Determinism

[bg23]

Do you subscribe to it?

Do you theoretically find it likely, but in practice ignore it?

Do you acknowledge it in any way as plausible?

Its something I've always been quite interested in, especially regarding it's implications regarding free will and thus the instinctive reaction of most people to reject it for that very reason -

What do you think of it?

 

[rgraham666]

I think, that like all ideologies, it's a way for people to avoid responsibility.

"I don't have any choice," they say, "It has to be done this way."

There was an excellent set of articles in Foreign Policy a little over a year ago on 'The World's Most Dangerous Ideas'. 'Undermining Free Will' was one of them.

I would provide a link but you have to buy the website's archive access to do so. Maybe your local library has a copy.

Determinism works only in Newtonian physics. To introduce it to the social sphere is dangerous and rather foolish in my opinion.

 

[bg23]

I think, that like all ideologies, it's a way for people to avoid responsibility.

"I don't have any choice," they say, "It has to be done this way."

There was an excellent set of articles in Foreign Policy a little over a year ago on 'The World's Most Dangerous Ideas'. 'Undermining Free Will' was one of them.

I would provide a link but you have to buy the website's archive access to do so. Maybe your local library has a copy.

Determinism works only in Newtonian physics. To introduce it to the social sphere is dangerous and rather foolish in my opinion.

do you know what issue and what volume that was?

i have a subscription.

 

[bg23]

I think, that like all ideologies, it's a way for people to avoid responsibility.

"I don't have any choice," they say, "It has to be done this way."

would you disagree, then, that determinism is actually scientific?

Determinism works only in Newtonian physics. To introduce it to the social sphere is dangerous and rather foolish in my opinion.

i would tend to agree...i like the idea of it in theory, but its simply not functional in society.

 

[rgraham666]

do you know what issue and what volume that was?

i have a subscription.

Sept/Oct 2004

would you disagree, then, that determinism is actually scientific?

Very much so. Mostly because you can't perform it 'outside' of society. And it's very much based on the perceptions of the individual.

In physics or chemistry, you can perform an experiment in the lab, note the results, publish them and others can or cannot reproduce the results.

You can't do that with social sciences. And people will vehemently disagree with your conclusions. For example, some people will say that an unlimited free market leads to wealth for everyone. Others, that it leads to mass exploitation of most people. And you can find data to back both points of view.

Hardly scientific at all.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If you're a materialist and don't believe in the spiritual, determinism is unavoidable. Materialists believe that we're made of matter, and matter obeys certain predictive rules, so if you could take snapshot of the entire universe and know where every atom and electron was at a given time, you should be able to figure out the future of the universe, theoretically, at least. Quantum uncertainty would fuzzy up the calculations, but in principle it should be possible.

Nothing in materialism can account for free will, but free will vs. determinism is a question I generally stay away from. There's something wrong with it to my mind, something artifical and not real, or something we don't yet understand about randomness and the way the brain operates.

I guess what it comes down to is that what I believe supports determinism, but my own personal experience supports free will.

 

[bg23]

Sept/Oct 2004

thank you, are you certain it was foreign affairs and issue 5 2004?

i searched for the titles you mentioned in the listing of articles in the archive and i'm coming up blank

Very much so. Mostly because you can't perform it 'outside' of society. And it's very much based on the perceptions of the individual.

In physics or chemistry, you can perform an experiment in the lab, note the results, publish them and others can or cannot reproduce the results.

You can't do that with social sciences. And people will vehemently disagree with your conclusions. For example, some people will say that an unlimited free market leads to wealth for everyone. Others, that it leads to mass exploitation of most people. And you can find data to back both points of view.

Hardly scientific at all.

i always knew it would be somewhat impossible to properly trace the chain of causation in the social sphere but i never thought about it that. a point to ponder, thank you.

 

[impressive]

I guess what it comes down to is that what I believe supports determinism, but my own personal experience supports free will.

Yeah, kinda.

I'm more inclined to go along with the theories Asimov used in his Foundation series. The behavior of large groups is predictable, but of individuals ... not so much.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Here's what a philosopher friend much smarter than me said:

Free will does exist. We are not billiard balls.

Those who doubt this are confused. The confusion arises because of an assumption about causality which leaves out a key element of reality: Things act according to their nature. Billiard balls respond in certain ways because of what they are.

