Determinism

From “Einstein’s Morality”
by Ching-Hung Woo

[b]

[/b]

This part I can understand. If all is governed by the immutable laws of nature, it certainly makes sense that this includes the phenomena embodied in human interaction.

As for the parts embedded in quantum interaction, Einstein suggested that what appears to be random is only a reflection of our lack of understanding of the deeper reality.

And that will, perhaps, always be there: the parts that we don’t even know that we don’t even know yet. Ultimately though, all philosophical quests come back to this.

But then comes the part about determinism and moral responsibility:

[b]

[/b]

This would seem to be just one more rendition of “compatibilism”. And I am still unable to “wrap my mind around it”. It just doesn’t make sense given the manner in which I think about these things.

Whether we focus on “retributive punishment” or are “guided by the welfare of mankind”, we are still doing [b]only that which we could not not have done[/b].

There does not seem to be a way in which to extract ourselves from that which, “for all practical purposes”, must be. Instead, some are able to “trick” themselves by creating this distinction between two different sorts of cause and effect that [to me] seem to be just a word game “in their heads”.

This in other words:

[b]

[/b]

This distinction seems like bullshit to me. Whether we call the laws of matter a manifestation of “prior causes” or “coercion”, we still do only that which we have always been “determined” to do.

As for so-called “self-affirmed” values, what the fuck can that really mean if the “self” itself is only as it could ever be?

Again, the compatibalists may be on to something here, but it has never seemed reasonable to me. So, I am back to either accepting or not accepting that it could never have seemed reasonable to me – in order that “I” be in sync with the immutable laws of matter. At least here and now.

[b]

[/b]

But what here [including the words I am typing and the words you are reading] has anything to do with “ability”? As though what turns out to be could ever have turned out any other way. We “choose” for it to happen, but we really didn’t choose for it to happen.

But then I can see how a belief in this sort of deterministic approach to reality can be comforting for some. After all, they can’t really be held responsible for their fucked up, miserable lives because, well, because.

Hi everybody, it’s been a long time. I was wondering what position most people favor: libertarianism, compatibilism, or determinism? Obviously, I stand behind determinism because that’s what this thread has tried to demonstrate. Based on new evidence from neuroscience, has anybody changed their position regarding determinism? I realize that determinism poses a threat for some, because they believe there would be no accountability for one’s actions since they could say “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” But this is a misunderstanding for the knowledge of determinism actually increases responsibility, when extended accurately.

Hello peace! Peacegirl.

I go with compatibilism since I feel that society as a whole has no real ability to live up to libertarianism , nor the nerve for always blaming others for their shortcomings, which is the unfortunate result of a wholly determined life.

Even constitutionally people prefer some element of self autonomy, and that is the problem with marching into this coming brave new brotherhood .

It has a sloppy design and a disk much to be improved upon. It is based on wish fulfillment , that the superintelligent machine will not let it get to its head. But since it is the head where it is , the doubt is great.

So for me, the ‘should’ trumps the ‘is’.
And this is really where we stand socially as well, we hope things will work out. What needs to be done is positioned on what should be done, whereas, what is done is not always desirable as the best choice retrospectively.

This is where definition is important to clarify. Determinism, in my way of defining it, does not mean that we all become robots with no self-autonomy or the ability to make choices. We all have the ability to make choices; they just aren’t free choices.

The best choice for whom? Obviously, when a person makes a choice, he is making the best possible choice under his particular circumstances. For example, when a person steals because he has no money to pay for food, society might not like his choice, but for him the choice was necessary.

What if all of the “shoulds” are causing a reverse effect than what society is aiming for? Please understand that determinism does not give people a free pass to hurt others with the excuse that they couldn’t help themselves. It is quite the opposite. The knowledge that man’s will is NOT free (when extended accurately) prevents those very acts of crime that required blame and punishment in our years of development.

I see the progression of Your argument, and it makes sense. But the sense is not qualified totally by 'Your definition 'of what is consistent with determinism. It isn’t that its inconsistent either, and the only beef I have with it that the idea of determined choice is that its deceptive or illusionary.

The example of the guy who robs with existential intent underlies such a quarry. How is society to measure the truth value of his claim toward his intent? The question can only proceed from societal values, since it is society who determine the effects which interpret what determinism is and how it effects individuals.

In some Middle Eastern countries theft is punished severely, and the only reason we can even talk about consequences between manipulating consequences or honest ones, is, that more liberal laws afford the opportunity for theft.

As mechanization progresses , such windows of opportunity close , and the difference between real and determined choices narrow as well.

I think Your idea is as of yet differentiable given today’s environment, but it is not to last, unless they become compatible .

In order to be at once determined to be both: humane and law abiding , the gage to measure this difference , in the U.S., at least, must determine the requisite means of analysis, which at the present time is posited more on assumption then reality.

So heads up for Your current analysis , but things are changing nowadays at a dizzying rate.

So then what do you mean when you say that the progression makes sense?

