Duns, et al, Free Will Vs. Determinism

by larc 58 Replies latest jw friends

  • DCs Ghost
    DCs Ghost

    which takes us to why they did get together, which usually is a matter of choice, and timing,

    to suggest that behavior and actions are a result of one's genes is dismissing any responsibility for one's actions, thus giving a possible rise in acting up in a sociopathic way,

    perhaps there are certain factors within our system that create certain interests or abilities, that affect out moods, temperament or a even a particular taste for a certain food or other, i could see this being "governed" within our cells, because of what we acquire through heredity,

    but when it comes down to our day to day choices what we crave and whether we choose McD's or Wendy's,
    coke or pepsi these are free will choices,

    the same in the case of who we hook up with, who we take home at the end of the nite (though usually alcohol influences this) what music we listen to, what books we read, what religion we choose as adults, these i feel fall into the free will category,

    i would have to favor free will, whether it be from lack of knowledge about determinism or because i fancy myself as an independent thinker not restricting myself to anyone's ideaologies but open to new thoughts,

    just a thought,
    what if the thought of free will is already programmed into our "determined" dna,
    it would be kinda like holding two mirrors against each other and trying to see the last of their reflections. . .

  • larc
    larc

    DC,

    Thank you for your very thoughtful response to my query on another thread.

    I want address five major themes that you discussed. First of all, you mentioned that some of our behavior may be determined by our cells, genes, and dna. As I wrote to Duns, some of our behavior is also due to the culture and the unique subculture you are born into. The example I used was, that if you lived in a Buddist culture and were raised my Buddist parents, you will become a Buddist. So, culture is a very powerful influence on us as well. Therefore, these two factors, genetics and culture do limit our free will. Of course, that does not mean that these two factors eliminate free will altogether.

    Your second point had to do with your interest in music, even though this interest is not found in your family. To comment on this, I have to draw on some research on the make up of intelliegence. The WAIS, a measure of IQ that I mentioned earlier, measures three components of intelligence, Verbal, Quantitative, and Spatial. Briefly, spatial ability is the ability to see pictures in your mind and the ability to fantisize and create. For right handed people this ability is found in the right hemisphere of the brain where as the ability to learn vocabulary and math are found in the left side of the brain. I red an entire book on the subject of spatial ability, and the author's conclusions were that it is not given proper weight in demonstrating someone's potential. He also showed evidence that a number of great scientists had great spatial ability. He showed that many of them saw pictures in their heads before they could quantify their ideas with equations. DC, I am finaly getting to you. This creative, spatial side, right brained activity is also very imporntant in music. As a side note, many engineers also become musicians. The group Boston is an example of this. Therefore, you may have been born with this intellectual gift of high spatial ability that gave you a musical inclination. Your example of your mother's skill fits with what I am saying. Therfore, you may have been born with the inate capacity to "do" music. What prompted you do develope this ability, is beyond the scope of what I can contribute. I would bet that if you thought about it, you could come up with some early influences in your life that led you in that direction.

    Like you, I am going to stop here and post more after a break.

  • larc
    larc

    DC,

    You made a useful and valid point. That is, if we believe in determinism and not free will, then we can as you said, be someone who will be "dismissing any rsponsibility for one's actions." I see this as a problem as well. If you go back, there is an earlier post where I discuss this problem in some detail. To believe on a personal level that everything is deterministic is to believe that nothing is our fault. This is a dangerous idea to hold. In my opinion, our society has gone too far in this direction. We have become a nation of fault finders, blamers, and sickness addicts. In other words, too many people are saying that nothing is their fault. It's their parents, their genes, their getto upbringing, their religious upbringing and on and on ad nausium. I find this to be trouble some.

    Another point you made had to do with determinism and psychology as a soft science. Actually, determinism is the underpinning of all science. Science trys to find order in apparent disorder. Science trys to find lawful relationships between events. Psychology as a science operates from the same premise, but is the youngest science, and so, it has not progressed as far as the other sciences, although amazing progress has been made in my life time.

