Free Will?

[prkrruns]

I have come across this argument throughout my daily life several times and each time it has been very thought provocing I am excited to see what ideas ensue. I have an opinion but I would perfer to hear others and keep my voice fairly neutral.

[ChaosBorders]

let me ask you, if you order your thoughts or draw a conclusion without free will why would you bother?

Better question, how could I not? Of what relevance is free will to me ordering my thoughts and drawing conclusions?

Interesting choice of word there, relevance.

I think Filthy Tugboat explained quite adequately what I meant here.

So you're saying that nothing lies outside the construct of the brain? It is just a meat computer?

There is certainly no indication that anything which lies outside of the construct of the brain has any impact on our decision making process (or exists). So yes, the brain is in essence a biological computer. You may associate that with negative connotations, but I for one do not consider that a bad thing in the least.

Doesn't it? Self awareness allows you to know at least some of the inputs that you are absorbing and to discriminate between those inputs. If you can not discriminate you are in the position of the old "garbage in, garbage out."

How is that any different than a well designed computer program that throws out inputs that are not useful to it?

Random is the unknown factors that operate continuously on all systems. Causality will continue along until something operates on it. There are no complex systems that are immune to this effect. We can not predict an outcome with certainty when we have no way of knowing the full range of causal effects. From this stand point we can only experience randomness determination can not be certain. The very act that might alter an outcome might in it's turn be acted upon and so forth.

Which is why we cannot know the future with certainty. An all-knowing being would have no such problem. Thus our own inability to know the future because of our interaction with the system has no relevance whatsoever to whether the system itself is determined or not.

As to your time travel scenario, what we don't know about time travel would fill a dry lake bed, including whether or not we would be aware of changes. But one thing is certain, if we travel back into time our mere presence would be a time altering event. Another random introduction into a causality stream.

That is why I said rewind, not travel back. If you were merely hitting the rewind button on a movie and hitting play again, the same thing should happen every single time. If the universe is determined, that would be the case. If it is not, the movie should be able to turn out differently despite the initial scenes being the exact same. You are not interfering with the movie at all.

Indeterminacy of the fundamental physical laws reflects a deep fact about the nature of the Universe, it means it is not locked into a pattern of no escape and this means there is freedom on the deepest levels of creation.

If there is actually indeterminacy, yes it would indicate we are not locked into a fixed pattern. It would also be indicative that we are instead following along an arbitrarily random path.

And this is bad? This freedom as opposed to automation.

That depends on one's world view I suppose. When all the implications are considered, I can think of few things I consider more horrifying, but others would disagree.

We live our lives as improve not as scripted. I fail to see this as a bad thing.

Or our perception that we are improving is just part of the script.

The Copenhagen interpretation, the last I read, is still preferred among working physicists. Many theoretical scientist have gravitated to M theory and the like, as Nicholas Beale said it remains the favorite of atheist and science fiction writers.

Per wiki:

According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.[8] Although current trends show substantial competition from alternative interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had strong acceptance among physicists. Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.

It seems to me to be losing favor in the last few decades. It is noted in the source for the first poll that the poll was not particularly scientific in nature, but the "once nearly all dominant Copenhagen interpretation" received less than half of the votes. It is also said that in real world practice the results predicted by Copenhagen and MWI are nearly identical, making one's choice of which to believe more or less a matter of personal preference.

In other words, it is not even slightly certain which one might be true in actuality, leaving the question of randomness versus determination on a quantum level wide open.

[jbl1031]

let me ask you, if you order your thoughts or draw a conclusion without free will why would you bother?

Better question, how could I not? Of what relevance is free will to me ordering my thoughts and drawing conclusions?

Interesting choice of word there, relevance.

I think Filthy Tugboat explained quite adequately what I meant here.

So you're saying that nothing lies outside the construct of the brain? It is just a meat computer?

There is certainly no indication that anything which lies outside of the construct of the brain has any impact on our decision making process (or exists). So yes, the brain is in essence a biological computer. You may associate that with negative connotations, but I for one do not consider that a bad thing in the least.

Doesn't it? Self awareness allows you to know at least some of the inputs that you are absorbing and to discriminate between those inputs. If you can not discriminate you are in the position of the old "garbage in, garbage out."