I think we are on the same page here. Determined choice would indicate that a choice is predetermined, whether I want to make the choice or not. Is that what you mean by deceptive or illusionary?

I offered an example of a situation that would mitigate society’s judgment against him, if the truth value toward his intent was established. But…what if we could prevent a situation such as this from arising, where a person would not need to steal for his survival? Then society would not have to make a judgment call (through the courts or any other established judicial system) as to his guilt or innocence.

It is true that strict laws that forbid theft are used to cause fear of punishment. This is a deterrent, especially if the theft is not being done for self-preservation such as the example above. And there are probably more thefts in those countries that have liberal laws. It makes sense that there is less crime in the countries that threaten harsh punishment as well. So is it your belief that threats of punishment is the only way to control behavior?

What is a determined choice? Do you mean a choice that is not of your own choosing? Is that what determinism means to you? And what do you mean by a real choice? Can you explain what your definition of determinism is?

Peace girl het back to You later don’t want You to get the impression that I ran out of ideas. But it takes more time to ponder carefully.

I don’t have that impression, but thanks for your response. It does take time to ponder because this is a difficult topic that requires careful thought.

Hey peacegirl, I remember this thread. Are you still promoting your father’s book?

How 'bout: compatibilism. I’m partial towards determinism but I also believe the concept of free will is gravely misunderstood. I don’t think free will (the kind we have) is the power to violate the laws of nature, but just the psychological state of our wants and our intentions being able to satisfy themselves.

I also wonder sometimes how much quantum indeterminism plays a role in the human brain. And what role does it play? Is it enough to, as the quantum consciousness theorists believe, amplify indeterminism to the level of whole neurons? And if so, does this account for free will? And is it real indeterminism? Or just indeterminable by us?

Good point gib.This answers the postponed answer to Peacegirl as well, at least try to.

A determined choice may be an assumed relation of the very small quantum uncertainty to the hypothesized pre-determination which had a solid basis even back in the day when thought used to have a certain formal solidity , or , thingness.

A determined choice appears to be a contradiction, but as the logical system of contradiction(deduction) gave way to identification through similarity by resemblances (induction)
the mind appeared to fuse the two, so as to given the appearance of freedom of choice.

How this was overcome, albeit as an illusive effort, was through language .
Highly controlled social systems like Communism, were analytically appeared to loosen the ties of central control by the use of such cliches as ‘self determination, and collective consciousness’ It was done by constant reiterated ideograms, which were accepted as truisms.

Freedom is another word, became the rallying cry, where theories of mind were found to be inconsistent with the trumped up rhetoric.

But the contradiction never left the larger context of its derivation, and the result is the arrival within expected symptomatic limits of believability. The New World Order is precisely, the only way to legitimise the abhorrent social conditions in the U.S., over the requirement to place immigration under the microscope where social elements purify over how best to fit into their new adopted countries.

The point to it is, to demark the regional social economic absolutes into the new uncertain ones, by the importation of indigenous outsiders, whose problems only increase their newly thought up innovative ways to get in.

The bar is raised for this issue, contrario, knowing human nature to find even more ways to immigrate illegally, and for the purpose to relativise and revitalise a dying formula.

This is all in the conscious periphery, and sets new limits to and within pre-determined choices, accompanied by changing national and international boundaries.

I did venture outside the basic fragments, in order to bring them together, here, down to earth , as some critics may pounce on any indemonstrable proposition.

This is why the suggestion that a determined choice is illusionary, to cover not only inconsistency, but of basic negation. So if a compromise has to take place, it will be in the ‘should’ course of Kantian argument.

The illusion is hidden, and the argument goes: well truth is contextual and relative, and pragmatic considerations should influence the new vision of what a standard should consist of, as a measure of what a rational man may accept in a governed and determined social construct.

Absolutely!

Me too.

No one is disputing that.

If you want to learn more about this, go to Trick Slattery’s website. He knows more about this than I do. I am only discussing human choice on a macro level. The rest is just theory and is actually getting in the way of practical change for the betterment of all mankind.

breakingthefreewillillusion.com … -freewill/

These are interesting videos regarding compatibilism

youtu.be/VA9jaGBKsmE

youtu.be/lnQ5Eg_PDsU

Hello again. I’m surprised no one has shown any interest since I posted here recently. I thought people would be interested in the subject of free will and determinism, since this is one of the most longstanding debates in philosophy. I would like to converse with anyone interested in this topic.

philosophersmag.com/essays/ … never-ends

It’s ongoing in various threads under tangential titles.

The debate never ends because freewill and determinism are two poles of the same magnet: one can’t exist without the other. We can’t have the voluntary without the involuntary nor the involuntary without the voluntary.

Push determinism and we arrive at freewill; push freewill and we arrive at determinism. The two cannot be separated.

If people are determined, then there are no people, but arbitrary continuations of the deterministic process. If the universe is a mechanism, then so are you. In which case there is no one being pushed around, because no one exists.