Most people assume that all causality is of the "one event in time causes another" variety, or "event-event" causality. This describes a great deal of causality, but it is an error to assume that it describes all of causality.

People start their thinking by primarily considering the event, which they think will cause other events. They need to realize the essential determinant of how a thing will act is "what is the nature of the things involved?" A soap bubble has a different nature from a billiard ball. If it is hit by a billiard ball, it will act differently. A plant will get run over by a car, an animal will probably jump out of the way, and a human will do whatever he chooses to. Those are their respective natures.

We learn about types of causality from observing reality: some things only react, and some things initiate action. We experience this all the time. There is no paradox there, it's just the way the world is.

It would be a mistake to assume otherwise, to assume that all actions are caused by a previous event, i.e., that all things only react, and that all causality is action, or event-event causality. Your chair is supporting you – that is an instance of causality, and it is not an action, or an instance of event-event causality.

Actions are caused by the nature of the entities involved. Period. If someone wanted to assert that there is only "event-event" causation, which is contrary to our experience, they would need to present an argument for that. The burden of proof is on them.

This discussion belongs to the realm of metaphysics, one of the two fundamental branches of philosophy. Epistemology is the other. The point we have just reached in metaphysics is analogous to this point in epistemology:

"You say there is a god? Interesting. What is your evidence? I am very interested in seeing it. Of course, if you expect me to believe it you will have to make an argument and present evidence - the burden of proof is on you. If you think the burden is on me to prove the negative (that there is no god), you have made an error in logic, and we can not advance the discussion of god-ness until you have acknowledged that error and corrected it. (Which of course you cannot do and still believe in god, so this conversation is over.)

The analogy of a “there is free will” discussion to a “evidence for god” discussion is not exact, because it is those who assert free will’s existence who are asserting a positive, and therefore the ball starts in their court. But, unlike the god-people, they quickly can cite their evidence - experience. Free will is a fact that is directly experienced, even if it is possible to misconceive it by adding a bunch of pseudo-scientific junk. (Nobody thinks they do not have free will until they have heard arguments that they do not).

At this point the burden of proof shifts to the determinists: "Do you say it is an illusion? Do you say it is impossible? Do you say that only event-event causation works, and therefore the human mind works that way? How are you going to back that up?" This is where the analogy to the god thing is correct. The burden is on them, and if they are unwilling to pick it up, or insist the burden is on you, the conversation is over.

If it is not quite over, or they don’t believe you when you say it is, here is a bit more:

"You say there is no free will? Interesting. That is contrary to my experience (and yours). So if you expect me to believe it you will have to make an argument and present contrary evidence - the burden of proof is on you.

“Be warned, we have shown that event-event causality is not the only kind. If you think the mind must be deterministic because event-event is the only ‘scientific way of examining nature,’ or some other pseudo-scientific junk, you will come smack-up against our experience that this is not the only kind of causality. So why do you assume that it is? There is no evidence for that.

“Causality is about how things act, not about actions, and therefore to explain anything causally, the only way to go is to pay attention to the thing’s nature. Do not doubt your instruments (direct experience, perception) unless you have reason to. If you ask me to doubt my instruments, let’s hear your arguments. Once again, the burden is on you, pal. The wrong conception of causality says that free will is impossible. The right one implies no such impossibility.”

 

[dr_mabeuse]

A soap bubble might act differently than a billiard ball, but the atomic theory and laws of physics can explain both, and given an accurate physical description of the article involved, it should be possible to determine all we might want to know about how it will act on a macro scale.

I'd be interested to know an example of an uncaused event, or just how it is that the mind (maybe brain would be more accurate) is exempt from the laws of physics and chemistry.

I would also say that your evidence for free-will really amounts to nothing but subjective experience ("It feels like I have free will, therefore I must have free will.") which is weak in the extreme. I "feel" a lot of things I know are not true. (For instance, I'm pretty certain I'm not going to die. I'm pretty certain my mind exists apart from my brain. I'm pretty sure my emotions are more than just chemical reactions.l)

 

[Pure]

RA A plant will get run over by a car, an animal will probably jump out of the way, and a human will do whatever he chooses to. Those are their respective natures.

Actually, the human, because she's an animal (in nature), will usually jump out of the way, too.

