Determinism

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.

A magnet has a south pole and a north pole, but it’s one magnet. We cannot separate the north from the south. If we break the magnet in effort to separate the north from the south, we just create another north and south pole. For the same reason that we cannot have north without south, we also cannot have voluntary without involuntary.

Do you beat your heart or does it happen to you?

Yes, if we are a mechanism, then you are a mechanism. If we rewind the universe and start it again and it comes out the same way, then it’s a mechanism that could only unfold in one way. IF that is true, then beings do not exist. (I don’t believe it’s true. It’s not deterministic, but probabilistic.)

For the same reason a south and north pole cannot be separated, an organism and its environment cannot be separated; it’s all one process. And if it’s all one, then upon what would a free will exert its will? If there is nothing that is not you, then upon what would you exert your will? Conversely, if there is nothing that is you, then from where would this will originate?

A free will requires there be two distinct and unconnected things: a being with a will and something to kick around. But the capability of kicking the thing is evidence that the thing being kicked is part of the kicker. If you don’t believe that, you’ll have some difficult work ahead of you in explaining how a cause influences an effect IF they are not part of the same process.

Cause is distinct and unconnected from the effect, but cause influences effect by _________ mechanism. Fill in the blank. It cannot be done because as soon as you posit some mechanism explaining their interaction, you’ve just illustrated that they were not separate things in the first place. The prerequisite precludes the result. The maximum number of things in any universe is 1.

Well, then what you mean by “determinism”?

Are you saying that determinism is involuntary and free will is voluntary? I’m just trying to clarify your terms.

Of course I don’t beat my heart, but I do make choices.

[i]Excerpt from Decline and Fall of All Evil

However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer…” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction.

It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are
available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself
and his set of circumstances. [/i]

Your reasoning is based on a definition of determinism that I am not using. We have to be on the same page for there to be effective communication.

It is true that if we rewound the universe it would come out the same way, if it is true that man’s will is not free, but you are conflating different definitions which cause confusion. Determinism does not mean we have no say in our choices. It does not mean we are helpless robots. It does not mean we are not responsible for our actions. In fact, with a greater understanding we can see that it increases responsibility, the opposite of what many philosophers believe.

Very true.

The problem is that the definition of determinism, as it is presently defined, is not accurate because it assumes that something is forcing us (like the domino effect) to do what we do, even if it’s against our will. That is where the “I” enters into the equation, for without the agent’s consent, we ARE puppets on a string, but this is not the definition I am bringing to the table.

So are you saying that we can’t allude to a cause for anything?

What I mean is that the definition I am introducing is not the same definition that has monopolized the debate for centuries, preventing the ability to find a resolution between these two concepts.

Yes I think so. The freedom of the will is freedom from deterministic influence.

If you don’t beat your heart, then who does?

Yes I agree. What is your definition?

We can be determined by predetermined causes or we can be determined by probabilistic random causes. To me, either one qualifies as determinism, but usually the former is qualified as being “hard determinism” because there is no possible deviation from the path of unfolding events. If we type 1+1 into a calculator, we always get an output of 2 because it’s just a sequence of switches that always give the same result. But whether a photon travels through the left slit or right slit cannot be known until it happens. John Bell proved that there are no variables somehow hidden in the universe that determines which slit the photon will go through and it is actually a causeless event, so hard determinism is out. If the universe were rewound, it would almost certainly unfold differently.

Me neither, but although I’m free to choose chocolate or vanilla, I can’t choose whether I like chocolate or vanilla. The way I was fashioned determines which flavor I will freely choose. Since I didn’t make myself, I can’t control which I prefer.

Cause influences effect because they are the same event. The cause side of it is just an arbitrary abstraction. If the big bang is the way it happened, then we are still the big bang coming on.

That’s libertarianism. Are you a libertarian?

Whatever force brought me into this world.

I will give you the first three chapters of this book, but I will give you the specific page that explains why the present definition is inadequate.

Quantum mechanics (regardless of which theory; there are many) does not negate determinism on a macro human level. But remember, you are using, by definition, that which can never be reconciled, the way the definition is constructed.

We are not in disagreement here. You cannot control what you prefer any more than you can control what you don’t prefer. The problem is that philosophers actually think this ability to “freely” choose (without constraint of external force) grants us free will. It does not.