How is that any different than a well designed computer program that throws out inputs that are not useful to it?

Random is the unknown factors that operate continuously on all systems. Causality will continue along until something operates on it. There are no complex systems that are immune to this effect. We can not predict an outcome with certainty when we have no way of knowing the full range of causal effects. From this stand point we can only experience randomness determination can not be certain. The very act that might alter an outcome might in it's turn be acted upon and so forth.

Which is why we cannot know the future with certainty. An all-knowing being would have no such problem. Thus our own inability to know the future because of our interaction with the system has no relevance whatsoever to whether the system itself is determined or not.

As to your time travel scenario, what we don't know about time travel would fill a dry lake bed, including whether or not we would be aware of changes. But one thing is certain, if we travel back into time our mere presence would be a time altering event. Another random introduction into a causality stream.

That is why I said rewind, not travel back. If you were merely hitting the rewind button on a movie and hitting play again, the same thing should happen every single time. If the universe is determined, that would be the case. If it is not, the movie should be able to turn out differently despite the initial scenes being the exact same. You are not interfering with the movie at all.

Indeterminacy of the fundamental physical laws reflects a deep fact about the nature of the Universe, it means it is not locked into a pattern of no escape and this means there is freedom on the deepest levels of creation.

If there is actually indeterminacy, yes it would indicate we are not locked into a fixed pattern. It would also be indicative that we are instead following along an arbitrarily random path.

And this is bad? This freedom as opposed to automation.

That depends on one's world view I suppose. When all the implications are considered, I can think of few things I consider more horrifying, but others would disagree.

We live our lives as improve not as scripted. I fail to see this as a bad thing.

Or our perception that we are improving is just part of the script.

The Copenhagen interpretation, the last I read, is still preferred among working physicists. Many theoretical scientist have gravitated to M theory and the like, as Nicholas Beale said it remains the favorite of atheist and science fiction writers.

Per wiki:

According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.[8] Although current trends show substantial competition from alternative interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had strong acceptance among physicists. Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.

It seems to me to be losing favor in the last few decades. It is noted in the source for the first poll that the poll was not particularly scientific in nature, but the "once nearly all dominant Copenhagen interpretation" received less than half of the votes. It is also said that in real world practice the results predicted by Copenhagen and MWI are nearly identical, making one's choice of which to believe more or less a matter of personal preference.

In other words, it is not even slightly certain which one might be true in actuality, leaving the question of randomness versus determination on a quantum level wide open.

Any way you slice it, you either for the sake of argument or because you really do believe, will stick to the concept of Soulless automaton. I prefer a much more open view of the universe and mans place in it.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Any way you slice it, you either for the sake of argument or because you really do believe, will stick to the concept of Soulless automaton. I prefer a much more open view of the universe and mans place in it.

Again, your preference neither affects what is true nor adds any valuable input to debate. You make it sound like a soulless automaton is a bad thing? As has been previously stated, lack of free will has no positive or negative connotation. It presents no poitive or negative benefits nor any moral status. What is negative about having no free will and merely doing what you are preprogrammed to do? Is there an alternative or merely opinions about what this alternative could be?

I noticed that when actually confronted with questions concerning why you believe in free will you backed off and left a sort of conclusion that indicates you are trying to back out of this debate as if you were on neutral ground. Sorry to inform you that because of your inability to answer the questions concerning the soul and your concepts of forces outside of the universe acting on the universe your arguments hold absolutely no weight. You backing out of this debate would be more conceding than leaving on neutral ground. I would love for you to remain and continue though as I feel we have finally gotten down to the fundamental concepts of your argument.

[jbl1031]

Any way you slice it, you either for the sake of argument or because you really do believe, will stick to the concept of Soulless automaton. I prefer a much more open view of the universe and mans place in it.

Again, your preference neither affects what is true nor adds any valuable input to debate. You make it sound like a soulless automaton is a bad thing? As has been previously stated, lack of free will has no positive or negative connotation. It presents no poitive or negative benefits nor any moral status. What is negative about having no free will and merely doing what you are preprogrammed to do?

