Determinism

Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”

Some intellectuals, some scientists. Just as some intellectuals, some scientists insist on supporting the opposite conclusion. The impulse however is either more or less under our control. Or is only the illusion of control.

There’s no getting around this for some. We just don’t know if there was literally no getting around it for them. But who hasn’t wished for something like this to explain away a set of circumstances that are pulling them down…that they can then just explain aways as “beyond my control”?

How about the political and economic elite? It is always in their interest to sustain any and all habits that inhibit citizens from actually exercising their political and economic will. And, in the end, don’t we have to roll the dice [compelled or not] and act as though we do have some measure of autonomy. It’s maddening [for some[ not to know for certain, but there it is: the human condition.

All I can come back to here is that only utter fools [in an autonomous world] would/could manage to actually think themselves into believing that the either/or world self is just an illusion.

Of course there is a self here. It eats and drinks and has sex and plays sports and goes to school or work and interacts with others in countless ways that clearly revolve around a substantive and substantial Me.

Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”

Like that definitively refutes Berkeley’s assumptions. Or, “I think therefore I am”. Like that necessarily excludes someone in a Sim world being programed to think that. Nothing is really either established as true or refuted as false until everything and anything is agglomerated into an explanation for existence itself. Yet even here someone convinced that they are cognizant of this may well be compelled to by someone or something beyond his or her grasp.

This merely takes me back to dreaming. I don’t know about your dreams but in mine “I” am utterly convinced I am confronted with a “variety of choices of thoughts and actions in front of me”.

Last night I dreamed myself back into to a set of circumstances involving an old childhood friend, Roger Rasnake. We were involved in some construction project that we were working on for free. I then insisted that we ought to be paid for what we did. Back and forth we went while continuing to work. Everything was vividly real including my confrontation with others in my family.

Yet the whole “experience” was created entirely in my brain, by my brain…for my brain?

Though, sure, there must be an important distinction between my “I” in that dream and my “I” here and now choosing to types these words rather than others.

But who out there in science, in philosophy, in theology has actually been able to demonstrate it such that there is no other possible explanation but free will in the human species.

Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”

Of course one might note that arguing “all of these factors have some influence on our behaviour” is in itself just another attempt at an all-encompassing explanation. But the fact that so many of us do seem compelled [naturally or not] to fit everything into one overarching account speaks volumes regarding how the brain seems to function. And that makes sense. We go about the business of doing so many different things it’s got to provoke us from time to time into thinking about the existence of something that fits everything together into what in some mental capacity is thought to be an ontological and teleological TOE.

It could be God, it could be nature, it could be something that no one has [so far] even thought of as existing at all.

Then back to this: He [like you and I] have no way in which to determine beyond all doubt that the “conscious self” either embodies or does not embody merely the illusion of free-will. Does nature dictate everything we think, feel, say and do? Or did nature’s matter actually succeed in evolving into an autonomous capacity to question its own existence?

This part:

Sure, maybe. But what is this but one more presumptuous assertion that it is so. How does this particular author go about producing the hard evidence necessary to convince the world that there could be no other explanation?

Or, that, even should someone seem to accomplish this, that this too is not only as it ever could have been?

How would we ever be able to detach ourselves from something we a clearly a part of in order to gain that distance said to be crucial in establishing that much sought after objectivity.

Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”

Once again, though, for some, they might point to this in exchanges here to bolster their contention that human brains are capable, on some level, of freely choosing this rather than that. But all they can do is to fall back on their own “experts”, knowing that in all likelihood there are “experts” on the other side claiming just the opposite.

Every morning you would get up, Google “neuroplasticity” – google.com/search?source=hp … JD_3GHfFUA – and note the latest.

On the other hand, if these folks ever do come to a definitive conclusion that, beyond all doubt, human beings are able of their own volition to embody options, wouldn’t it be talked about everywhere on every scientific and news media outlet?

So: Do we really have control over our brains here or is that too merely the brain “tricking” us into believing that this is the case. Why? Because that is still the only option available to the brain itself as matter inherently in sync with its own laws.

That complex relationship between the brain precipitating experiences and than the experiences themselves precipitating changes in the brain:

Sure, you can start with nurture and work back to the nature, or start with nature and work back to nurture. But how is it determined “once and for” what 1] first set it all in motion at birth and 2] what then sustains it all the way to the grave.

There may well be a team of scientists out there that have in fact been able to fuse the two approaches into an utterly irrefutable answer.

