Determinism Dilemma?

[The Atheist]

I think even shuffling cards is subject to the "utter rubbish" of quantum indeterminacy.

Only for those who can't shuffle properly!

Say for example you do a rip shuffle. The precise moment the flexed corner of a card flicks off your thumb is subject to some very slight quantum effects, which may of course have affected its order when you merge the deck halves (Schneibster had a long post to this effect in a thread Shemp started about dice about a year or so ago).

I might go and look, although I have a fairly low opinion of Schneibster's posting. I haven't seen him around for ages.

I'm still not seeing how it makes no sense. Please explain for the slowest member of the class. (i.e. me)

You and me both - this is not one of my subjects. I can give you plenty of advice on cards, though.

I just don't see the point in using "determinism" as a doctrine. It smacks of the religious uncaused cause argument for god/s. If the determined effect cannot be read, analysed or predicted, what use is it? We're basically saying that everything has a natural cause, so why not just stick to naturalism?

It seems too much like Dawkins' meme about memes - which ultimately is no more than swapping the word "meme" for "idea".

 

[porch]

It changes the hand, the outcome, and if there's money at stake, my financial situation.

Can I ask what game you play? (Sorry if you already mentioned but I missed it.) Shouldn't it be entirely irrelevant to your gameplay? No matter what actual order the cards are in, you'll have a certain number of known cards and a certain number of unknown cards, and that's what you have to work with.

 

[plumjam]

This isn't a logical argument against determinism. It is wish thinking.

So, for you, the evidence of your whole life, and the evidence of every human's life throughout history, and the evidence of the way in which everyone actually lives their lives, and the way all societies have been structured, is just wishful thinking.
Ok
That's why I say it's a pretty barren debate. Because if people are not willing to accept all that as highly significant evidence then it's kind of pointless pursuing the discussion.
What else could convince such a person that they do actually have the freedom to choose? Beats me.

 

[Roboramma]

TA, what if instead of you shuffling we had a robot, that also happens to be programmed to sing tunes. But like you it's not particularly good at musical timing, and thus the timing will be slightly different each time, thus affecting the outcome of the hand.

Question: does this mean that the robot's actions are not deterministic?

Because I don't really get it.

 

[KingMerv00]

So, for you, the evidence of your whole life, and the evidence of every human's life throughout history, and the evidence of the way in which everyone actually lives their lives, and the way all societies have been structured, is just wishful thinking.
Ok
That's why I say it's a pretty barren debate. Because if people are not willing to accept all that as highly significant evidence then it's kind of pointless pursuing the discussion.

Honest question...how is it "highly significant evidence"?

Imagine two worlds:

World 1

1) The laws of nature exist but they do not exclusively control human behavior.

2) Free will exists and it is a major factor in human behavior.

3) Human behavior causes people to live their lives and creates the societies we see around us.


World 2

1) The laws of nature exist and are they are the exclusive cause of human behavior.

2) Human behavior causes people to live their lives and creates the societies we see around us.


Worlds 1 and 2 appear identical in every way even to the humans who live in them. Free will is an extraneous bit of metaphysics and violates the principle of parsimony. If you want others to believe in free will, you'll have to give evidence that does not rely on an argument from emotion.

 

[The Atheist]

Can I ask what game you play? (Sorry if you already mentioned but I missed it.) Shouldn't it be entirely irrelevant to your gameplay? No matter what actual order the cards are in, you'll have a certain number of known cards and a certain number of unknown cards, and that's what you have to work with.

Poker, spades, canasta, 500, bridge... - when it comes to cards, I'll play it.

The outcome is entirely dependant upon the cards dealt, and if a good hand will be dealt if I shuffle right now, and a bad one if I shuffle six seconds later, then there is an effect.

Either way, the cards are unknown until turned over, but aces will always make a better hand than 3s.

TA, what if instead of you shuffling we had a robot, that also happens to be programmed to sing tunes. But like you it's not particularly good at musical timing, and thus the timing will be slightly different each time, thus affecting the outcome of the hand.