----
The whole argument is circular: Humans act according to their natures.
Their natures involve making 'free choices.'
Hence there is 'free will.'

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RA A plant will get run over by a car, an animal will probably jump out of the way, and a human will do whatever he chooses to. Those are their respective natures.

Actually, the human, because she's an animal (in nature), will usually jump out of the way, too.

Yes, but the unusual exceptions who don't are what is relevent to this discussion!

 

[Pure]

RA's quoting someone's statement: "You say there is no free will? Interesting. That is contrary to my experience (and yours). So if you expect me to believe it you will have to make an argument and present contrary evidence - the burden of proof is on you. "

My experience is that there's a large degree of utility in the substantives of the English language, words like thief, liar, violent criminal, nun.

Hence the thief steals, the liar lies, ... the nun prays and engages in religious rituals.

To put it in a nutshell, people rarely surprise us. When they do--as in scoutmasters downloading child porn-- it's because we didn't know their 'nature' well enough. Once we do, then future predictions are more accurate.

 

[Pure]

Current response

Originally Posted by Pure

RA A plant will get run over by a car, an animal will probably jump out of the way, and a human will do whatever he chooses to. Those are their respective natures.

Pure: Actually, the human, because she's an animal (in nature), will usually jump out of the way, too.


RA, current reply: Yes, but the unusual exceptions who don't are what is relevent to this discussion!

Pure, current response: Well, as you point out, there are exceptions to this rule among animals as well. So I guess it's established: animals have free will.

 

[NoJo]

Do you subscribe to it?

Do you theoretically find it likely, but in practice ignore it?

Do you acknowledge it in any way as plausible?

Its something I've always been quite interested in, especially regarding it's implications regarding free will and thus the instinctive reaction of most people to reject it for that very reason -

What do you think of it?

I tell ya, if this was the GB I'd probably respond "shuttup and show us your tits". But it aint. So I wont.

 

[bg23]

I tell ya, if this was the GB I'd probably respond "shuttup and show us your tits". But it aint. So I wont.

i know you couldn't help but post that - you were deterministically forced to.

i forgive.

but only because i have to.

 

[Pure]

we act on our inclinations, almost by definition

we usually act on our usual inclinations--an observation.

joe's usual inclination, with certain females is to say 'show us your tits.'

what will Roxanne do?

well, what kind of woman is she? (her 'nature' in her terms)

if her 'type' is one who commonly 'shows tit' in the forums, she'll probably do it.

if her 'type' is one who never 'shows' tit, then she probably won't

so her feeling of choice, in either case, is irrelevant.

 

[rgraham666]

thank you, are you certain it was foreign affairs and issue 5 2004?

i searched for the titles you mentioned in the listing of articles in the archive and i'm coming up blank

Foreign Policy Sept/Oct 2004, not Foreign Affairs.

As the article pointed out, getting rid of free will has major ethical problems.

Western ethics are pretty much founded on the belief of choice, and responsibility for those choices. We recognise that in some cases, such as psychosis, the person may not be responsible for their choices.

But determinism has no underlying set of ethics. As I pointed out, it's pretty much a method of avoiding personal responsibility.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think we're talking about 2 different kinds of determinism here.

On the one hand, we seem to be talking about things or people acting according to their own nature. Kind of like Aristotle, who believed that things fall because it's their nature to seek the earth. Call that macro-determinism.

On the other hand, I was referring to the theory that says that all things are predetermined by natural law. The things we do, the ideas we have and decisions we make are the results of knowable physical and chemical processes in the brain. The idea to choose A over B results from electrochemical processes that are theoretically predictable. In other words, decisions are the result of natural law, not human choice. Because of this, free will is an illusion.

It turns out that to posit the exitsence of free will, you either need (A) need a mechanism for injecting true randomness into physical processes, or (B) the existence of a spiritual, non-material force at work in our minds.

Since we know of no mechanism for generating true randomness outside of the realm of quantum mechanics, the belief in free will is tantamoiunt to positing the existence of a supernatural world, which is pretty much equivalent to believing in God.

So I'd be interested to hear how atheists think this free will thing might work. At what stage do the electrons and atoms and molecules and cells in our brain become capable of generating randomness and how would they do it?