If you have no problem being a soulless automaton than have at it! Do you believe it is a good thing. You say it as if you're trying to remain neutral but what do you offer other than your opinion?
Let's start with every determinist gripe against free will, that humanity is governed by a set of laws, particularly of physics. This of course means everything is under these laws and human beings are just complicated versions of the same stuff as everything else so that whatever law of physics runs the universe also controls us. After all everything else conforms to causal laws just as we are agents of cause. As I said, about the only thing that sets us apart is that we're somewhat more complicated. Is that about right?
Of course we can't know everything about all the universe, and right here are some pretty complex creatures that for all we know display their own form of free will. They may be agents themselves, causing their own behavior

You do know that if determination does control everything you do then your belief in determinism is determined. But if I believe, as I do, that determinism is false, by your measure that too is determined. You have no choice in what you believe. Apparently you don't care that you have no choice, but I find that I do care. Is that also determined? With determination we lose objectivity.
As for me I choose to live in a world where I can be held responsible for the choices I make. Like for instance deciding that I am not going to rob a store or drive drunk and kill someone in spite of causal events in my life that could somehow lead me to do so if I allowed them. I know it's an old argument but if a person is not free in their decision making how can we hold their actions accountable? Punishment for crime becomes a waste of time.
You wrote of benefit well the benefit of libertarian free will comes when we decide to use our will to perform generous acts, to treat others kindly and to see that this world is abetter place, actions that are not dictated by circumstance, actions that are not just for our own sake but because it is the right thing to do. Determinism can not lead us to right or wrong, it simply is.

Is there an alternative or merely opinions about what this alternative could be?

The bulk of this conversation is opinion. Quantum physics is considered deterministic by some physicists, indeterministic by others, there is no consensus therefore any conclusions you draw are ultimately opinion.
Obviously by my reckoning the alternative is libertarian free will.

I noticed that when actually confronted with questions concerning why you believe in free will you backed off and left a sort of conclusion that indicates you are trying to back out of this debate as if you were on neutral ground. Sorry to inform you that because of your inability to answer the questions concerning the soul and your concepts of forces outside of the universe acting on the universe your arguments hold absolutely no weight. You backing out of this debate would be more conceding than leaving on neutral ground. I would love for you to remain and continue though as I feel we have finally gotten down to the fundamental concepts of your argument.

I am seldom on neutral ground about anything. I am running out of time, I have to go to work and it may be a few days before I can get back. So in answer to your questions on soul.

[font=Tahoma] Next to the error of those who deny God ... there is none which is more effectual in leading feeble minds from the straight path of virtue than to imagine that . . . after this life we have nothing to fear or to hope for, any more than the flies or the ants. [/font]
René Descartes (1596–1650)
Discourse on Method
[font=Tahoma] Descartes also argues in "Meditations" for the immortality of the soul by suggesting a radical difference between mind and body, that mind is in no way dependent on the body for its existence.[/font]
As soon as I can get back we will talk some more.

[Filthy Tugboat]

If you have no problem being a soulless automaton than have at it! Do you believe it is a good thing. You say it as if you're trying to remain neutral but what do you offer other than your opinion?

My opinions of it are of no consequence, do my opinions of whether it is good or bad effect the reality? Well, no. To be honest it makes no difference whether it is truth or not, if free will is a reality I will act and feel the same as if determinism is a reality. I feel that determinism is better represented by the evidence and logical proofs but I am prepared to be proven wrong if you could support your position with adequate evidence.

I have offered many logical proofs that are based on the concept that every thing that happens in this universe is a direct result of previous events, can you provide any evidence that suggests there is any forces acting upon the universe that would throw off this deterministic pattern? If we looked at the past and watched it come to fruition without any interaction is it possible for things to happen differently? What reasoning is there to support that things could have been different?

Let's start with every determinist gripe against free will, that humanity is governed by a set of laws, particularly of physics. This of course means everything is under these laws and human beings are just complicated versions of the same stuff as everything else so that whatever law of physics runs the universe also controls us. After all everything else conforms to causal laws just as we are agents of cause. As I said, about the only thing that sets us apart is that we're somewhat more complicated. Is that about right?

Yes, that is correct except I wouldn't even suggest we are that more complicated. That is really a matter of perspective, life in itself is unique but a planets atmosphere, tectonic plates down to the very core of the planet is extremely complicated and one could argue far more so than a human or any other living organism.