Question: does this mean that the robot's actions are not deterministic?

Because I don't really get it.

I think a robot wouldn't work, because it would shuffle the same way every single time, so the deal will be the same whenever it shuffles. I guess that would be more in line with determinism as a doctrine than my shuffle, which is truly random.

I'm glad you mention robots, because it was internet cards which got me thinking. I'm guessing that the next deal is the next deal on a computer, same as the robot, so the hand is pre-determined. Mine aren't, and I think it could truly be classed as arandom element in the best meaning of the word.

 

[KingMerv00]

I think a robot wouldn't work, because it would shuffle the same way every single time, so the deal will be the same whenever it shuffles. I guess that would be more in line with determinism as a doctrine than my shuffle, which is truly random.

You are still a machine. More complex to be sure, but still a machine. What makes you "truly random" and the shufflebot "unrandom"?

 

[The Atheist]

You are still a machine. More complex to be sure, but still a machine. What makes you "truly random" and the shufflebot "unrandom"?

No, I'm not saying it's not random, because it is, but I think a robot's next shuffle would be the same every time, unless it puts the cards down. Once its "fingers" are in place, the shuffle will be the same no matter how long it holds the cards for.

With a human, every split second delay will mean a slightly different shuffle.

 

[KingMerv00]

With a human, every split second delay will mean a slightly different shuffle.

And I don't understand what that has to do with determinism. Just because the parameters for the shuffle change more frequently for humans does not mean that those parameters are not created by the steady laws of physics.

 

[The Atheist]

And I don't understand what that has to do with determinism. Just because the parameters for the shuffle change more frequently for humans does not mean that those parameters are not created by the steady laws of physics.

The point of determinsm seems to be a claim that things are determined. When the number of random choices for a simple deal of cards increases exponentially depending upon which precise moment I shuffle, it becomes quite meaningless.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[KingMerv00]

The point of determinsm seems to be a claim that things are determined. When the number of random choices for a simple deal of cards increases exponentially depending upon which precise moment I shuffle, it becomes quite meaningless.

At least that's how I see it.

So all you are saying is that determinism is difficult to demonstrate?

 

[plumjam]

Honest question...how is it "highly significant evidence"?

How is it not? How could the lived experience of every human being ever, fail to be highly significant evidence?

Imagine two worlds:

World 1

1) The laws of nature exist but they do not exclusively control human behavior.

2) Free will exists and it is a major factor in human behavior.

3) Human behavior causes people to live their lives and creates the societies we see around us.


World 2

1) The laws of nature exist and are they are the exclusive cause of human behavior.

2) Human behavior causes people to live their lives and creates the societies we see around us.


Worlds 1 and 2 appear identical in every way even to the humans who live in them. Free will is an extraneous bit of metaphysics and violates the principle of parsimony. If you want others to believe in free will, you'll have to give evidence that does not rely on an argument from emotion.

First, there is no evidence for the complete determinism hypothesis.. rendering it a blind-faith position.

Given that we all know that we have the ability to make free choices it is actually the belief in complete determinism which is the 'extraneous bit of metaphysics'.

If human decisions are completely determined you need to be able to explain what is the useful origin of the universal human sense of having the freedom to choose. If this sense is an 'illusion' what purpose would it have and why, and how, would it originate and be sustained?

There is also the moral angle.
If Fred runs into a school and shoots 20 kids then kills himself you'll need to explain why responsibility for this act, and any attendant blame or anger, is directed at Fred rather than his gun.

In shooting the kids Fred was simply obeying physical law.
In shooting the kids the gun was simply obeying physical law.

Likewise, (within the worldview you appear to notionally hold) if I throw a stone at you why would you not apply equal blame to both the stone and myself?

If a boulder is eroded away from a mountainside and rolls down onto a road, killing 40 bus passengers, why do we not try that boulder in a court of law for causing these deaths?