    My last point is a minor one. It had to do with your comment about who you take home at the end of the evening. You added that alcohol can be a factor here. This is an example of determinism. Alcohol affects behavior in predictable ways. That is why guys buy women drinks. Time for a joke: do you know the difference between a dog and a fox? A six pack.

    After all this writing, I am still back where I started, to wit (As Rutherfore used to write), (1) I believe in determinism when science is involved. (2) What I do day to day "feels like" free will and that is good enough for me. (3) The idea of determinism is a very useful scientific theory, but should never be adopted by society. I have one caviat to my last statement. If determinism allows us to have more mercy for our fellow man, then that might be a good thing.

  • DCs Ghost
    DCs Ghost

    hey Larc thanks for responding,
    you mentioned 5 themes that i had touched on so for simplicity i will answer to one at a time as to keep focus. . .

    some of our behavior is also due to the culture and the unique subculture you are born into

    i totally agree with you on this, so far as to it being one of the triggers that started me questioning the borg,
    i believe that our behavior may be influenced by culture to a certain degree, but does that mean that our behavior and our will are synonymous?

    granted that our culture can influence us into thinking a certain way and guiding our values into a certain direction, in as much as almost choosing our spiritual path, and may even set our moral parameters within our views, as well can influences do the same, but even then no one really doesn't do anything that they don't want to do in as far as being influenced, we can succumb to the pressure of influence, but in the end it is our choice and our reasons from which we act. . .

    but what about those that break away from tradition, and look beyond their immediate surroundings in order to find answers or experiences unavailable within the circle of the community and culture/sub that they are in?
    will or nature?
    is that urge to explore beyond the immediate an ingrained thought process, or is it learned?
    if it is ingrained then perhaps it is natures way of evolving the species, most inventors/revolutionaries went against the grain of common thought and explored outside their immediate surroundings, thus causing change, is this common link a choice of will, or a preset of nature
    is this the trigger for rebellion or the trigger for knowledge,

    if it is learned this could be subject to a number of theories, but if it is preset then there is no will, simply chaos and chance order within disorder,

    i believe it is the hindus that believe that before we come to earth we choose our parents, social status, destiny etc, a choice made in the pre-life in order to learn certain lessons and experience certain situations, of course this is open for discussion and highly arguable but it holds the premise of free will in the sense that it allows the soul to choose its course in order to evolve into nirvana. . .

    "we do not see the world as it is,
    we see the world as we are. . ." Anais Nin

  • larc
    larc

    DC,

    Again, I want to thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this subject. I don't think I will be writing any more commentary, because I have pretty much expressed all my opinions.

    I have one last thought to express. Coming from a JW backgroud within a Judeo-Christian structure, does not provide us with a definitive answer to this question, in my opinion. On the one hand, we are taught that we can choose between good and evil. On the the hand, we are taught certain deterministic statements. A prime example to me is Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Now, that is about as deterministic as you can get.

    Any way, those are my thoughts for the day.

  • CPiolo
    CPiolo

    I thought I'd add my two cents to this discussion.

    I am in accord with larc. I believe we have freewill within a deterministic framework -- language, culture, subculture, race, sex, geography, place and time of birth, one's genetic make-up, economic class, etc. These factors, in many cases, are near impossible to escape. They form the lenses through which we view and filter the world, and determine, to a greater or lesser extent depending on the factor, how we interact with the world.

    Our development as humans is dependent upon many things that demarcate who we are, what capabilities we have and further determine what possibilities there may be for us. Take nutrition. A malnourished child will not develop properly or to his or her full potential, and severely limits the individual as an adult. Child rearing also plays a significant role. I read a study where it was shown that little or no physical contact between mother and newborn infant prevented part of the brain of the infant from developing normally, the way a child's brain with mother-infant contact developed. These children tended to be less social and less equipped at interacting with other people, and more likely to be sociopaths. What about children born with AIDS, addicted to drugs, Down's Syndrome, or some other congenital defect or disease?

