Determinism Revisited

[Brandon]

The free will/determinism issue's been on my mind a lot lately. On the one hand, I want to believe in free will, but on the other, I feel like only a fool could deny the claims of the scientists, since they've got cold, hard data on their side.

I haven't heard any decent arguments for compatabilism that don't sound like desperate rationalizations. Are there any good refutations of determinism, or is it a losing battle?

[Perndog]

I thought there was some offshoot of the uncertainty principle that knocked a hole or two in determinism...could be wrong, I'm not too up on theoretical fizzicks.

[Sethomas]

Well, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle refutes Pierre Simone de Laplace's belief that there could be an intelligence that could predict the future by knowing the present positions and momenta of all particles. As Heisenberg stated, this isn't because the future is notpredetermined (from a quantum standpoint, it is) but because it is impossible to have absolute knowledge of a particle's properties.

Spinster recommended to me a book called The Illusion of Conscious Will by Daniel Wegner, and I enjoyed it muchly. In his final chapter, Wegner stated that the notion of free will is so irrational once you dissect it into its component axioms that virtually no modern theory of psychology dares to incorporate it. In short, he stated that if free will did exist, at most it would be an internal coinflip.

[Dole]

I don't know why you are bothering to discuss it, Keiko died and they won't be able to make any more.

[The One and Only...]

There are several refutations of determinism, but many you will not accept.

You see, I can't figure you out, Brandon. You are irreligious, but somehow want to believe in fanciful concepts like free will. You're also left-wing, which breeds determinists (that's why the communists thought that they could create a new socialist man who strives for the good of all).

Anyway...

The most basic refutation is this: God endows us with free will, because without free will there would not exist any moral good.

I doubt you will find that one... sufficient. So here is another one, strait from the textbook:

"In the second place, some think that determinism is downright incompatible with genuine thinking, using the word to cover a broad range of intellectual activities. Setting adide such intellectual experiences as intuition, flashes of insight, and creative imagination, which some think transcend the flux and flow of blind and mechanical causation, is not the determinist caught in a hopeless if not self-contradictory position?"

Now, you may wonder at that staement, but consider this conversation and you may see what he is talking about.

"Determinist: All things are causally determined.
Indeterminist: But is that statement itself therefore causally determinded?
Determinist: Why, of course. I just said that everything is!
Indeterminist: Well, then, why should I take it seriously?
Determinist: Because I am a rational person, and I offer it as a rational position.
Indeterminist: But that's just the point. I don't call people or positions "rational" that are blind products of antecedent causes. I might as well argue with a turnip!"

Perhaps the simplest way to get rid of determism is to get rid of materialism. Materialism and determinism usually go hand in hand in philosophical realms. And truly, materialism and determinism is not that difficult to replace with idealism and free will.

[theapportioner]

Even without determinism, the existence of free will isn't proven. Indeterminism does not equal free will - far from it. I think the jury's still out as to whether the universe is determined, but this this largely irrelevant to the discussion of free will. Forget about subatomic particles and superstrings for a moment. The more relevant question is this: is there something about our brains that would provide us with free will? Quantum fluctuations, if they exist in the brain, won't do - all that would show is there is an element of unpredictability in the brain.

OAO: That dialogue is an idiotic one and only refutes a subjective, phenomenological determinism.

[The_Rorschach]

My peronal opinion, which is neither eduated nor articulate, is that Free Will and 'Fate' are dichotomous. One cannot generalize the specific, nor can they objectify the subjective, so essentially, within the CONTEXT of an individuals life, there is a high amount of probability in how they will respond to any situation, but there is always a measure of uncertainty. . .So yes, I believe Free Will exists, but that is not to say that individuals act freely.

If that makes sense.

I wish I were CLA sometimes. He has a better background in philosophy than I do, and doubtless he knows of someone who has already taken the same stance as I have, but can phrase it better than I.

[The One and Only...]

That is called compatibalism, Ror.

[theapportioner]

If all compatibilism amounts to is an illusion of free will, then I doubt too many people would be thrilled by that news.

[Brandon]

At any rate, I think the concept of complete, unconstrained free will (philosophical libertarianism) can be ruled out with some certainty. The idea that decisions are made without influence or prompting by biological and environmental forces could strike anyone with a shred of common sense as absurd.

Consciousness is always consciousness of something. Thoughts are never spontaneous, but always brought about by either a sense experience or a recollection of earlier data. If thoughts were to occur spontaneously, consciousness would be a type of causa sui, an uncaused cause, and unless you believe in some type of soul, that would be just ludicrous.

But anyway, on to responsibility--if man's actions or thoughts are caused/determined, can he still be held responsible for them?

[theapportioner]

As long as humans are aware of actions of which they are the authors, then yes, IMO.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

As long as humans are aware of actions of which they are the authors, then yes, IMO.

But if causality is the author of all actions, then how can humans be held responsible?

[mburbank]

I either have true free will or am structured to experience the perfect illusion of free will. I am not structured to be able to tell the difference between ture free ill and the perfect illusion of free will. Therefore I will behave as if I have true free will.

And yeah, Quantum Mechanics as we currently understand it argues strongly against determinism. Not that it affects the above statement anyway.

Worrying about the fundamentally unknowable is often a byproduct of anxiety, a sort of white noise wall flung up to prevent potentially frightening activity.

[theapportioner]

Problem is, we don't have a perfect illusion of free will.