If I drive a car into a crowd of people, killing myself and many of them, within your view it should make no difference whether I did it intentionally, out of malice, or accidentally due to me having an epileptic fit at the wheel.

So, to recap. Not only is there no evidence for complete determinism (which renders it a blind-faith position), but such a belief also goes against all of humanity's day-to-day lived experience.
Furthermore such a belief results in complete moral absurdity.

So why would you want to blindly believe in something which has no evidential support, goes against all human experience, and results in moral absurdity?

 

[KingMerv00]

First, there is no evidence for the complete determinism hypothesis.. rendering it a blind-faith position.

"No free will" is the most parsimonious explanation. The laws of physics are sufficient to explain the brain. Adding free will adds an extra element for which there is no evidence. Occam does not like that.

Given that we all know that we have the ability to make free choices it is actually the belief in complete determinism which is the 'extraneous bit of metaphysics'.

You sir, are a question-begging maestro. Most circular reasoning goes something like this:

Qquestion:How Do We Know the Bible is Accurate?
1)It is written in the Bible that the Bible is the word of God.
2)The word of God is always truthful and accurate.
Answer: Therefore the Bible is Accurate.

You, on the other hand, go even farther:

Q:How do we know we have free choices?
1) We have free choices.
Answer: Therefore we have free choices.

You use something even worse than circular reasoning, you are using singularity reasoning. Yet you have the audacity to call my position one of "blind-faith".

If human decisions are completely determined you need to be able to explain what is the useful origin of the universal human sense of having the freedom to choose. If this sense is an 'illusion' what purpose would it have and why, and how, would it originate and be sustained?

We desire freedom for the same reason we desire food or water, it is useful to our surival. The desire originates and is sustained by the brain.

There is also the moral angle.

Which is irrelevant to the truth of the free will but ok.

If Fred runs into a school and shoots 20 kids then kills himself you'll need to explain why responsibility for this act, and any attendant blame or anger, is directed at Fred rather than his gun.

In shooting the kids Fred was simply obeying physical law.
In shooting the kids the gun was simply obeying physical law.

And I am obeying physical law in my attempt to stop him so I don't need to explain a deep, metaphysical "why" for him OR me.

Likewise, (within the worldview you appear to notionally hold) if I throw a stone at you why would you not apply equal blame to both the stone and myself?

If a boulder is eroded away from a mountainside and rolls down onto a road, killing 40 bus passengers, why do we not try that boulder in a court of law for causing these deaths?

Because human behavior can be modified and controlled through imprisonment and rehabilitation. Boulders tend to obey the laws of gravity no matter how long they spend in jail. Human brain chemistry, on the other hand, makes connections between certain actions and certain consequences.

If I drive a car into a crowd of people, killing myself and many of them, within your view it should make no difference whether I did it intentionally, out of malice, or accidentally due to me having an epileptic fit at the wheel.

That's silly. Epilepsy isn't cured by prison time. Courts recognize a sliding scale with mens rea because we know that some criminal acts are more likely to recur and also that some respond better to incarceration.

So why would you want to blindly believe in something which has no evidential support, goes against all human experience, and results in moral absurdity?

Why would I make my determinations about objective reality based on what I want? Reality doesn't care what make me feel good.

Do you at least understand why I called your position "wish-thinking" now?

 

[plumjam]

"No free will" is the most parsimonious explanation. The laws of physics are sufficient to explain the brain. Adding free will adds an extra element for which there is no evidence. Occam does not like that.

What you're doing here is exactly what you (wrongly) accuse me of doing in the next bit.
You're saying 'The principle of parsimony tells us what is true, because truth is parsimonious'. That is a circularly reasoned prejudice, nothing more.
But seeing as you believe in the principle it is certainly not clear which side parsimony would fall on in the FW-Determinism debate.
If complete determinism were the case a truth-is-parsimonious position is incapable of explaining the origin and continued existence of the universal experience of being free to choose.

