Free Will

Shur, why not...

I'd hit that

Sorry Bob, I love you and Soft Machine more than Rush.
But Rush wrote the better Freewill song!

Edit: Oh a discussion on the concept? Just poor on as I go and write stuff a diminishing audience enjoys. Working for me so far!

Edited by AZF - April 12 2019 at 13:06

Barbu wrote: Existential Hammill at his best! man, I love that song. Fears, wars, social inequalities, the good vs evil endless battle etc Only line perfectly sums it up for me: It's felt the choice is ours, between peace and violence... and since I am my own direction, I'll choose the Wyatt one.

Thanks, yeah, it's very existential Hammill. And man, he has a real way with poetry and drawing deep.... It is so not banal, unlike the Rush song which I find quite banal. Really glad you brought it up, and for your comments.

Thanks, I didn't know that music at the time, or not well enough to have a take on the lyrics (I do like the album In Camera). While I consider it to be kind of a boring subject these days, it would be interesting to know what people's thoughts are on free will.

Here are Hammill's lyrics:

They say we are endowed with Free Will -
At least that justifies our need for indecision
But between our instincts and the lust to kill
We bow our heads in submission
They say that no man is an island
But then they say our castles are our homes;
It's felt the choice is ours, between peace and violence...
Oh, yes, we choose, alone?

While the comet spreads its tail across the sky
It nowhere near defines the course it flies
Nor does it find its own direction

Though the path of the comet be sure
Its constitution is not
So its meaning is possibly more
Than the tracing of a tail
In one brief shot at glory

Love and peace and individuality
So order and society are man-made?
War and hate and dark depravity
Or are we slaves?
Channeling aggressive energies
The Death Wish and the Will to survive
Into finding and preserving enemies
Is that the only way we know that we're alive?

In the slaughterhouse all corpses smell the same
Whether queens or pawns or innocents at the game;
In the cemetery a uniform cloaks the graves
Except for outward pomp and circumstance

There is a time set in the calendar
When all reason seems barely enough
To sustain all the shooting stars:
Times are rough
I'm waiting for something to happen here
It feels as though it's long overdue...
Maybe a restatement of yesteryear
Or something entirely new

And the knowledge that we gain in part
Always leads us closer to the very start
And to the founding questions:
How can I tell that the road signed to hell
Doesn't lead up to heaven?
What can I say when, in some obscure way
I am my own direction?

That's interesting. I haven't given the lyrics too much thought. What is your take on it?

I find it rather interesting to compare what I wrote before, "I expect that many people deceive themselves into believing that their decisions are free from causal chains that result in a necessary action because this gives them a sense of empowerment" with Hammill's "They say we are endowed with Free Will -- At least that justifies our need for indecision, But between our instincts and the lust to kill, We bow our heads in submission."

EDIT: By the way, this probably would have been better suited to General Polls or General Discussions as this is not about the music but about the lyrics and ideas associated with the lyrics.

Edited by Logan - April 12 2019 at 11:12

Bumping this Philosophy 101 type old poll of mine to get some new perspectives (remember, you're not voting for which act you prefer or which song appeals more musically, but which lyrically appeals the most to your thoughts on free will). One seemed to have misunderstood my poll question.

The lyrics are in my original post, but here's the music for anyone not that familiar with both:





If you can think of any other songs which relate to the subject of free will, determinism (soft and/or hard determinism), and compatibilism, please mention them.

By the way, while I remain a hard determinist, I still believe in a sense of moral responsibility (and I also would not describe myself as a moral relativist).

Edited by Logan - April 12 2019 at 10:36

A very well presented response, Raff.  I agree that hard determinism can lead people to be too passive because they become fatalist, and there is no moral responsibility (since external forces force our hand, and all actions are in essence pre-determined due to unbreakable causal chains, we cannot set our course, so que sera sera, whatever will be will be -- powerless in the face of forces beyond our control... Why did you choose to break the law?  External forces made me do it.)  I have the same problems with the libertarian philosophy too.  Very well said.

Slartibartfast:  Both songs are on the subject of free will (determinism -- to what extent? --, or self-determination) but take different approaches.  Causality is key... How free are our actions and decisions from forces that are beyond our control (causal chains that bind us, how do they bind us.  Are we free agents?).

This goes on much longer than I had wanted, but I'll post it anyway (though i should edit my thoughts down).