    As someone who is fairly proficient in more than one language, I can attest to the fact that a language has a great influence on how one thinks and even what one thinks about. That's what drove me learn a second language in the first place. It determines what I am capable of thinking and saying as well as how I say and think it. A clichéed example is the Innuit people who've got some 100 or so words for snow (I don't know the accuracy of this example, but it will serve to make my point), because in their environment, their lives, and their culture, snow plays a significant role. Being knowledgeable about snow can be a matter of survival, whether it's to determine if it's safe to pass a through a certain place, or to know how old the tracks you are following when hunting. On the other hand, a desert people might not have a word in their language for snow or maybe only one word for snow because in their day to day lives it is of little or no importance.

    Environment is also a deterministic factor as shown by the above example. The environment determines what words are formed by distinct cultures in order to describe their world and circumstances, and to communicate as needed with other members of their group. But it can also have psychological effects as well. Take someone who has grown up in the Amazon jungle, who has never seen the horizon, and who is used to being surrounded by trees and plants, and covered by the forest canopy. Then take a plains Indian from North America who knows nothing more than open space, the horizon and the big sky visible at all times. Now have these two people trade places. How would each feel in the other's environment. Would the Plains Indian feel claustrophobic, confined and disoriented? I think so. How would this person react? Would the Amazon Indian feel vulnerable, lost, alone and disoriented in so much openess, and how would this person react?

    Sex as well determines much of who and what we are. The so-called battle of the sexes and the difficulty men and women have communicating with each other, even when they are speaking the same language and are from the same culture is an example.

    As larc pointed out, one's religion, more often than not, is determined by the religion of one's family. It is the rare individual who does not follow the religion of their parents. And when there is a difference, it is often a matter of different sects with the same religion, i.e. the Catholic becomes a Protestant, the Methodist becomes a Baptist, or the Shi'ite Muslim becomes a Sunni or Sufi Muslim. In other words, the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. In some places in the world, to openly believe other than what is officially sanctioned is reason for arrest, imprisonment, torture, and/or death.

    Our physiogomy as well shapes our perceptions, regulating what we can and cannot sense and perceive. We are limited by our senses. There are other creatures on earth that sense beyond our human capacities, seeing better (not just farther and more clearly, but beyond the color spectrum of human sight, i.e. ultraviolet light), hearing better, smelling better and so forth. We have developed technology and machines to sense and measure what we are incapable of, but there is no way for us to know these things experientially, only vicariously through our intellect and our technology. Our intellect as well limits us, not only as individuals, but as a species.

    Someone who immigrates from one culture to another can adapt themselves to the new culture (with the ease of such a transition determined by personality, the circumstances under which they immigrated, etc.) while not abandoning their native culture, and can choose to what extent they adopt the new culture into their life. Successive generations will gradually abandon the old culture for the new; the new culture having a stronger deterministic role in their lives. The sociopath can choose to follow the rules of society, even if their is no internal moral compass directing them. But one can't choose one's culture, can't choose to be a sociopath or not (as far as I know, but could choose sociopathic behavior), can't choose to have good vision or bad, be tall or short, to like certain music, etc., etc., etc.

    There's seems to be no way to escape from certain deterministic factors in our lives. What is possible is the use of freewill within a deterministic framework, the deterministic framework limiting our freewill.

    CPiolo

    P.S. DC, I read of a recent cosmological discovery, currently going through peer review (initially the results look very promising), that our immutable laws are not immutable. The results showed that the speed of light has changed, ever so slightly, since the beginning of the universe. This may mean that other previously thought constants may have changed as well.

  • larc
    larc

    CPiolo,

    I enjoyed reading your additions to this thread. Of course, I enjoyed reading your ideas, because they agree with mine. -:)

  • larc
    larc

    Brought this back up because the subject of free will is being discussed on another thread.

  • larc
    larc

    This is a heavy duty subject with lots of reading. I am curios as to how many will get this far to offer an opinion on the subject.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit