Determinism - is there such thing as choice?

[Foliage]

Originally Posted by ChesterMcCheese

things in the future are affected by what u do now. that's choice.

Following that logic things you do now are affected by things youve done in the past, and so on until you get back to the begging of time, which is where I see a lack of choice.

[ChesterMcCheese]

but the combinations of forces which affect the future are infinite, hence determinism and chaos is jus ambiguous

[blakeyboysmith]

we cant actually measure anything at all ever.
all we do is give a probability i.e the location of something is deemed to be the palce at which there is the highest probability that it is present.

[thormania]

Originally Posted by samos

These threads really do my head in. Maybe it's just late after a big day at work.. I'll have to re read what's going on to get my head around it. You're saying that if I want to have a pull right now, it's predetermined?

Probably the best arguement to say we do have a choice . Very much doubt the particles i'm made from are pre-determined to be stimulated by mrs palmer.

[T-O-D]

i was talking to this religious guy about this once, and he described it the best way I've yet heard.

"imagine a ship travelling from point A to point B. It could go straight there, due to point B being the final destination, it WILL get there. But if the captain wanted to (needed to) he had the choice of refuelling at point C.

Or... another way to put it. Ship going from point A to point B. even if it stops at point C (free will) it still stops at point B (pre-determination)"

Make sense to anyone???

[Phalanx]

Originally Posted by T-O-D

i was talking to this religious guy about this once, and he described it the best way I've yet heard.

"imagine a ship travelling from point A to point B. It could go straight there, due to point B being the final destination, it WILL get there. But if the captain wanted to (needed to) he had the choice of refuelling at point C.

Or... another way to put it. Ship going from point A to point B. even if it stops at point C (free will) it still stops at point B (pre-determination)"

Make sense to anyone???

In a way it does, but it still results in different outcomes. If you take a different amount of time, point B will have changed from when you could have arrived (if Jesus died and was resurrected, say, last week, it would have a rather major effect on history. For starters, I don't believe he popped back up again to begin with, I'd be fairly shocked if he managed it after 2000 years ). If you take a different route, it has a different effect on the water currents, you may fish in a different spot for food, the whole butterfly effect thing.

As far as I can see it, if you could look at and know everything in the universe at once, you could predict everything. However, since everything (supposedly) exists in quantum states, and going by the laws of physics it is impossible to know the state of everything at once, why bother thinking about it? It'll only lead you to the conclusion that 13 billion years of history resulted in my writing this after a few glasses of a rather decent red.

[Eman]

Descartes came up with the idea of Dualism. Here there's basically a physical world with its own rules (including physical determinism if that is the case) and the spiritual/mental one which our minds exist in and has its own set of physical rules. Assuming Dualism is true, free will can therefore be compatible with Determinism. While your physical actions have predetermined results, or set effects flowing on from particular causes, it's entirely possible that your mind is not as tightly bound to this rigid system and within constraints imposed upon it from the physical world is free to make its own genuine decisions.

Of course we don't really know if Dualism or Determinism are in fact true but I'd advise you to take the wager of assuming there is free will and no determinism (in a philosophical sense) until concrete evidence presents itself. Otherwise you might find yourself asking questions about the reasons for your own existence that lead (for me at least) to very depressing conclusions.

[SyN]

I think, therefore I am.

if you perceive you have free thought, then you do.
our conciousness is the thing we are most definite of - so why not trust it?

its like luck, there is no such thing as 'luck'. its when we perceive luck that it exists.

sorry i need some sleep... or do i?

[barney]

Wow, old thread. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was in relation to quantum theory of subatomic particles. When I make a decision to have sausages or sandwiches for lunch, that decision is not influenced by quantum theory. Neurons in my brain fire and move my arm to pull the sausages out of the fridge. On the non-subatomic level, you CAN determine the position and momentum of an object with equal certainty. The behaviour of subatomic particles is irrelevant because the classical physics is sufficient to describe the characteristics of the system on this scale.