Of course we can't know everything about all the universe, and right here are some pretty complex creatures that for all we know display their own form of free will. They may be agents themselves, causing their own behavior

It is possible, do you have any evidence to back up this theory?

You do know that if determination does control everything you do then your belief in determinism is determined. But if I believe, as I do, that determinism is false, by your measure that too is determined. You have no choice in what you believe. Apparently you don't care that you have no choice, but I find that I do care. Is that also determined? With determination we lose objectivity.

Yes everything would be determined, you changing your mind could also be determined. This is why it is hard to argue from the angle you're trying. Determinism still has the guise of free will. I would also argue that beliefs are not based in choice even if free will were a reality. I have no choice in believing what evidence I find more convincing. I have the same lack of belief in the sky being green as I do in God. How do we lose objectivity with determinism? How do we gain objectivity with free will?

As for me I choose to live in a world where I can be held responsible for the choices I make. Like for instance deciding that I am not going to rob a store or drive drunk and kill someone in spite of causal events in my life that could somehow lead me to do so if I allowed them. I know it's an old argument but if a person is not free in their decision making how can we hold their actions accountable? Punishment for crime becomes a waste of time.

We are still responsible for our actions and that is why consequences still apply regardless of whether what we do is really changeable. Just because the future is determined does not mean life loses meaning and social consequences do not apply or become a waste. Those social consequences help determine the future, just because it is not changeable does not mean that the future is not determined by our actions, we just don't know what our actions will be. If we give up on punishment and law enforcement the future will not be a pleasant one.

You wrote of benefit well the benefit of libertarian free will comes when we decide to use our will to perform generous acts, to treat others kindly and to see that this world is abetter place, actions that are not dictated by circumstance, actions that are not just for our own sake but because it is the right thing to do. Determinism can not lead us to right or wrong, it simply is.

Is there anyway to show that there is an alternative to determinism? Our will to perform generous acts is present in determinism. What actions do you know of that are not dictated by circumstance and how does ones previous history not dictate the response in any situation? What other force is there outside of 'who we are' in every sense of the term?

Is there an alternative or merely opinions about what this alternative could be?

The bulk of this conversation is opinion. Quantum physics is considered deterministic by some physicists, indeterministic by others, there is no consensus therefore any conclusions you draw are ultimately opinion.
Obviously by my reckoning the alternative is libertarian free will.

Well there is logical consistency with a deterministic universe. Unless you can propose something that acts upon this universe which throws it into randomness then what else is there?

I am seldom on neutral ground about anything. I am running out of time, I have to go to work and it may be a few days before I can get back. So in answer to your questions on soul.

[font=Tahoma] Next to the error of those who deny God ... there is none which is more effectual in leading feeble minds from the straight path of virtue than to imagine that . . . after this life we have nothing to fear or to hope for, any more than the flies or the ants. [/font]
René Descartes (1596–1650)
Discourse on Method
[font=Tahoma] Descartes also argues in "Meditations" for the immortality of the soul by suggesting a radical difference between mind and body, that mind is in no way dependent on the body for its existence.[/font]
As soon as I can get back we will talk some more.

I'm going to need you to expand on Descartes work, how does he argue that there is such a separation between mind and body that it cannot be accounted for with a physical explanation? The top quote is merely conjecture and it does nothing to support the existence of the soul.

[jbl1031]

I have offered many logical proofs that are based on the concept that every thing that happens in this universe is a direct result of previous events, can you provide any evidence that suggests there is any forces acting upon the universe that would throw off this deterministic pattern? If we looked at the past and watched it come to fruition without any interaction is it possible for things to happen differently? What reasoning is there to support that things could have been different?

Truthfully you have offered no proofs only your vision of the universe if it is the you say it is.
Your argument is recursive, circular logic that paraphrases an already assumed conclusion as its premise -- " All things, our actions, our thoughts, our experiences are predetermined by everything that has gone on before, therefore our lives are beyond our control."
By denying exceptions, you make absolute determinism scientifically unfalsifiable. And the claim that, "If we looked at the past and watched it come to fruition without any interaction is it possible for things to happen differently?" is also a scientifically unfalsifiable claim.

As I said, about the only thing that sets us apart is that we're somewhat more complicated....

