Free will is an illusion

[The Grand Nudger]

Finding what one is looking for is also called 'conformation bias'.

Sure, but we didn't exactly go out looking for determinism specifically. It was a picture that emerged as we observed the interactions of literally everything we observed.

By 'credible' I mean using scientific method. Be most happy to see some specifics,or one..

Determinism is at play in everything we have been able to observe, from the visible confines and borders of biology down to the miniscule interaction of atoms. I'm not sure what you're asking for here, a demonstration of the principle of cause and effect?

If you're limiting determinism merely to human beings and their actions I'll grant you that we are incapable of demonstrating this at all...but that might have something to do with our inability to predict the future actions of human beings (though even this is debatable, most of the advertisements you see for example rely on principles which very accurately predict what people will do when presented with specific stimuli) to a degree of confidence that satisfies our desire to feel "free" to "choose". Complex things with large numbers of variables that are difficult to predict are not free of determinism. We don't need to make perfect predictions, only show that they could in theory be made. Don't get me wrong, it may very well be that while what we see around us in nature (and out into the cosmos) behaves in a deterministic fashion - for some strange reason we are exempt.....I just don't see a reason to assume this. Personally, I'm on the fence, but it isn't due to a lack of credible evidence for determinism. I just like the idea of "choosing" things, even if the very notion is an artifact of human misunderstanding. I think the best argument for "free will" albeit in a slightly modifed way, is that sentience gives us the ability to do things that non sentient creatures cannot (self determination). The trouble with this, is that sentience itself may be deterministic in nature. That would certainly help to explain our ability to predict at least some human behaviors.

Oh, at best, 'credible evidence' is prima facie,not proof.

Granted.

---

Free will is an illuison? Let's consider Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

Sure, I'm game.

I am sure that Beethoven composing his own Fifth Symphony isn't in dispute. Determinists now must claim that his Fifth Symphony was nothing more than a conglomeration of physical partical interaction in Beethoven's brain.

You're thinking that it was something else? What might that "something else" be?

If the deterministic view of things were to have any credibility then the random interactions of physical brain functions would spread musical genius across the species.

Random? Determinism and random don't actually fit very well.... Why, btw, why would determinism promote an even spread of "musical genius"?

The fact that there is only a small percentage of us with the capability of expressing ourselves expertly in this medium destroys determinism.

You'll have to explain why this is the case...lol.

I digress, let's stick to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

Humans today have access to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony that Beethoven couldn't imagine. He wrote the piece for multiple instruments and could have never imagined an iPod.

Here's the mind fuck for determinists. A determinist must claim that every orchestra that has ever played Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was nothing more than a unique confluence of physical partical interaction.

And?

This says nothing about the humans and non-human resources involved in creating the instruments, the paper on which the music was copied, the building they are playing in, the clothing that the performers or spectators were wearing, the creation of the ads promoting the performance, etc. al. All of this must have happened without free-will according to the determinist.

Right...and?

Determinism is nothing more than the philosobable invoked by atheists that refuse to accept the idea of accountabilty. Accountabilty being nothing more than the simple recognition that human choices have consequences. Cause and effect is a real bitch.

Cause and effect is the heart of determinism....... In fact, it is the entirety of determinism. Free will itself is an issue of cause, I think people are mistaking self determination and determinism. Hard determinism doesn't allow for self determination, but there are other arguments that hope to allow for both. Accountability may very well be a tool that, while useful, is not an accurate representation of reality. Should we discover that it is not accurate, it would not magically cease to be useful.

I happen to love that bitch.

It's hard not to, there aren't any other bitches laying around as far as I can see. Seriously though? Music exists, I think music is amazing, ergo free will? I think we could have a fun thread just on the topic of B's 5th and all of the influences and confines that he was dealing with that lent their hands to us recieving such a symphony (you mentioned alot of them....the setting, the instruments, etc). It's not as though each note sprang miraculously out of the mind of B with no precursor or limits......

Here's a question..why did Beethoven write Beethoven's 5th instead of Rachmaninov's Rite of Spring?

Given a specific set of conditions as a cause, there is only one outcome for the effect- this is determinism (in it's hardest form). That's not really troubling for self determination in and of itself, as the cause could very well be your mind. The troubling bit begins when we propose that the effect can then, in turn, be the cause for the next effect. Since our minds cannot be even remotely argued to have been any sort of initial conditions- some begin to wonder if they are only* effects, leading again to effects which could have gone no other way. It's a very uncomfortable (and counter-intuitive) notion...I'll give you that.

*I use the term "only" merely as a simple illustrative word...clearly that "only" means a hell of alot to us, no small thing. However- our minds can be very important to us, integral; and yet be inconsequential in the grander scheme of things.

[Cato]

Given a specific set of conditions as a cause, there is only one outcome for the effect- this is determinism (in it's hardest form). That's not really troubling for self determination in and of itself, as the cause could very well be your mind. The troubling bit begins when we propose that the effect can then, in turn, be the cause for the next effect. Since our minds cannot be even remotely argued to have been any sort of initial conditions- some begin to wonder if they are only* effects, leading again to effects which could have gone no other way. It's a very uncomfortable (and counter-intuitive) notion...I'll give you that.

*I use the term "only" merely as a simple illustrative word...clearly that "only" means a hell of alot to us, no small thing. However- our minds can be very important to us, integral; and yet be inconsequential in the grander scheme of things.

I am ok with much of the determinist argument. We are constrained by the laws of nature and the knowledge, collected through experience and reason, that informs our decisions. The act of invoking inevitibility at this point is premature. Neuroscience has simply not yet gotten to the point of explaining the rudimentary mechanics of the brain's decision making process. As DP said earlier, this essentially makes the debate at this point meaningless since there is nothing that will convince the other side and a determinist must at least acknowledge that partical interactions are responsible for my position and something that is out of my control.

I apologize to any that was upset with my accountability/bitch notion. I was only trying to be emphatic, but it seems it came across as rude. If decision making were ever proven to be illusory and outcomes inevitable, even a determinist would have to continue to comport themselves through existence as if free will was the norm. We have evolved to become 'choice machines' (I believe this is Dennett's idea, could be wrong). If the hard determinist position is ever proven right, then I suggest there is a natural paradox at play.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's true, we're not privy to the particulars. However, this would be a very thin argument along the lines of "you can't explain ergo". As I've had occasion to mention before, everywhere we look we see determinism at play, but then we get to ourselves and put on the brakes "Oh no, it just can't be, consider symphonies and such, there's not enough evidence" etc etc etc. It would probably be best to avoid setting up a special case for ourselves unless we can demonstrate that we are, in fact, a special case (and supposing we are, wouldn't it be interesting to know why? That's where this stuff always leaves off. Somebody proposes a free will, but there usually isn;t much in the way off explaining how it works, or how it could work, or how we got it).

On the practical effect of such knowledge (if we ever find ourselves in possession of it) I agree completely. We just don't seem to be wired in a way that could make use of those particulars in our day to day. I don't know, personally (obviously). But the case for biological machinery is a bit sturdier than the case for ethereal "wills".