If so, link me to them.

Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”

See how this works? The author merely assumes that his own premises here are by default the starting block. We actually are free to develop more autonomy! You merely cherry pick the science and – presto! – you too can be more authentic.

As for the influences of our environment, don’t they go all the way back to the day we are born? Don’t they cover years and years of hard-core indoctrination in the family, the community, the state, the culture, the historical parameters of “I”?

And who then gets to decide which set of behaviors best exemplify a positive development toward a more meaningful life?

With or without autonomy, “I” is a profoundly problematic vantage point

Or, perhaps: As humanistic psychology is compelled to suggest, we have innate potentials and characteristics that are independent of external factors, even if this aspect of us may be so obscured from us that we can barely see it.

And this cries out for a context in which explore all the factors this might include, Again, even assuming some measure of autonomy. After all, what can possibly be more complex than human psychology at work in interactions revolving around identity, value judgments and political power? And, at this intersection, “adverse cultural and social influences” are all over the map. God or No God. Liberal or conservative. Nature or nurture.

And how does he actually demonstrate this? Well, he doesn’t of course. He doesn’t cite an experience that he had in a particular set of circumstances. He doesn’t note a clear-cut distinction between memetic and genetic influences. He doesn’t expound on how exactly he managed to resist these influences in order to remold his own behavior so as to override the adverse cultural and social influences that curtailed him before.

Let alone examine this pertaining to actual behaviors that clash in regard to conflicting goods. It’s all just contained in a world of words.

Like this one:

A classic approach of the “serious philosopher”.

Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”

And then around and around and around we go. If you take your intellectual leap to free will then you are convinced that you have of your own volition “exercised your autonomy”. If you take your intellectual leap to determinism then nature has compelled you to believe psychologically that you have of your own volition “exercised your autonomy”.

Then what? Then the link to one or another scientist that is either compelled by nature or not to confirm what you are either compelled by nature or not to believe is true.

Either the determinists are compelled or not to refute the arguments of the free will advocates, or the free will arguments are compelled or not to refute the arguments of the determinists.

As though someone out there has finally pinned this down once and for all. And, as though, in turn, that isn’t embedded in whether or not, if someone has, we are even aware of it.

And that’s before we get to all intelligent life on other planets that sans worm holes we will never, ever hear the arguments of.

Now, how is that not the boat [existential or otherwise] that we are all in?

well biggs if you must know, ‘freewill’ isn’t only inconceivable but also unworkable in any possible system whatsoever. the first part - what is inconceivable - is what the concept ‘will’ is supposed to mean in the language of the freewill argument. but even if we were to grant such an entity or agency, we’d still be faced with the ontological problem of interacting substances that are not reducible to the same fundamental properties… in which case we wouldn’t be able to understand how they affect each other. if you take for example descartes’ substance-dualism of the material (world) and the immaterial (self), you might be able to imagine these two substances existing independently and on their own… but how would they interact? how would the immaterial self touch and make contact with the material world in order to cause and direct physical action?

now my school of analytical nihilism (i just started it, btw) goes even further in criticism. we could even grant that this interaction were possible between these two ontologically distinct substances… and we’d still not have a case of genuine freewill. we would have to ask what compels the immaterial self to interact as it does with the material world, which it is not a part of, without itself being subject to some form of immaterial causality. that is to say, we’d have to posit an infinite regress of ‘freewills’ to get around this dilemma.

so if you ax me about the cash value of this fact, i’d admit that there is very little to it; we still live in a world as if we have freewill. it certainly seems like we do, and as such we have to find a workable way to live that sustains this illusion without it causing collateral damage. problem is, it’s causing a whole lotta collateral damage in ethics (and criminal justice, especially). this is something peacegirl was very attentive to and wrote a lot about.

the great paradox here is that abandoning belief in freewill actually has the opposite effect of fatalism and places more responsibility on man to control his environment and the causes within it. and of course you’d say ‘but even that would be part of the dominos toppling over’, yes. i admit that at this point we have not yet worked out a way to deal with this redundancy, but our research does show great promise. we’re now working on a theory called polymeric causal holism. its central thesis is that when a certain threshold of determined events occurs, an emergent self-determining effect results and is able to separate itself from the causal chain from which it evolved and direct itself as if it had freewill. but this doesn’t happen on an individual level. it happens on a ecological level… and by ecological i mean the interactions between environment, intelligent animals, and language users.

no just kidding. there still ain’t no freewill. i wuz just bullshitting.