They ARE the same event if you want to look at it in that light, but that does mean that we should just sit back and not make choices. That’s called fatalism. Every moment the choice (the effect of the cause) is constantly at play. But the word “cause” is misleading for it assumes something external is making us do what we do, against our will, as if we play no part in decision making at all. That is not the determinism I am trying to communicate.

Again, either I’m missing your point here or your point is missing mine.

I’m not denying that a choice is being made by conscious human beings, only that it is a choice that could never have not been made.

The dominoes don’t choose to topple over. Only the person setting them up makes that happen. But [in a wholly determined universe] the person setting them up is but one of nature’s very own dominoes. There was never any possibilty of her not choosing to set them up. There was never any possibility of her choosing to set them up other than as she does.

She is “responsible” only for doing what she could never have not done.

Back to those autonomous aliens watching it all unfold in the courtroom and pointing out that, indeed, everything said and done, while being thought of by the participants as reflecting their own free will, was never going to be other than what it had to be because Earth is embedded in that part of the unviverse where determinism prevails.

It’s never going to be a pefect analogy because the matter in the domino and the matter in the human brain, while in sync with whatever the immutable laws of all matter might be, are very different kinds of matter.

Living matter itself would seem to be the biggest mystery of all here. How did that happen? Why did that happen? What does it ultimately mean?

But, still, how are both not constrained by those laws of matter?

Okay, you chose to point this out. But that is only true technically in that as one of nature’s dominoes you choose only that which you could have chosen. To me that is always the bottom line. However you “choose” to define or to describe a compatibilist you are still just one of nature’s dominoes.

In other words [for me] it’s back to this:

“Free.” Exactly. The very nature of matter itself wholly restrains us from choosing anything other than what we must.

Unless, of course, that is not true at all.

But the products of our experiences are themselves the products of nature’s immutable laws. And if your life is in the toilet it is comforting to believe it was never not going to be in the toilet. But if your life is bursting at the seams with satisfaction and fulfilment you want to believe instead that this is as a result of the brilliant [and autonomous] choices that you made.

In other words, nope, I’m still not getting your point. But: Is that beyond my control?

Neither the person whose life was in the toilet, or the person whose life was better, had any control over how their life turned out. It’s very true that when times are good, people want to take all the credit. You aren’t getting my point because I haven’t made one yet, other than agreeing that we have no free will. But there’s more to it than just stating that we must do what we must because we cannot not do it.

Progress to me implies something in the way of a teleological component “behind” the universe. The universe is evolving into something that can be described or defined as better than it was before.

And, sans God, how can nature really be understood in that manner?

Imagine hypothetcally human beings are the only conscious entities in the universe. Imagine a gigantic asteroid smashing into earth and wiping us all out.

The universe continues to unfold as before. But can that be described as progress?

Applied globally so as to reflect the fact that man’s will is not free. Thus it would seem that war, crime, and poverty are but inherent components of that.

Note to others: what point do I keep missing here? How is knowledge applied here [by anyone] other than as it must be given a determined universe?

“Free.” Exactly. The very nature of matter itself wholly restrains us from choosing anything other than what we must.

Unless, of course, that is not true at all.

Compelled. John is compelled to set up the dominoes just as the dominoes are compelled to topple over. But somehow with us it’s different. We’re not compelled mindlessly.

If there is more to it, then I will either be compelled to grasp it or not.

Not all events are progressive hypothetically. When I speak of progress I am speaking only of how we can improve the human condition.

They are inherent components of that, but when we apply the knowledge that man’s will is not free (along with the corollary that follows), we veer in a different direction but still within the “inherent components of that”.

Who is saying otherwise iambiguous?

What’s your point?

John is not compelled to set up the dominoes unless he wants (or chooses) to set up the dominoes. The dominoes don’t have an option.

Very true.

I have no idea. What’s a libertarian? Liberty from what? Liberty to do what?

And that force is not the same force that is making your decisions? If not, then how are the forces distinct? If they are distinct, then how do they interact?

Just give me your definition instead of why other definitions are wrong. It would be easier and clearer.

Probabilism is determinism, but determined by random outcomes rather than certain ones.

So it would seem.

Like the Rush song

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice

Fatalism posits there is a puppet being kicked around. If determinism is true, then there is no one to be pushed around.

I’m not sure what you mean by determinism.

lib·er·tar·i·an
/ˌlibərˈterēən/Submit
noun
1.
an adherent of libertarianism.
“libertarian philosophy”
2.
a person who believes in the doctrine of free will.

