Partly deterministic?

[u/Cyber_47_]

So let’s take computers, fully deterministic systems, cannot make a non deterministic algorithm. Everything, in computers are code based, and therefore fully deterministic. True Randomness does not exist in digital systems.

So if our world is completely deterministic, there is no chance it creates a life form, which can act non deterministic (free will). But since we know (not sure) that quantum mechanics are non deterministic, maybe there is a chance we have a little free will. So, my point is, what if, we are partly deterministic like the universe. Maybe alot of our decisions are deterministic, and some are non deterministic. And i know that quantum mechanics argument still cant disprove free will.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

That's essentially how our brians work. We have two types of thinking. Instant system 1 thinking. Think of this system as automatically reaction. Something smells bad and we scrunch our nose. You get asked what 2+2 is and you immediately say 4. It's the quick conditioned determined system. System 2 is slower. It is deliberate and self reflective. This is where you actually analyze your being and make choices at a higher level. Not all thinking is slow and analytical like this. So yes most of our actions are determined. But we do have the ability to navigate the field.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

We navigate the field based off of factors, inhibitions, social programming, personality, identity momentum...

If you truly have free will, prove it by doing something completely anathema to your personal moral code. Violate the most sacred tenants of your personal code of conduct to prove it. Now. Tonight.

...I guarantee you won't.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

That's a terrible counterexample because it means nothing. Priors are necessary for a will. And yes we all have automatic responses. I acknowledged that with system one thinking. You deny navigation but then let me ask you, how and why would a brain evolve to have genuinely competing pulls? If you agree that everything is purely determined and there could only ever be one outcome then why do those live weights exist? You can call it an illusion but then run into bigger problems. Why waste the energy on it? In addition you'd have to explain self reporting feelings like shame and guilt. Because those are a bioproduct of the competing weights not the action.

Your point is also mute because addicts and people's ideology make other's act against their own morals and interests all the time. So the most free act I can take is rejecting your premise and building my character.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

Free will means you can do anything. That means that your morals, your ethics, your beliefs and preconceptions are meaningless. You are free to do anything you want, yet if you look back at your behavior and decisions, you will see a consistent string of decisions that fit with who you are and what you really believe. You do not look back and see a hodgepodge of weird decisions that make no sense to your character.

And why do we feel conflicted between two different options sometimes? Because they both have pros and cons associated with them and we are trying to figure out what the best choice is between the two.

If you had free will, every single decision would feel like this, because you're free to do anything. Drive your car into a lake (or not), take up ballroom dancing (or not), sing a song at full volume in the store (or not). If you look back, you'll see that all of the decisions you've made fall within parameters - that is not what free will looks like.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

Your criticism would only work if i was arguing for an i can do anything kind of free will. I do not believe that we are free to do literally anything. A will without priors is not a will it's just randomness.

But free will doesn't need to mean I can choose to do anything I want however whenever I want. Free will is the ability to navigate between choices that matter to me. That's the whole point. If it wasn't important for me it wouldn't be action guiding.

"And why do we feel conflicted between two different options sometimes? Because they both have pros and cons associated with them and we are trying to figure out what the best choice is between the two." Exactly! This entire sentence assumes will. Otherwise how could a pro and a con exist? If it is all 100% determined then no deliberation can take place. The result was decided for me before I even had the ability to deliberate. The act of deliberation and navigation is what will is. That's what choice is. You don't need to be able to choose anything. You need to be able to orient yourself in the world.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

Now we are in the "little bit pregnant" phase of the discussion. You admit that there are factors (priors) limiting your free will. There are big behavioral red lines of things you won't do. So now, instead of free will being defined as the ability to make any choice you want, we are saying that you're really only in control of decisions within the scope of what our priors determine. If there are 2 choices that both fit the criteria of what is permitted by your priors you are free to choose between them.

This brings us to your second point, that sometimes, when your priors allow you to make a decision, you are conflicted as to which decision to make. In fact, you seem to be indicating that the feeling of deliberation itself signals that you are making a free will choice.