Pick one:

  • you couldn’t have said it better if you tried
  • you couldn’t have said it worse if you tried

You know, if there really ain’t no freewill.

Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”

Ever and always it is merely assumed that this reconfiguration is not wholly configured by the laws of nature themselves. In fact, some are compelled by nature to get really, really fierce in insisting that their own life is shaped and molded wholly in accordance with their own autonomous behaviors. The ubermen among us in particular mock those who insist that they were never able not to mock those who were never able not to believe that their own lives are considerably less remarkable because they were never able not to be.

These exchanges can get really, really surreal, really, really fast.

But, even assuming volition, we are then confronted with that which our free will and autonomy does in fact pursue out in the world with others in shaping those biological and environmental influences. How ought they be shaped and molded given that this is something that is more or less in our command.

And these exchange are often not only surreal but, at times, downright vicious. Not only am I free but I use my freedom in the pursuit of those behaviors that are the obligation of all rational and virtuous men and women to pursue in turn.

So, which is worse…being enthrall to the laws of nature or to the laws of those objectivists who set out to shape and mold the world [and everyone in in it] to their own moral and political specs.

Freewill is macroscopic quantum coherence suspending the collapse of superpositions long enough for the brain to get it’s shit together and effect the outcome.

Not sure I entirely believe it, but it sure sounds cool.

At any rate, I’ll settle for ‘unpredictable will’, which kicks determinism out the window. Kinda.

Pick one:

  • you couldn’t have said it better if you tried
  • you couldn’t have said it worse if you tried

:banana-dance: :wink: :smiley: :slight_smile: :frowning: :astonished: :confused: :sunglasses: :laughing: :angry: :stuck_out_tongue: :blush: :imp: :evilfun: =D> #-o [-o< 8-[ :-k :-" O:) =; :-& :-$ :arrow_right: :exclamation: :bulb: :mrgreen: :neutral_face: :question: :open_mouth: ](*,) :eusa-shifty: :drool: :banana-dance:

Sorry, that too was beyond my control.

Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”

Again, what am I missing here? As though somehow the “spiritual” facet of human interactions is exempt from the laws of matter. The Buddha teaches self-discipline and self-control. And, surely, the Buddha himself was exempt from the laws of nature.

And certainly God is.

It always comes back to the psychological sense – here manifested in religion – that [somehow] I just know that what I am thinking and feeling and saying and doing is under my control. Sure, contingent on both genetic and memetic variables that are, in some crucial respects, beyond my control, but… but never completely beyond my control.

And that may well be the case. I certainly have not reached the point where, at times, I don’t have significant doubts about my own recent turn in the direction of determinism. Viscerally, it just does not seem possible that I am not of my own volition [whatever that means] typing what I do here. But it’s that I can’t know this beyond all doubt that is always there exasperating me.

Right, like he can go to the scientists who study this empirically and experimentally, using the rigors of the “scientific method”, and say, “Okay, give me the definitive argument I can use to prove that a ‘spiritual’ quest does in fact demonstrate the reality of free will among our species.”

Really, who cares how long the introspective process is when there are folks on both sides of the debate who have gone down that path and come to different conclusions.

Disciplines like Buddhism are just more intent and intense in focusing in on the ego in ways that other religious denominations are not. But that doesn’t make either the intention or the intensity of the pursuit any less necessarily exempt from whatever brought matter into existence and then laid down the law regarding what it can or cannot do. Only to the extent that the human brain is shown to be the one exception to the rule, does autonomy become more plausible. Spiritually or otherwise.

Saving the Self
Raymond Tallis defends personal identity from those who say the self is an illusion.

Tell me this is not downright “spooky”? There you are poking around inside the brain or probing it in real time, functioning through fMRI images. And who knows what new technology the neuroscientists either have or will have at their disposal.

But it’s not like they have ever reached the point where, while performing their experiments, probing their images, they actually make contact with the “I”. The part of the brain able to be separated out from the purely biological functions of all the parts.

Imagine that conversation!

See? As soon as you start in on the actual interaction between brain scientists and any one particular brain, you’re back to the chemical and the neurological interactions that can be documented and encompassed as in fact true objectively.

At best we can note the biological parameters involved and then point out how this particular brain in this particular head in this particular person is intertwined with all of the other things that we are reasonably certain about regarding the historical, cultural, and interpersonal “I”.