Serendipper, there is no duality here. I am only trying to get across that nothing external can force us to do anything we CHOOSE not to do. The force I am referring to is the invariable law of “greater satisfaction.”

I’m trying to explain that the word cause is misleading.

[i]The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.
Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work
at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He
actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the
alternative is considered worse and he must choose something to do
among the various things in his environment, or else commit suicide.
Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what
they did not want to do when unafraid of death which was judged,
according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils?

Therefore,
when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his
will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our
expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously
dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to
another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous,
of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him
greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or
another; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is a
compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed.
All I am
doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make
sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding
further.”[/i]

Probabalism means we are making a prediction based on probability. The ability to predict an outcome in terms of probability just means we don’t have all the information to make an accurate prediction. It does not negate determinism. Whether there is true ontic randomness in the universe is an open question but either way, it does nothing to grant us free will.

breakingthefreewillillusion.com … snt-exist/

Nice. :icon-wink:

Many people think the two are synonymous. Fatalism implies you can do nothing about a situation so you might as well not even try. Determinism doesn’t remove choice in any given situation. If something bad happens after you have done all that you can do to prevent it, then you can call it fate.

I’m trying to show you that the present definition of determinism is misleading for it assumes that we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events, but this is inaccurate since nothing can make us do something if we don’t want to do it, or do something against our will. The conventional definition makes it appear as if we are not responsible for our choices.

[i]Let me repeat this crucial point because it is the source of so
much confusion: Although man’s will is not free there is absolutely
nothing, not environment, heredity, God, or anything else that causes
him to do what he doesn’t want to do. The environment does not
cause him to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which
his desire is aroused, consequently, he can’t blame what is not
responsible, but remember his particular environment is different
because he himself is different otherwise everybody would desire to
commit a crime.

Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a
minor or more serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I
hurt that person not because I was compelled to do it against my will
but only because I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and
wrong prevent him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty
when this will only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some
sort for his desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions
considered wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the
shifting of guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb
part if not all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his
conscience in a world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases
with impunity since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do
what he really didn’t want to do.[/i]

I don’t know the doctrine of freewill, but probably not.

Since no external force can force us to do anything that we don’t want, then rape doesn’t exist.

I don’t know why you can say “determinism is defined as ____________”.

I don’t have any problem with the notion that we always get our way, so long as “we” are defined as the whole universe. If I get hit by a train, then it’s because “I” (me as the universe) wanted to, but it’s against my ego’s will.

Probabilism allows for the illusion of freewill since nothing is written in stone. Probabilism refers to the fact that there is a chance that you could disappear and reappear on mars.

I guess, but if we’re fated, then there is no us. If there is an us, then we are not fated.

I agree, but not for the reason you cite:

We do not need freewill to make the case that we are not caused by antecedent events since every event is fundamentally random (ie has no cause).

The maximum number of entities in the universe is one. There is no serendipper who is responsible because I can always pass the buck down the line. Adam blamed the woman for eating the fruit and the woman blamed the devil and the devil didn’t say anything because he knew it’s all god’s fault.

Fine, there is nothing causing someone to do what they don’t want to do, but there is something causing them to do what they want.

Determinism (as defined accurately) does not mean actions are not voluntary. We volunteer what our choice will be every time we make a decision. But does that make our will free? Libertarians define free will as having choices to pick from. Having choices in and of themselves does not mean you are free to choose A or B equally. That is what free will implies: "you didn’t have to choose A (to steal); you could have chosen B just the same (not to steal), therefore we can punish you for making the wrong choice. But how can both choices be equal when you must choose the option that offers the greatest satisfaction (i.e., the choice that you believe to be the better alternative given your particular circumstances?)

How can you speak on free will if you don’t have a definition of what that means? This just shows the confusion surrounding this longstanding debate.

How does “no external force can force us to anything we don’t want to” equate with “rape doesn’t exist?” Huh???

I told you. The immutable law of “greater satisfaction.” This is explained in great detail in the book.

The law of greater satisfaction. You cannot choose an alternative that offers you the least satisfaction of the options available at any given moment in time. Test it for yourself. The reason it’s an invariable law is because there are no exceptions.

If you get hit by a train because you didn’t see it coming, it’s because certain things lined up to make this happen. In most cases you didn’t want this to happen but (tell me if I’m wrong) the universe conspired (so to speak) to make this happen. I agree that what happens to us is often out of our control, especially when we didn’t ask for it.