Yes, that is correct except I wouldn't even suggest we are that more complicated. That is really a matter of perspective, life in itself is unique but a planets atmosphere, tectonic plates down to the very core of the planet is extremely complicated and one could argue far more so than a human or any other living organism.

I don't think you would get a lot of takers in the scientific community for that argument.

Of course we can't know everything about all the universe, and right here are some pretty complex creatures that for all we know display their own form of free will. They may be agents themselves, causing their own behavior

It is possible, do you have any evidence to back up this theory?r

No not really it was only a speculative thought to the possibility that animal life may cause it's own behavior. If true it would shoot a hole in determinism.

You do know that if determination does control everything you do then your belief in determinism is determined. But if I believe, as I do, that determinism is false, by your measure that too is determined. You have no choice in what you believe. Apparently you don't care that you have no choice, but I find that I do care. Is that also determined? With determination we lose objectivity.

Yes everything would be determined, you changing your mind could also be determined. This is why it is hard to argue from the angle you're trying. Determinism still has the guise of free will. I would also argue that beliefs are not based in choice even if free will were a reality. I have no choice in believing what evidence I find more convincing. I have the same lack of belief in the sky being green as I do in God. How do we lose objectivity with determinism? How do we gain objectivity with free will?

Again your argument is circular with your premise assuming your conclusion.
Your green sky analogy is interesting, I know what you meant, but I have seen green sky and I have felt God.
A little like saying all swans are white.

As for me I choose to live in a world where I can be held responsible for the choices I make. Like for instance deciding that I am not going to rob a store or drive drunk and kill someone in spite of causal events in my life that could somehow lead me to do so if I allowed them. I know it's an old argument but if a person is not free in their decision making how can we hold their actions accountable? Punishment for crime becomes a waste of time.

We are still responsible for our actions and that is why consequences still apply regardless of whether what we do is really changeable. Just because the future is determined does not mean life loses meaning and social consequences do not apply or become a waste. Those social consequences help determine the future, just because it is not changeable does not mean that the future is not determined by our actions, we just don't know what our actions will be. If we give up on punishment and law enforcement the future will not be a pleasant one.

.

I get your meaning but you are drifting away from hard determinism and more in the direction of compatibilism.

You wrote of benefit well the benefit of libertarian free will comes when we decide to use our will to perform generous acts, to treat others kindly and to see that this world is abetter place, actions that are not dictated by circumstance, actions that are not just for our own sake but because it is the right thing to do. Determinism can not lead us to right or wrong, it simply is.

Is there anyway to show that there is an alternative to determinism? Our will to perform generous acts is present in determinism. What actions do you know of that are not dictated by circumstance and how does ones previous history not dictate the response in any situation? What other force is there outside of 'who we are' in every sense of the term?

The will to perform generous acts must come from the free heart. A will that is only caused to do anything has no ability to be generous because generosity must be agent directed. Like a politician looking out for their self and realizes his or her actions are wrong and still proceeds to do wrong has made a conscious decision.

Is there an alternative or merely opinions about what this alternative could be?

The bulk of this conversation is opinion. Quantum physics is considered deterministic by some physicists, indeterministic by others, there is no consensus therefore any conclusions you draw are ultimately opinion.
Obviously by my reckoning the alternative is libertarian free will.

Well there is logical consistency with a deterministic universe. Unless you can propose something that acts upon this universe which throws it into randomness then what else is there?

Your deterministic universe is no more logical than any other model. While true randomness is difficult to define

I am seldom on neutral ground about anything. I am running out of time, I have to go to work and it may be a few days before I can get back. So in answer to your questions on soul.

[font=Tahoma] Next to the error of those who deny God ... there is none which is more effectual in leading feeble minds from the straight path of virtue than to imagine that . . . after this life we have nothing to fear or to hope for, any more than the flies or the ants. [/font]
René Descartes (1596–1650)
Discourse on Method
[font=Tahoma] Descartes also argues in "Meditations" for the immortality of the soul by suggesting a radical difference between mind and body, that mind is in no way dependent on the body for its existence.[/font]
As soon as I can get back we will talk some more.

I'm going to need you to expand on Descartes work, how does he argue that there is such a separation between mind and body that it cannot be accounted for with a physical explanation? The top quote is merely conjecture and it does nothing to support the existence of the soul.[/quote]

[jbl1031]

If you have no problem being a soulless automaton than have at it! Do you believe it is a good thing. You say it as if you're trying to remain neutral but what do you offer other than your opinion?

My opinions of it are of no consequence, do my opinions of whether it is good or bad effect the reality? Well, no. To be honest it makes no difference whether it is truth or not, if free will is a reality I will act and feel the same as if determinism is a reality. I feel that determinism is better represented by the evidence and logical proofs but I am prepared to be proven wrong if you could support your position with adequate evidence.
I have offered many logical proofs that are based on the concept that every thing that happens in this universe is a direct result of previous events, can you provide any evidence that suggests there is any forces acting upon the universe that would throw off this deterministic pattern? If we looked at the past and watched it come to fruition without any interaction is it possible for things to happen differently? What reasoning is there to support that things could have been different?

But your opinions do have consequence, because you have opinions.
Truthfully you have offered no proofs only your vision of the universe if it is the you say it is.
Your argument is recursive, circular logic that paraphrases an already assumed conclusion as its premise -- " All things, our actions, our thoughts, our experiences are predetermined by everything that has gone on before, therefore our lives are beyond our control."
By denying exceptions, you make absolute determinism scientifically unfalsifiable. And the claim that, "If we looked at the past and watched it come to fruition without any interaction is it possible for things to happen differently?" is also a scientifically unfalsifiable claim.

Let's start with every determinist gripe against free will, that humanity is governed by a set of laws, particularly of physics. This of course means everything is under these laws and human beings are just complicated versions of the same stuff as everything else so that whatever law of physics runs the universe also controls us. After all everything else conforms to causal laws just as we are agents of cause. As I said, about the only thing that sets us apart is that we're somewhat more complicated. Is that about right?

Yes, that is correct except I wouldn't even suggest we are that more complicated. That is really a matter of perspective, life in itself is unique but a planets atmosphere, tectonic plates down to the very core of the planet is extremely complicated and one could argue far more so than a human or any other living organism.

I don't think you would get a lot of takers in the scientific community for that argument.

Of course we can't know everything about all the universe, and right here are some pretty complex creatures that for all we know display their own form of free will. They may be agents themselves, causing their own behavior

It is possible, do you have any evidence to back up this theory?

No not really it was only a speculative thought to the possibility that animal life may cause it's own behavior. If true it would shoot a hole in determinism.

You do know that if determination does control everything you do then your belief in determinism is determined. But if I believe, as I do, that determinism is false, by your measure that too is determined. You have no choice in what you believe. Apparently you don't care that you have no choice, but I find that I do care. Is that also determined? With determination we lose objectivity.

Yes everything would be determined, you changing your mind could also be determined. This is why it is hard to argue from the angle you're trying. Determinism still has the guise of free will. I would also argue that beliefs are not based in choice even if free will were a reality. I have no choice in believing what evidence I find more convincing. I have the same lack of belief in the sky being green as I do in God. How do we lose objectivity with determinism? How do we gain objectivity with free will?

Again your argument is circular with your premise assuming your conclusion.
Your green sky analogy is interesting, I know what you meant, but I have seen green sky and I have felt God.
A little like saying all swans are white.

As for me I choose to live in a world where I can be held responsible for the choices I make. Like for instance deciding that I am not going to rob a store or drive drunk and kill someone in spite of causal events in my life that could somehow lead me to do so if I allowed them. I know it's an old argument but if a person is not free in their decision making how can we hold their actions accountable? Punishment for crime becomes a waste of time.

We are still responsible for our actions and that is why consequences still apply regardless of whether what we do is really changeable. Just because the future is determined does not mean life loses meaning and social consequences do not apply or become a waste. Those social consequences help determine the future, just because it is not changeable does not mean that the future is not determined by our actions, we just don't know what our actions will be. If we give up on punishment and law enforcement the future will not be a pleasant one.

You are right about a future in which we abandon law enforcement but don't you see... there are many very brilliant thinkers like Galen Strawson who are hard determinist who see the fallacy in your form of determinist logic and advocate for the nonpunishment of criminals because they see crime as not being the criminals fault.