Without coming into contact with that “stand alone bit of the brain”, we are back to square one.

Reclaiming Freedom
Steve Taylor says of determinism: “I refute it thus!”

Of course Nietzsche too was no less addicted to his own “general description intellectual contraptions” in exploring the nature of “I” able to “overcome” itself “in his head”.

But what “out in the world” does that mean when, in overcoming yourself in any particular context, others overcoming themselves, insist that the consequences of your own overcoming comes into conflict with the consequences of their overcoming.

Exactly: As soon as this or that overcoming precipitates social and political and economic conflicts, what then?

Suppose you set out to “overcome” yourself in regard to the coronavirus? How do you suppose that might play itself out given particular behaviors that you choose?

As for being “self-satisfied”, how is this not in turn the embodiment of dasein? You may choose a new path and for all practical purposes your choices may improve your lot in the world. But what I always focus on is the part where the consequences of this “new you” detracts from the well-being of others.

The part that for me precipitates the fracturing and the fragmenting. How does it not for you? And, again, how is any of this back and forth assessing able to be demonstrated as within the parameters of human autonomy?

Here’s how the author “demonstrates” it?

He merely asserts all of the above to be true by assuming he was not compelled by the laws of nature embodied in his brain to do so. And it’s not like the determinists can demonstrate otherwise. So, around and around we all go, leap by leap by leap.

The Free Will of Ebenezer Scrooge
Richard Kamber considers the possibility of changing destiny.

Wow. I recall as a child, there were two movies that first got me to thinking about the relationship between time, myself and free will. One was The Time Machine with Rod Taylor and the other was A Christmas Carol with Alastair Sim.

And it was the part that took us into the future that most intrigued me. After all if we could go into the future and observe it, how could it ever not but be that way?

But then there is also the focus of films like Back To the Future, Timecrimes and Primer…films that explore how, if we go back in time and change something, that changes the future into something else. But what I could never quite configure in my head was the part about the future. If, for example, today, we could go forward in time 6 months and see our coronavirus ravaged world then, how could things not be compelled to unfold such that this was the only possible future?

Then the part where, in the multiverse, every possible combination of events exists in one or another of an infinite number of parallel universes.

Even now I still can’t quite wrap my head around the extent to which I am thinking this through in the most rational manner. Or if there is a way in which to think it through in the most rational manner at all.

Who can really “assure us” of anything here?

The Free Will of Ebenezer Scrooge
Richard Kamber considers the possibility of changing destiny.

Again, however, this presumes there must be at least some measure of human autonomy here. Otherwise in a wholly determined universe as I understand it both protagonists act out only that which their creators [Dickens and Sophocles ] were compelled by nature to invent for them.

That’s how surreal this all becomes. The characters in both Oedipus Rex and A Christmas Carol, acquire “free will” from the authors who created them. But could not nature be construed as the “author” of both Dickens and Sophocles themselves? It’s just that with nature, the most surreal aspect of all is that there does not appear to be any teleological intention behind anything at all. Matter is just somehow able reconfigure itself into a mindful consciousness that is still no less driven to interact with all other matter [mindful or not] in the only possible way that can be.

In other words, how is being a philosopher examining this change anything? Aren’t they all in turn no less subsumed in these laws?

See my points above. The wisdom that Dickens imparts to Scrooge either is or is not interchangeable with nature creating a brain able to accomplish this. To make a distinction between “may be” and “will be” seems part and parcel of the position described by the compatibilists. A point of view I am still not able to grapple with and grasp. If it is nature and only nature that is behind things “departed from”, then nature and Dickens and Scrooge and all of us are intertwined in the one and only one possible reality.

But over and again I acknowledge the problem here may well be my own inability to think this through correctly…assuming it is within my capacity even to think it through correctly.

The Free Will of Ebenezer Scrooge
Richard Kamber considers the possibility of changing destiny.

Of course here we immediately bump into the gap/chasm between deducing that this is true in an argument and, say, devising an experiment that would demonstrate that this is empathically true empirically, existentially. Only here the experiment itself may or may not be wholly compelled by nature.

Same with the current coronavirus pandemic. Few would argue that the virus itself is choosing to wreak havoc on the lives of millions and millions of us. And our bodies react to it [down to the most miniscule of quantum particles] like atomic clockwork. Until we come to the brain. Are the laws of nature also wholly applicable to it as well? And how far are we from closing the gap between posts like these and definitive experiments able to provide the definitive proof that my “I” and your “I” does or does not possess at least some capacity to the react to the virus of our own free will.