Nothing IS written in stone, agreed. Only after a choice is made can someone say, “I could not have done otherwise”. There is no domino effect forcing you to make a particular choice if it’s not a choice you prefer.

And so could Santa Claus appear and reappear according to this theory. Where is there one iota of evidence that could make this a probability let alone a possibility? :confused:

I agree with you on this: fate (the way life unfolds) is often due to life circumstances we did not ask for. But fate does not mean that we do nothing to change our circumstances because we believe fate has already made the choice for us. Do you see what I’m getting at?

Randomness, either epistemologically speaking or ontologically speaking, are two different animals. The verdict is not even close to which one of these ideas is correct. I subscribe to the belief that randomness only means we don’t know all the variables that lead to a particular outcome (epistemological), which is different from the belief that embedded in the universe are random happenings with no cause whatsoever (ontological).

You would appreciate my book immensely based on what you just wrote. Let me know if you would like the first three chapters. I’ll post them for you but I won’t do this unless you request it. :smiley:

You are 100% correct. This is not an unimportant observation as you will see.

Again, you are saying something here that makes no sense to me in a wholly determined universe. If one’s goal is to improve the human condition and one is compelled to think, feel, say and do only that which is inherently entailed/compelled by the laws of matter then both the means and the ends here are subsumed in what can only be.

And that’s before we get to the part that most interest me: How, assuming some level of autonomy instead, progress is basically an existential contraption embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

Let’s bring this down to earth. In a determined universe what would constitute progress in regard to, say, the role of government in our lives? And how would we go about improving the human condition in regard to government when we can only go about doing what we must?

All I can do is to ask others here who share your point of view to reconfigure it into an assessment I might be able to better grasp. How is an individual “applying knowledge” not in turn entirely subsumed in a deterministic universe?

It all becomes somewhat surreal. We grasp that man’s will is not free. But we grasp that only because we could never not grasp it. And however we apply that to the human condition it is the only way that we ever could apply it.

And around and around we go. Making points that the other does not fully grasp in a wholly determined universe in which there was never any possibility of it being otherwise.

I am either incredibly dense in not grasping this or you are incredibly dense to argue it. John chooses only that which he is compelled to choose. The autonomous aliens note that unlike the dominoes John “chooses” to set them up. But John’s choice was never not going to be anything otherwise.

How is John here not just one of nature’s very own dominoes?

Thus:

A little help here!!

Admitting that perhaps I really am the one who needs it. Your point is solid and I keep missing it.

But: could he have ever chosen not to want to? If not then “wants” and the “subconscious/unconscious” mind would seem to be no less determined.

If one can only be confused in any particular context, how can he then be held responsible for being so? It’s like someone is compelled to blame him for being only what he was compelled to be.

Yes, but Rush’s Alex Lifeson was a proponent of Ayn Rand. And Rand was a proponent of free will: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html

The irony here of course is that while she championed the individual’s “volitional consciousness”, every single one of the fanatics who embraced her were free only to share her own choices.

Objectivism with [literally] a capital O.

So what if the means and the ends here are subsumed in what can only be. Wouldn’t that make you want to listen to a new understanding, which would also be subsumed in what can only be?

You are presupposing there has to be conflict in these things that you mentioned.

Doing what we must is simply saying that we are moving in the direction that we think is best for us. Improving the human condition, once this knowledge is recognized and confirmed, government as we know it will no longer be necessary.

As long as you use the phrase “subsumed in a deterministic universe” you are reducing us to automatons that can’t make choices. Although the word choice is misleading because it implies we can choose A or B equally (which is false) does not mean that our choices are less meaningful as part of our continued development.

And… are you saying that my words mean nothing because I couldn’t not be in this forum and type what I’m typing? #-o

True, from the birth of the universe to today had to occur exactly the way it did. Once again, a wholly determined universe does not remove our part in that determined universe by the “unfree” choices we make which will deterministically influence where our world is headed.

You’re missing the point because there’s no real point yet other than the reason man’s will is not free (i.e., that he is constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction). What is important to recognize (which leads to the two-sided equation) is that although we have no control over which choice gives us greater satisfaction at any given moment in time…nothing has the power to make or force us to do anything against our will (which the conventional definition of determinism ignores). So when someone says “he made me pull the trigger”, he is not being truthful. This is important in regard to this discovery which you will understand if you find this interesting. If you don’t find this interesting, then you could not not have moved on. I get that iambiguous. You don’t have to keep repeating it.