biological body likes a certain type of food, then it would eat such if it could and wanted. A robot programmed to catch Birds when something is at a certain level [battery], would do what it's programmed to do. We are complex biological machines which have some sort of module that enables us to feel, be conscious and be aware of our existence.
No dispute there. However...



Quote:
Wants and preference do exist and can exist with determinism. That's why I haven't known the main difference and actual sense of Free Will. Since things are already preordained by nature, our wants and preference are rational and non-absurd in the context of Determinism.
But if wants and preferences have already been outlined, they aren't truly wants and preferences. They are only perceived to be wants and preferences. Wants and preferences are natural things, why would you say they aren't truly themselves if they already been outlined? They are actually more compatible with the idea that they are already outlined. Our wants and preferences are biological configurations, these things are natural and do not need the idea of free will to exist rationally. I could be having a different understanding, it could perhaps be wrong, do elaborate.



Prove/Explain.

Ahh, This is the crux of the argument - there will never be enough proof that either will ever be fully explained or proven by mankind. It shall forever remain theoretical, no matter how 'clever' it's calculated or presented. There will always be reasons why science does continue its search and endless build up of knowledge and understanding of the Universe, its origin, future and how it works. It is blatantly clear that it has been beneficial and has made sense to discover things. To assume sound theoretical facts (ie. motion is not an illusion) is not stupid (obviously), humans become more intelligent with their discovery. So, the implication that tends to come out when you say that there will never be enough proof is too unfaithful.

For example, we can limit our scope and 'prove' certain elements of determinism within an a smaller arbitrary chosen scope. ie Any science experiment. The only reason why Determinism is not accepted is the heavy faith that you have to carry and the lack of statistical proof (ie using tools) that humans are completely governed by the idea of determinism.

It does not matter that even with a particular physical test that can be/is repeated 1000 times with 1000 exact same outcomes. Current/future human technology will never be adequate enough to measure the minutia of aberrations within those tests. And those minutia exist. Therefore, those 1000 outcomes are actually different. So, the implication with this is??? Actually, that's being too paranoid. This shouldn't encourage us to think that all our discoveries are illusions, this just decreases our tendency to conclude.

We can sufficiently predict a result within accepted levels of tolerance. That can, and is, erroneously labelled as determined. ie "We can determine an outcome". The aberrant minutia exist, so we simply accept the tolerances between the arbitrary boundary. ...

Yet, even with the unmeasurable aberrations - assuming the 'core' of determinism to be true - those aberrations are already determined. They are already scripted. There is nothing free about them.



Quote:
It's actually absurd to consider that things are unplanned, etc,. that would raise the idea that our wants and preferences have no rational basis, or concern the idea of randomness.
It's no more absurd than accepting things are planned. Randomness, or continual flux, may just be that. It is only absurd to think of it. But the logic of determinism is more compatible with our comprehension.

Existence itself may indeed be ultimately pointless. Accepting that idea is difficult to grasp, but in the absence of proof to the contrary - it's just as valid as existence actually meaning something. We can't either prove that it is pointless, we must just continue on with how we differentiate a fact from a assumption or a yet to be proved possibility. Our understanding of the universe, does improve, that is enough reason to continue. Living in a strange and remarkable universe that is the way it is, independent of our desires and hopes, is far more satisfying for me than living in a fairy-tale universe invented to justify our existence.



Quote:
We cannot say something is random and we cannot prove it. Random usually (always) suggests too much complexity
No, we cannot prove it - and we never shall. Proof will forever be beyond us.

Randomness does suggest complexity, because it it is. Very complex. We cannot prove that true randomness does exist, and there are some evidences that it does exist.

However just because something complex is beyond comprehension does not make it invalid. It simply makes too complex to ever ever understand. I agree, that's why I included the 3rd option. It does not make it valid either.


Both schools of thought involve complexity.

The major difference is that one allows the idea/concept of randomness to exist in an unplanned, non-scripted existence devoid of pre-ordainment. The other suggests that existence no matter what/why/when/whatever is already set in stone and unchangeable. The reason why the universe is at it is, rather than being different hasn't been completely explained, I think that's one tiny possibility that randomness which is beyond our comprehension might exist, we might be able to comprehend these things in the future of evolution.