Brandon, I'll get to yer post a little later.

[mburbank]

Did you have any choice about saying that?

[theapportioner]

The guy with the hand in my back made me do it.

[The One and Only...]

Actually, Quantum Mechanics only goes against determinism in the popular interpretation. Need I remind you of Einstein's Hidden Variable theory?

At any rate, it does not support free will.

Personally, I think a new doctrine needs to be made that is entirely different from the two. Something like Inspirationalism, where the mind is able to freely choose but experience can open up new venues of thought previously unknown to the the thinker.

[theapportioner]

But if causality is the author of all actions, then how can humans be held responsible?

Responsible in what sense? I think it's okay to have a pragmatic ethics that is not grounded in the deepest metaphysical truths. There isn't any ground anyway. Nor do you have to depend exclusively on a notion of personal responsibility for a system of ethics or morality. For instance, the utilitarian argument for justifying a certain law. The illusion or fabrication of free will has obvious advantages for an individual member of our species. It allows one to recognize that she is the author of her actions, which obviously plays a crucial role in our learning from experience. To put it in another way, it would be impossible for a person to adopt a "psychology" (for the lack of a better word at the moment) of determinism because our FEELING of a conscious, free will is so strong and innate. Wegner, as I recall, likened it to an emotion. Though I'm not sure I agree completely, I think the message is fairly clear -- free will is a feeling that is not going away.

That being said, there are advantages, IMO, of seeing free will as something fabricated rather than something "real"...

[Brandon]

Good points, apportioner.

Am I wrong to assume that there is a certain naivete involved in the principles of causality? It seems to me that it can only be applied to immediate, short-term examples. And furthermore, since events don't exist in a vaccuum, how can we be sure what causes what?

For example, I was at a basketball game tonight. I got up to take a piss, and while I was gone, a player crashed down into my vacant seat. When I got back, my dad told me "good thing you got up and left." The assumption was that my getting up had nothing to do with the player falling, and he would have landed there in either situation, but how do we know that? This is really just Chaos Theory, but how do we know for sure that my getting up didn't cause a ripple effect to occur?

[mburbank]

The hidden variable is hidden because he couldn't figure it out, dope.

Events at the quantum level cannot be observed without effecting them. There are multipe different interpretations of how observation effects the subatomic world, from bizarre notions about particles having free will themsleves, to our own will determining their behavior to observation simply nudging particles, but no one I'm aware of thinks you can determine the location and momentum of an electron simlutaneously.

Einstein had a gut intuition that you could but he never got anywhere near it. To date, the only even tangientially related work has been done by Hawking who showed that black holes do emit some radiation proving some as yet undescribed linkage between quantum and classical physics.

[Brandon]

Another question: how can determinism account for the widespread success of rational-emotive therapy?

[theapportioner]

Well, as far as that goes, I see it like this: Input from the environment (you are a goood person, really you are) sets a little nugget or meme in your brain, and it just goes from there. Any number of inputs from the environment can change our emotions - the weather, a hot girl, etc. and this is another stimulus.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

The hidden variable is hidden because he couldn't figure it out, dope.

Well no shit, sherlock. The point is that it remains a viable theory for showing how determinism could work with quantum mechanics.

Events at the quantum level cannot be observed without effecting them. There are multipe different interpretations of how observation effects the subatomic world, from bizarre notions about particles having free will themsleves, to our own will determining their behavior to observation simply nudging particles, but no one I'm aware of thinks you can determine the location and momentum of an electron simlutaneously.

Show me the evidence. How can quantum events that are observed be compared to quantum events that are not observed for such a conclusion to be drawn? Highly illogical.

Most of these theories are the result of blown smoke. I believe it was a Nobel laurete who said that you can say whatever you want in physics these days.

Einstein had a gut intuition that you could but he never got anywhere near it. To date, the only even tangientially related work has been done by Hawking who showed that black holes do emit some radiation proving some as yet undescribed linkage between quantum and classical physics.

I wouldn't call it "gut intuition". It was more like an inductive argument built up from all previous observations in physics.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Responsible in what sense? I think it's okay to have a pragmatic ethics that is not grounded in the deepest metaphysical truths. There isn't any ground anyway. Nor do you have to depend exclusively on a notion of personal responsibility for a system of ethics or morality. For instance, the utilitarian argument for justifying a certain law. The illusion or fabrication of free will has obvious advantages for an individual member of our species. It allows one to recognize that she is the author of her actions, which obviously plays a crucial role in our learning from experience. To put it in another way, it would be impossible for a person to adopt a "psychology" (for the lack of a better word at the moment) of determinism because our FEELING of a conscious, free will is so strong and innate. Wegner, as I recall, likened it to an emotion. Though I'm not sure I agree completely, I think the message is fairly clear -- free will is a feeling that is not going away.

That being said, there are advantages, IMO, of seeing free will as something fabricated rather than something "real"...

When I say "responsible," I mean in the sense that a "negative" behavior/crime can be punished to serve some abstract ideal of "justice."

If determinism holds true (and it seems to me like we have to assume it does), then punishment for punishment's sake (in other words, not used as a part of reconditioning) is a grievous mistake based on a fallacious idea.

[The One and Only...]

Not necessarily. Determinists themselves are split upon this issue. Hard Determinism vs. Soft Determinism.

Also remember that we could simply kill those who are genetically or socially inferior to increase efficiency.