You wrote of benefit well the benefit of libertarian free will comes when we decide to use our will to perform generous acts, to treat others kindly and to see that this world is abetter place, actions that are not dictated by circumstance, actions that are not just for our own sake but because it is the right thing to do. Determinism can not lead us to right or wrong, it simply is.

Is there anyway to show that there is an alternative to determinism? Our will to perform generous acts is present in determinism. What actions do you know of that are not dictated by circumstance and how does ones previous history not dictate the response in any situation? What other force is there outside of 'who we are' in every sense of the term?

Well in this case I could say God, but I pretty much get it that you want something else. How about this? How about the amazing human mind? Our minds filter the alternative possibilities that we are presented with and looks for reason in the variations of our past actions. This is a selection of possibilities and is a kind of causal action in it's self called adequate determinism.

Is there an alternative or merely opinions about what this alternative could be?

The bulk of this conversation is opinion. Quantum physics is considered deterministic by some physicists, indeterministic by others, there is no consensus therefore any conclusions you draw are ultimately opinion.
Obviously by my reckoning the alternative is libertarian free will.

Well there is logical consistency with a deterministic universe. Unless you can propose something that acts upon this universe which throws it into randomness then what else is there?

See above.

[font=Tahoma] Next to the error of those who deny God ... there is none which is more effectual in leading feeble minds from the straight path of virtue than to imagine that . . . after this life we have nothing to fear or to hope for, any more than the flies or the ants. [/font]
René Descartes (1596–1650)
Discourse on Method
[font=Tahoma] Descartes also argues in "Meditations" for the immortality of the soul by suggesting a radical difference between mind and body, that mind is in no way dependent on the body for its existence.[/font]
As soon as I can get back we will talk some more.

I'm going to need you to expand on Descartes work, how does he argue that there is such a separation between mind and body that it cannot be accounted for with a physical explanation? The top quote is merely conjecture and it does nothing to support the existence of the soul.

Not conjecture belief, Descartes had no doubt. After all he wrote Cogito ergo sum "I am thinking therefore I exist."

René Descartes believed the soul caused conscious thought and was nonmaterial and does not follow the laws of physics. he believed only humans had minds and saw the body as a machine. Descartes believed the heat of the heart somehow caused all movement of the body.
And while I do not believe everything Descartes wrote I do agree with his mind body dualism.

[Filthy Tugboat]

My opinions of it are of no consequence, do my opinions of whether it is good or bad effect the reality? Well, no. To be honest it makes no difference whether it is truth or not, if free will is a reality I will act and feel the same as if determinism is a reality. I feel that determinism is better represented by the evidence and logical proofs but I am prepared to be proven wrong if you could support your position with adequate evidence.

I have offered many logical proofs that are based on the concept that every thing that happens in this universe is a direct result of previous events, can you provide any evidence that suggests there is any forces acting upon the universe that would throw off this deterministic pattern? If we looked at the past and watched it come to fruition without any interaction is it possible for things to happen differently? What reasoning is there to support that things could have been different?

But your opinions do have consequence, because you have opinions.
Truthfully you have offered no proofs only your vision of the universe if it is the you say it is.

Your argument is recursive, circular logic that paraphrases an already assumed conclusion as its premise -- " All things, our actions, our thoughts, our experiences are predetermined by everything that has gone on before, therefore our lives are beyond our control."

By denying exceptions, you make absolute determinism scientifically unfalsifiable. And the claim that, "If we looked at the past and watched it come to fruition without any interaction is it possible for things to happen differently?" is also a scientifically unfalsifiable claim.

My opinions in general do have consequence but in this matter relating to whether determinism is a reality or free will my opinion do not matter. I don't need to offer anything other than the question of what in this universe is random? If you say nothing then how could the universe not be determined? If you say something then what is random and how does it effect this universe? I am not denying exceptions, I am actually asking for you to present some. I will answer your comments on the human mind later. They may be scientifically unfalsifiable but do we have any reason to believe that they are not a reality? Given this is a thread in the philospohy subforum my questions may very well be scientifically unfalsifiable, that doesn't make them incorrect.

Yes, that is correct except I wouldn't even suggest we are that more complicated. That is really a matter of perspective, life in itself is unique but a planets atmosphere, tectonic plates down to the very core of the planet is extremely complicated and one could argue far more so than a human or any other living organism.

I don't think you would get a lot of takers in the scientific community for that argument.