Neither are provable/dis-provable and both have ramifications far beyond comprehension. The main difference is the leading questions. ie A God vs no God, linear vs cyclic time and so on and so forth.
Substantial evidence, in some sense, may support the possibility of a divine being which governs us, this does require faith. The lack of scientific evidence debunks the possibility of such, and suggests that it requires a lot more faith to assume that such exists., that could perhaps be unreasonable. I don't intend to put a whole discussion with this one
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Apr 2012   #28
yowanvista

Windows 10 Pro x64, Arch Linux
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Influx View Post
Substantial evidence supports the possibility of a God, this does require faith. The lack of scientific evidence debunks the possibility of a God, and suggests that it requires a lot more faith to assume that God exists., that could perhaps be unreasonable.
No seriously?
You came this far to assume that we are puppets of a creator which hasn't yet been proven to exist? Sorry but our world revolves around Science and not on what you call 'Faith'.

The lack of evidence? Your assumptions are based on your 'Faith' and not on what the reality is, I think that you missed a lot on what Science has taught us.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Apr 2012   #29
Influx

Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1 / WCP x64 / Ubuntu 11 x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by yowanvista View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Influx View Post
Substantial evidence supports the possibility of a God, this does require faith. The lack of scientific evidence debunks the possibility of a God, and suggests that it requires a lot more faith to assume that God exists., that could perhaps be unreasonable.
No seriously?
You came this far to assume that we are puppets of a creator which hasn't yet been proven to exist? Sorry but our world revolves around Science and not on what you call 'Faith'.

The lack of evidence? Your assumptions are based on your 'Faith' and not on what the reality is, I think that you missed a lot on what Science has taught us.
Substantial evidence may be perceived differently. What makes you say I assume that we are puppets of a creator? Some people are too twisted with their minds, that they make up arbitrary assumptions, your implications are actually childish, do not pretend to be a supernatural person who can read minds. There is missing evidence with the idea of God, when you take the specific of religions, it starts to appear as a man-made social construct built by people convinced by their myths, it begins to make sense. In no other discourse is faith a valid substitute for reason, or fact, or logic, except religion.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
14 Apr 2012   #30
yowanvista

Windows 10 Pro x64, Arch Linux
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Influx View Post

Substantial evidence may be perceived differently. What makes you say I assume that we are puppets of a creator? Some people are too twisted with their minds, that they make up arbitrary assumptions, your implications are actually childish, do not pretend to be a supernatural person who can read minds. There is missing evidence with the idea of God, when you take the specific of religions, it starts to appear as a man-made social construct built by people convinced by their myths, it begins to make sense. In no other discourse is faith a valid substitute for reason, or fact, or logic, except religion.
LOL.. What makes you say that my implications are "childish"? Where did I ever pretend to be a supernatural person 'who can read minds'? I just gave out my personal opinion without disturbing anyone. You assumptions are simply incoherent with the main topic here, starting from 'free will' going to "God".

Btw this forum ain't a place to discuss about 'Gods' or Religion whatsoever.
Quote:
8) No discussions of religion, politics, or firearms.
Windows 7 Forums - Forum Rules
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Is registering Avast! Free Antivirus free?
I downloaded Avast because it was free. It says that I have to register to Avast! Free Anti-virus. I thought this program was free? Or is registering for free?
System Security
Avast 7 free! AV + Comodo Free Firewall Conflicts
I have always used Avast and Comodo as my AV/Firewall combination. I find it to be very useful, and although Comodo provides many annoying popups, they are useful and informational (I would consider myself a competent computer user, though no expert). Recently, I just wanted to see how good my...
System Security
Need advice for free antivirus+free firewall combo
I was thinking of the free ZoneAlarm firewall+free Avast! Antivirus combination. What do you think? Any better choice? Thanks.
System Security
Free Win 7 with Product Key By Attend free launch event
Looking for free copy of Windows 7? Now is your chance to take home a copy of genuine Windows 7 Professional edition, complete with genuine valid product key to activate the operating system permanently. Microsoft is hosting many of The New Efficiency launch events for Windows 7, Windows Server...
News


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35.

Twitter Facebook Google+



Windows 7 Forums

Seven Forums Android App Seven Forums IOS App