Still, however more protracted our speculations become, nothing really changes. These conjectures either are entirely subsumed in consequences that are entirely subsumed in the laws of matter, or someone comes up with the verifiable evidence, documented scientifically, that “I” really is somehow the one exception to the rule.

And dreams provide us only with experiences regarding just how profoundly problematic reality can be…or can appear to be. “I” while in them seems as authentic as “I” wholly awake and aware. These “chains of events” in dreams are experienced by us as though “I” is more than just “another link in the causal chain”. But how is this then conclusively, decisively confirmed?

The Free Will of Ebenezer Scrooge
Richard Kamber considers the possibility of changing destiny.

One thing here I know for sure: if this intelligence does in fact exist on this planet, the argument hasn’t gotten around to me yet.

How about you? What, in your view, reflects the argument that at least comes closest? Acknowledging of course that we are not privy to the arguments of intelligent life forms on any other planet. Or to an explanation from God, if in fact there is one. Or [of course] even if any explanation that we are privy to at all is not embodied in a wholly determined universe.

The author “considers the possibility of changing destiny” here, but that must involve a definition of destiny that I am not familiar with. If you can change our destiny in regard to “know[ing] and analyz[ing] all the conditions and forces of nature at a certain moment” in order to encompass the past, present and future wholly in sync with the laws of nature, then it clearly wasn’t destiny in the first place.

How can something that could only ever be, ever be “tragic”? Instead, the laws of matter – nature – may well have created a human mind able to concoct a psychological state that we were compelled to construe as tragic.

Think about the creations of Nathan in the film Ex Machinaviewtopic.php?f=24&t=179469&p=2562128&hilit=ex+machina+directed#p2562128

Then the scene where it dawns on Caleb that he too might be just another creation of Nathan. And, if that had turned out to be the case, and he felt that this was tragic…?

You tell me.

The Free Will of Ebenezer Scrooge
Richard Kamber considers the possibility of changing destiny.

my emphasis

Compelled or not, this argument still makes the most sense to me. I was never not able to type these words. You were never not able to read them. And the consequences of that could not be clearer: personal responsibility is a psychological illusion built by nature into the human brain for whatever reason that the immutable laws of nature exist at all.

Morality is no less an illusion. Therefore any good things that I take credit for or any bad things for which I am blamed, were always ever going to be going back to what was always ever going to be given all of the necessary components of existence itself. And, therefore, “compatibilism” is in turn no less subsumed in a necessary reality itself.

Not that I can actually demonstrate that any of this is indisputably true.

Here, as with you, I am stuck with that which up until now I was compelled by nature – compelled by what? – to think myself into believing.

Unless of course someone has accomplished the task of his or her own volition of demonstrating that in fact it is otherwise.

Anyone here perchance?

Gasp!

See how it works? The extent to which determinism is one thing rather than another becomes entirely dependent on how one defines it. Then, what, it is merely assumed as well that how you define it is also encompassed in that definition? Again, going back to what in fact really is the case embedded in the gap between what “I” think explains reality [human and otherwise] and all that would need to be known to explain it.

Encompassing in turn this…

Okay, this is what some believe about quantum interactions. But who among us is able to demonstrate definitively that this is in fact the case?

Thought I’d put this one here too…

Nietzsche and Morality
Roger Caldwell responds to an analysis of Nietzsche’s morality.

Here we go again. A determinist who argues that human beings are part of “a causul web that comprises the whole universe” and then reconfigures that into a will that is either strong or weak.

Morality aside, if one’s will is entirely shaped by the laws of matter compelling the brain to embody either a weak or a strong will in any particular individual what difference does that make when manifested in human interactions if those interactions could only be what nature compels?

What the hell do I keep missing here…if I actually do have the capacity to not miss it?

Same thing. Making a distinction between grasping the surface of things and grasping things in depth in a world where both are a necessary/inherent component of nature’s immutable laws is for all practical purposes to make no distinction at all. Or so it still seems to me.

Same thing. In a wholly determined universe how could anything that we think, feel, say and do not be rational if by rational we mean wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

This is something I come back to time and again because the only way morality can have any real substantive meaning in our lives is if in some way that we may or may not come to understand we are in fact free to choose behaviors other than the ones that we do.

Right?