On the other hand, you can’t push the universe around because you are it. Freewill can only manifest if there is something that is not under your control, but if everything is you, then how can that be?

It’s not freewill or determinism, but both and neither.

That’s actually not true. The two must be separated because one cancels out the other. Can you not do something and do it at the same time? That’s exactly what you’re saying. We can be free and not free simultaneously. The two are polar opposites.

I don’t get what you’re saying. Are you saying we don’t exist because we’re just part of a deterministic process that eviscerates us as individuals?

I’m not understanding you.

It IS determinism that is true, but the problem is that the conventional definition is not totally accurate. We are led to believe that determinism means we are just puppets on a string. That’s not what I am suggesting.

This part is particularly difficult to wrap our heads around. In a wholly determined universe we exist self-consciously; but we also exist mechanistically only as we ever could have existed.

And that’s just plain weird.

Back again to those hypothetical aliens and the dreams we have.

The hypothetical aliens occupying a segment of the universe where there is a measure of autonomy look down on us going about the business of us making choices. But one of them points out that we are like nature’s wind up dolls. We are doing only what nature compels us to do re nature’s immutable laws of matter. The sense of freedom that we think we have is only an illusion built into human psychology which is merely another adjunct of those immutable laws.

And then dreams. In them, I am convinced that I’m embedded in a real world making real choices. I don’t think that I am just dreaming the events are unfolding. They are actually happening to me “in the moment”.

But they’re not. They are a complete fabrication of my brain in sync with the events that unfold in my waking hours.

But the alien points out that ultimately it’s a distinction without a difference. In that in or out of dreams we think and feel and say and do only that which we could never not think and feel and say and do.

Unless of course that’s not true at all.

On the other hand, I’ll be the first to admit that, if I do possess some measure of free-will, I’m just not thinking this through correctly. And I am certainly not one of those who insist that unless you think about it as I do, you are wrong.

Objectivists I call them.

I don’t understand why it is necessary to think of determinism mechanistically just because we only exist as we ever could have existed, or that we think and say and do only that which we could never not think and feel and say and do. This presupposes that our brain cells are separate from the “I” or “agent” which makes decisions. The conventional definition of determinism implies that external factors force our hand, like dominoes. I don’t subscribe to that definition because we are not wind up dolls, yet we are compelled to do what we do based on our heredity and environment.

In a determined universe, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to presume that our brain cells are wholly in sync with “I”. That “I” is this amazing manifestation of matter having evolved over billions of years into matter able to become aware of itself as matter in the act of becoming aware of itself as matter. But only because there was never any possibilty of it not.

If we see dominoes toppling over onto each other – youtu.be/1QtdPfz_faM – we know that they could never have not toppled over onto each other than as they did.

Well, why can’t the same be said about nature evolving into human brains able to set the dominoes up? We do what we do only because we could not do otherwise. It’s just that unlike the mindless dominoes, “I” is equipped biologically with a psychological component able to convince “I” that something other than what it chose might have unfolded instead. That “I” was free to choose otherwise while in fact [as in our dreams] “I” does what it must.

Again, to me, this is just another rendition of compatibilism. And, sure, it might be more reasonable than the manner in which I think about these things myself here and now. But I just can’t wrap my head around the idea that I am “compelled to do what I do based on my heredity and environment” but that is merely in sync with the wrong definition of determinism.

As though you were ever really free to choose another definition instead.

I agree with you that it is more reasonable to presume that our brain cells are wholly in sync with “I”. The problem is that when people talk about brain cells and synapses doing the causing, it seems to imply that there is no choice that the “I” or “agent” makes as a conscious expression. In so doing, it takes away any responsibility of the agent in having made the choice. I am not referring to “moral” responsibility. For example, if he runs a red light and goes to court, what is he going to say? My brain cells made me do it? Do you think the courts would accept that as an excuse? :-k

That is very true.

You are absolutely correct. But…when you use the word ‘dominoe’ it makes it seem that we are robots. The domino had no choice. It fell because something pushed it. If someone pushed me, I would fall too, which is why the comparison isn’t a perfect analogy. Many philosophers believe that being able to make a choice without constraint is what free will is. That is the compatibilist view.

This is not another rendition of compatibilism. The way compatibilists use the word “free” is a strawman since no one is saying we don’t have the kind of freedom to choose that they are using as a means of making it appear that free will and determinism are compatible. There is a problem with their usage of the term “free” in regard to the kind of free that determinists are disputing, the kind that would allow a person to do otherwise given the same exact situation. In truth, determinism and free will are polar opposites.

We were never really free to do anything other than what we have done, or what we will do, but that does not mean we are not “free” (without constraint) to discuss better solutions to the world’s problems. If determinism is proved to be true (using a more accurate definition), then who would object to that? When I say we are compelled to do what we do based on our heredity and environment, what I mean is that we are the products of our experiences and how we interpret those experiences based on our predispositions, and all of the genetic factors that intermingle with the environment to make us who we are.