Why not? The complexity of planets, of solar systems, of galaxies is immeasurable, the complexity of living organisms is the same. We are literally comparing sources of infinite complexity here, how can you say one is more or less complex than the other?

Yes everything would be determined, you changing your mind could also be determined. This is why it is hard to argue from the angle you're trying. Determinism still has the guise of free will. I would also argue that beliefs are not based in choice even if free will were a reality. I have no choice in believing what evidence I find more convincing. I have the same lack of belief in the sky being green as I do in God. How do we lose objectivity with determinism? How do we gain objectivity with free will?

Again your argument is circular with your premise assuming your conclusion.
Your green sky analogy is interesting, I know what you meant, but I have seen green sky and I have felt God.
A little like saying all swans are white.

I am not presenting a deductive argument here, I am merely presenting my views, my logic is suggesting that all that we are is made up of previous events, is there any reason to believe that something in us is not made up of the past? Because your argument rests on that, free will suggests that we can make free decisions, determinism suggests that everything ever done was caused by previous events. If we do not live in a deterministic universe then what in our decision making proccess is not born of the past? My analogy was more or less reffering to the more common sky or even the current sky outside my window right now, I am dead sure it is blue because I can see the evidence for it being blue and I have no reason to believe that it is green. I'm sure you can apply that analogy to some form of God-like figure.

We are still responsible for our actions and that is why consequences still apply regardless of whether what we do is really changeable. Just because the future is determined does not mean life loses meaning and social consequences do not apply or become a waste. Those social consequences help determine the future, just because it is not changeable does not mean that the future is not determined by our actions, we just don't know what our actions will be. If we give up on punishment and law enforcement the future will not be a pleasant one.

You are right about a future in which we abandon law enforcement but don't you see... there are many very brilliant thinkers like Galen Strawson who are hard determinist who see the fallacy in your form of determinist logic and advocate for the nonpunishment of criminals because they see crime as not being the criminals fault.

Well, all I can say is that I do not support that kind of thinking. Punishment is more than revenge or spite. Punishment is a form of education and the way we use it, it is also a form of seperation. Separating the criminals from the law-abiding members of society. Maintaining a safe environment for the majority. Regardless of if the criminals were truly at fault the future being determined would not be a pretty one if we removed this proccess all together.

Is there anyway to show that there is an alternative to determinism? Our will to perform generous acts is present in determinism. What actions do you know of that are not dictated by circumstance and how does ones previous history not dictate the response in any situation? What other force is there outside of 'who we are' in every sense of the term?

Well in this case I could say God, but I pretty much get it that you want something else [It's not even about what I want, it is about what is supportable with evidence and reason]. How about this? How about the amazing human mind? Our minds filter the alternative possibilities that we are presented with and looks for reason in the variations of our past actions. This is a selection of possibilities and is a kind of causal action in it's self called adequate determinism.

Is there anyway to show that the minds decision was not entirely based upon previous events? Do we have any reason to believe that our minds can act in a random manner that is not apart of a causal or deterministic universe? How would this be a good thing? Would this be the opposite of progress? Is this theory advocating the absense of everything we have learned from past experience and abandoning who we are and how we think?

[font=Tahoma] Next to the error of those who deny God ... there is none which is more effectual in leading feeble minds from the straight path of virtue than to imagine that . . . after this life we have nothing to fear or to hope for, any more than the flies or the ants. [/font]
René Descartes (1596–1650)
Discourse on Method
[font=Tahoma] Descartes also argues in "Meditations" for the immortality of the soul by suggesting a radical difference between mind and body, that mind is in no way dependent on the body for its existence.[/font]
Not conjecture belief, Descartes had no doubt. After all he wrote Cogito ergo sum "I am thinking therefore I exist."
René Descartes believed the soul caused conscious thought and was nonmaterial and does not follow the laws of physics. he believed only humans had minds and saw the body as a machine. Descartes believed the heat of the heart somehow caused all movement of the body.
And while I do not believe everything Descartes wrote I do agree with his mind body dualism.

You may very well agree but do you have anyway to show that it is true? Is there any reason you can think of that I should believe this? Why should his beliefs and his conjecture about what the soul is and that it exists be taken any more seriously than my opinions of a purely materialistic universe?