I feel that free will is a delusion… People rationalise, and play semantics games with what free will truly means as well.  I do believe that our actions are determined by causal chains that are out of our control (A causes B causes C… haha, what causes A then?  Not to get into a first cause discussion).  Now I wouldn’t phrase it in the fanciful way “demented forces push me madly round the treadmill” because I believe in a rational universe, and am more prosaic than poetic.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I expect that many people deceive themselves into believing that their decisions are free from causal chains that result in a necessary action because this gives them a sense of empowerment.  It is uncomfortable to think that all of our actions and choices are determined by hereditary and environmental factors; that in any given circumstance our decisions are fixed by our past experiences, environmental stimuli, and our genetic makeup.  However, I believe that forces beyond our control fix our decisions – and I’m inclined to say that we cannot alter those forces anymore than we can change the laws of gravity. But I offer my own qualifiers to help help empower me.  Whether I contradict myself is fine for me.  I’m a materialist essentially, but I still believe in moral responsibility.  In becoming aware of the forces that cause us to choose, it may seem that we can effect a new causal chain, or alter our course, our fate if you will (self-determination) by making choices that go against our temperament, but that choice would also be determined by factors out of our control by my way of thinking.

There is also a compatibilist (soft determinsist) idea out there that there is a distinction between immediate “internal” and “external” causes which "saves" the idea of freedom (agency).   A deterministic view is taken that all actions are completely determined by causes, including internal and external causes, but internal (psychological, physiological) causes are thought of as free because there are no outside forces at work.  Really this a semantics argument for me. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me (mind you, it is argued intelligently).  Because I believe that our internal reasons for action, being determined by past external events and heredity, are so enmeshed within the external that the two cannot be sufficiently, or indeed at all, separated to accept the notion of free will.  Outside forces do not work on us in a vacuum, they work together with our internal training, and physiology, to determine our actions.

As to the libertarian (theory of agency) stance (well there are different camps there), I have some fundamental problems with it.  While both determinists and libertarians accept that causal chains exist, libertarians are compelled to advance the vague idea of a self that can somehow transcend causal chains.  Occam’s razor, y' know, the idea that utilising the minimum number of necessary assumptions is best… I’m inclined to believe that hard determinism is a better view because it is simpler.  It dispenses with unknowable metaphysical notions, and presents what is empirically evident; that there are causes behind all actions and decisions.

Soft determinism is problematic for me because it is illogical to associate free actions with a causal chain that always leads to an inevitable action.  The libertarian notion that there are causal chains, which can be broken through careful deliberation, is also problematic. "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." What causes us to carefully deliberate, and come to a conclusion?  Surely we deliberate because we have been trained not to come to a hasty conclusion when matters are of importance.  Our conclusion is dependent upon our weighing up the pros and cons, the pros being conducive to our desires, which are determined by various psychological and physiological factors.  If we did not deliberate we might come to a conclusion different from a conclusion arrived at with deliberation, but our caused conditions dictate the extent to which we deliberate, and, therefore, determine our decision. I’ll be the roundabout.

Therefore, it is unnecessary in my view to resort to vague metaphysical notions of the self in order to explain the process of deliberation.

Not that important to the discussion, but I also believe in, let's say semi-conscious and sub-conscious decisions. That our conscious mind is acting in coordination with our sub or semi conscious mind (I do believe in internal and external factors when it comes to deliberation and execution).  We consciously deliberate and these facets of our mind effect resolution (we we react in any given situation).  The subconscious is "programmed," if you will, and the "conscious mind" is being affected by external and internal factors.  Still not free will.  But if one believes in "free will" as a concept can depend on how one defines it.  Rather like some of the categories at this site, ;), we can define things into existence.

I kinda figure Rush would win this one just because there is a bigger contingent of Rush fans here than Wyatt fans.  Snakes and Arrows has over 60 reviews so far, Comicopera just has three.  Also, aren't Neil's lyrics really more on topic of the subject of free will than Robert's anyway?

Logan wrote: ^ I have an aversion to mathematics.  I love the precision and conciseness of equations, but my thinking is too convoluted.  I'm like the Higgledy-piggledy Boson particle   I think said aversion came about in high school when I tried to penetrate the math circle... Maybe it was pi in the sky thinking that I could somehow fit in, but I ended up with a radial fracture.  A pi in the face (hair or cream) would have been better.

Wahahahahahaha!