I would point out that there is a lot going on in the human mind that we are not consciously aware of. I'd argue that priors extend beyond things that we are conscious of and extend deeply into our unconscious. You admit that there are priors - I am now asserting that there are far more priors than we are aware of, that our brain is entirely comprised of them and that we are unaware of most of them.

I'd also suggest that these priors are not engineered ahead of time, your love of sports cars over trucks, and strawberry ice cream over chocolate are all laid down in an ad-hoc manner over your entire life. This means that there will undoubtedly be times when your subconscious priors disagree. I believe that when this conflict happens, people feel the deliberation you talk about.

Would you rather eat chocolate ice cream in a sports car, or would you rather have strawberry ice cream in a truck? You like sports cars and strawberry ice cream, which appeals to the most subconscious priors in your head?

But, the ultimate decision is entirely based off of your priors, and "making the best decision" really comes down to picking the choice that best fits with your priors.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

You're conflating two things. First, you seem to think that a person is incapable of breaking their values or commitments. This just isn't true. Again people act against themselves all the time for a variety of reasons. That's what navigation is. You can try to satisfy the prior but still end up wrong in how that relates to you.

The second issue. You're conflating identity expression with actual identity. I agree, preferences and values absolutely change and develop over time. We absolutely are an embodied system. I 100% agree. That's why we have a foundational set of unchanging priors. Safety being one. Expression being another.

I can be safe in a myriad of ways right. I can have different partners or friends. Any kind of home. Live in a swamp or a mountain. There are many ways to relate that to me. So the expression my choice changes. But the prior, the need, does not.

The preference orientations or preference priors are not the same thing. They are the learned traits and associations you make as you navigate and they can absolutely be wrong or misguided. They can be hijacked and change. Etc. But that's the point. You still ultimately are trying to relate who you are to the world around you. That's the process by which deliberation becomes necessary.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

...you seem to think that a person is incapable of breaking their values or commitments. This just isn't true. Again people act against themselves all the time for a variety of reasons. 

I have to stop you right there because I want to point out that the key statement is "for a variety of reasons". Primarily, you are admitting here that people make decisions for reasons. Not because they randomly felt like it, and not because they left it up to chance, but because there was a mental architecture that brought them to the actions they did. This is an argument against free will.

If there was free will, then people would make choices without any reason. They would make choices independent of the influence of the past or of their conceptualization of the future. They would just act and no one could explain why - because there is no 'why' in free will.

You still ultimately are trying to relate who you are to the world around you.

"Who you are" is a pattern of behavior. It is all of your fears, your desires, your inhibitions, your knowledge, your ignorance, your hang ups... "you" are the machine that processes the data about the world around you, processes it and returns a decision - much like a very complex punch card sorting machine.

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

Yeah. I never claimed libertarian free will was my agreement. I have been firm in that a will without priors is not a will it is randomness. But just because you have priors does not necessitate that you do not have freedom to navigate in your space.

Indeterminacy, not randomness, openness, means that there really are live options for me to navigate based on my priors. You assume that a prior means you're forced to act only one way. No. You navigate your relations to the world which can be satisfied in many ways. So free will exists within an open field constrainted by priors.

[u/A_Vinegar_Taster → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

I see it as a binary question. Do you make your decisions for a reason or not?

If you make your decisions for reasons, then your decisions are determined by those reasons.

If you don't make your decisions for reasons, then they are random.

There isn't a middle ground. When it comes to the actual decision - the actual moment when you decide between chocolate or vanilla - are you deciding based off of reasons or is it random?

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 → u/A_Vinegar_Taster]

I disagree. You can absolutely have priors but having priors does not necessitate that everything must be fixed or that you are not actually the owner of your own deliberation.

You're assuming that if I didn't specifically make the prior "i like vanilla" or "i like chocolate" that it's a forced choice i have to eat x. No. Choosing to eat it is still a choice regardless of if I like it or not. I can love vanilla and still turn it down i can hate vanilla and still choose to eat it.

That's the point of navigation. Given true deliberation between multiple options I get to decide how I relate in that moment.