 

[NoJo]

we act on our inclinations, almost by definition

we usually act on our usual inclinations--an observation.

joe's usual inclination, with certain females is to say 'show us your tits.'

what will Roxanne do?

well, what kind of woman is she? (her 'nature' in her terms)

if her 'type' is one who commonly 'shows tit' in the forums, she'll probably do it.

if her 'type' is one who never 'shows' tit, then she probably won't

so her feeling of choice, in either case, is irrelevant.

Yes. But show us your tits.

 

[Pure]

Right on, Mab

On the other hand, I was referring to the theory that says that all things are [pre]determined by natural law. The things we do, the ideas we have and decisions we make are the results of knowable physical and chemical processes in the brain. The idea to choose A over B results from electrochemical processes that are theoretically predictable. In other words, decisions are the result of natural law, not human choice. Because of this, free will is an illusion.

It turns out that to posit the exitsence of free will, you either need (A) need a mechanism for injecting true randomness into physical processes, or (B) the existence of a spiritual, non-material force at work in our minds.

Since we know of no mechanism for generating true randomness outside of the realm of quantum mechanics, the belief in free will is tantamoiunt to positing the existence of a supernatural world, which is pretty much equivalent to believing in God.

Aside from the prefix 'pre', I think the above is right on. And we needn't just look at physics, but biology. What happens when a hungry cat sees a mouse? ... That too, is a 'law' (of nature).

What happens when a depressed person is faced with a large chore, such as cleaning a garage? ....Same thing.

Going further, who would WANT the set-up you're describing. You want an ice cream cone, you head for the ice cream parlor; 'a random element' is injected (from God?), and you go into the hardware store and buy a hammer (having no need for one, never having thought about buying it).

Incidentally, the atheist Sartre, in his early phases believed in human freedom. (Of course Ayn doesn't like Sartre and prefers Aristotle, who had no concept of 'free will'. It's a problem of 'doing your homework.')
How does it work--well, Descartes style; in parallel and distinct from the physical realm is the realm of consciousness. It is a 'nothingness'; it does not have the 'being' of, say, a tree. (Hence the title 'Being and Nothingness'--the two realms). Your consciousness is a kind of 'hole' in being, in that it presents you with a number of material objects, but is distinct from them.

 

[gauchecritic]

Are we talking about dualism here? As far as I am able to determine, given that Descartes tells us that mind and body co-exist rather than act as one, then free will is independant of physics and atomic theory which would therefor indicate that both determinism and free will can occupy the same brain.

I think I like that theory, probably because it gives me free will.

This would obviously mean that the whole of a person is greater than the sum of their parts.

I'll go along with determinism up to the point of decision on choice. However often I show my tits I can still decide not to when Joe asks. (although I probably would because it was Joe asking)

 

[Purple Sage]

St. Thomas Aquinas (or St. Augustine, I keep getting them mixed up) suggested that free will and determinism were essentially the same thing. In his context, God had a Plan. Part of the Plan was allowing Free Will. However, if X doesn't know the Plan, or doesn't understand the Plan, then X's actions are essentially random- driven by immediate, short-term perceptions and delusions, which essentially puts X in the billiard-ball category. A complex billiard-ball, but a billiard-ball nevertheless. This is a 'determinist' state, where there are actions and reactions. On the other hand, if X understands God's Plan, there's only one thing to do- follow the plan. X is free not to, but if he actually understands the Plan, he will, because it just doesn't make any sense not to. So, the basic choices are A) lack of understanding, leading to a deterministic situation that 'feels' like free choice; or B) Understanding, which leads to actual free choice, with only one sensible choice, which appears to be determinism.

Now, if one simply substitutes 'nature' or 'reality' for 'God', you can get to essentially the same place. The more we understand about the consequences of our actions, the more they are constrained. The degree to which we have 'freedom' in making our choices stems from incomplete knowledge of the consequences. Of course, in practice, people have extremely limited knowledge of the consequences of their actions, so their choices are very broad indeed- but in many respects, either determined by unconscious psychological tropisms, or essentially random in nature, neither of which can be described as 'free will'.

 

[Penelope Street]

So this is what men think about when they're not thinking about sex? Explains much.

 

[impressive]

So this is what men think about when they're not thinking about sex? Explains much.

It's all about the ego.

Didn't get laid = Not meant to get laid

Got laid = Free will

So, it depends on when you ask.