As Bohr later explained it, events in tiny atoms are subject to quantum mechanics, yet people deal with larger objects in the laboratory, where the "classical" physics of Newton prevails.

http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm

Thus, the uncertainty principle governs the observable nature of atoms and subatomic particles while its effect on measurements in the macroscopic world is negligible and can be usually ignored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_Principle

Similarly, you say that;

Now this would mean that we would have a predetermined future and that we have no choice in what we do, its all layed out for us (I mean a particle doesn't have a choice to speed up, its determined by laws) therefore we can't manipulate our world and everythign that happens happens because its destined to happen.

This is fallacious because you assume there is no input into the system. There is of course input, driven largely by your brain. (there may be input driven by external factors also - eg someone runs you over with a bus and kills you). How else did your fingers press the buttons on the keyboard to type your post? The system didn't just fall into a state of entropy resulting in your post!

[shredder]

Originally Posted by barney

This is fallacious because you assume there is no input into the system. There is of course input, driven largely by your brain. (there may be input driven by external factors also - eg someone runs you over with a bus and kills you). How else did your fingers press the buttons on the keyboard to type your post? The system didn't just fall into a state of entropy resulting in your post!

Is his (or anyone's) brain not a part of 'the system' too?

[Deckham]

If there was a super being dudeness, it would be able to determine our future. Therefore, our future would be pre-determined.

For me, that is simply using one unlikely assumption to lend validity to another. Any amount of similar examples can be given:

If I were Superman, I could turn back time.

See, I don't think of this as that deep a problem at all.

If, in an unlikely scenario, a superior Dudeness corrected me, it wouldn't change things much, since my mind cannot comprehend superior Dudenessness.

If a Dudeness sat me in a room, and forced me to watch a future/history of my life, I would then put my life down to Deja Vue, and get on with it.

[barney]

Originally Posted by shredder

Is his (or anyone's) brain not a part of 'the system' too?

In relation to "choices" or "outcomes", eg sausages or sandwiches, then I'd consider the brain external, as it supplies the input to trigger muscle movement, speech etc which results in the manifestation of the choice made. In the context of the OP talking about his life being "pre-determined", then he probably thinks the brain IS part of the system as he doesn't think there is any input.

Depends on your point of view I guess.

[shredder]

Originally Posted by barney

In relation to "choices" or "outcomes", eg sausages or sandwiches, then I'd consider the brain external, as it supplies the input to trigger muscle movement, speech etc which results in the manifestation of the choice made.

The brain "supplies the input" in response/reaction to the ongoing world around it (including of course, the rest of the body that it's a part of) - as such I don't see that it is any different to anything else. If your brain decides that you want sausages, it may be because your body is subconsciously tending you towards them because it knows that it needs the nutrients that sausages can provide, or any one of a million reasons - it's a part of the greater reactionary process just like everything else, not some magical born-from-nothing input.

That's how I see it anyway.

[barney]

Originally Posted by shredder

The brain "supplies the input" in response/reaction to the ongoing world around it <SNIP>

That's how I see it anyway.

Of course. The brain reacts to it's environment, but it's a leap to suggest that my typing this post is a result of the particles in my body falling into a state of disorder rather than being a conscious decision to do so. Even the unconscious/subconscious is a result of physiology, not particles following a predetermined path.

[shredder]

Originally Posted by barney

Of course. The brain reacts to it's environment, but it's a leap to suggest that my typing this post is a result of the particles in my body falling into a state of disorder rather than being a conscious decision to do so. Even the unconscious/subconscious is a result of physiology, not particles following a predetermined path.

I'm not arguing toward the 'predetermined path' line of thought (or against it - I simply wouldn't know and nor would anyone).

My point was that everything your brain does, has a cause - ultimately connecting it to everything else. In that regard it is not some separate entity from the rest of 'the system'. "A conscious decision" is simply a set of brainwaves caused by stimulus, working within the limitations of your brain's sub-systems. "Physiology" is no different from "geology" (or whatever) in terms of being a very complex system - it's no more or less subject to "pre-determination" (though I again state that I'm not arguing for predetermination, simply making the point that I believe that the brain is not a special entity in any such discussion).