You sir, are a question-begging maestro. Most circular reasoning goes something like this:

question:How Do We Know the Bible is Accurate?
1)It is written in the Bible that the Bible is the word of God.
2)The word of God is always truthful and accurate.
Answer: Therefore the Bible is Accurate.

You, on the other hand, go even farther:

Q:How do we know we have free choices?
1) We have free choices.
Answer: Therefore we have free choices.

Incorrect. We have the universal feeling that we make free choices. In your worldview that universal feeling is incongruous and requires an evidenced explanation rather than simple philosophical assumption.

You use something even worse than circular reasoning, you are using singularity reasoning. Yet you have the audacity to call my position one of "blind-faith".

Yes, it's blind faith. My position has some evidence (all of human experience). Your position has no evidence, and is only believed in a philosophical sense by some people because it fits with their overall belief system. But in everyday life these people show every sign of contradicting their stated beliefs, by consistently acting in a manner contrary to these beliefs.. e.g. acting in a way which strongly suggests they believe humans actually are morally responsible for their actions.
I remember some time ago you being probably justifiedly angry at Sunni Man. If Sunni Man's actions were simply physical laws playing themselves out why be angry at Sunni? It wasn't his fault, after all.
You might as well equally blame electricity for his views.

We desire freedom for the same reason we desire food or water, it is useful to our surival. The desire originates and is sustained by the brain.

But according to you there is no freedom. So how could a desire for it be useful in any way? Food and water provide a measurable physical benefit to the organism, and are therefore useful (essential) to survival. Therefore desiring food and water is of clear benefit.
How does a desire for (illusory) freedom provide any physical benefit to the organism?
Imagine a Universe just like ours, which is completely determined, but the humans in it have no sense that they are making free decisions.
What is added to that Universe by giving those humans an illusory sense that they are making free decisions?
Of what possible benefit would that be?

Which is irrelevant to the truth of the free will but ok.

Not irrelevant. A and B are related.
If you hold an unevidenced belief regarding A which results in complete absurdity in B then that ought to make you re-examine your belief in regard to A.

And I am obeying physical law in my attempt to stop him so I don't need to explain a deep, metaphysical "why" for him OR me.

Which would be the better course of action? To stop him or to help him?

Because human behavior can be modified and controlled through imprisonment and rehabilitation.

Boulders tend to obey the laws of gravity no matter how long they spend in jail. Human brain chemistry, on the other hand, makes connections between certain actions and certain consequences.

That's silly. Epilepsy isn't cured by prison time. Courts recognize a sliding scale with mens rea because we know that some criminal acts are more likely to recur and also that some respond better to incarceration.

You'll note that I mentioned in both examples that the perpetrator dies during the act. Who/what was responsible for those acts? The shooter or the gun? Equally so? Or does it only make sense to say that the shooter was responsible, and not the gun?
The only non-absurd option is to say that the shooter was responsible and culpable, and this is because we all recognize implicitly that we make free moral choices.
If the gun jammed would it be sensible or absurd to praise the gun for this act of mercy on its part?

Why would I make my determinations about objective reality based on what I want? Reality doesn't care what make me feel good.

What makes you feel good is having a belief on the FW-Determinism issue which fits in with your overall worldview. So you blindly believe in complete determinism, even in the face of all of human experience being to the contrary, and having no evidence for your own position, and it leading to moral absurdity. I'd say it's actually you who is trying to bend reality to what you want to be the case.

Do you at least understand why I called your position "wish-thinking" now?

see above.

 

[KingMerv00]

It is my doing, but I hate when posts get broken into 8 or 9 issues. I'm to going to focus on as few issues as possible.

What you're doing here is exactly what you (wrongly) accuse me of doing in the next bit.
You're saying 'The principle of parsimony tells us what is true, because truth is parsimonious'. That is a circularly reasoned prejudice, nothing more.

No, I'm saying that the hypothesis with the fewest number of unfounded assumptions is most likely the correct one. I acknowledge that free will might exist but I cannot believe in it until I see evidence. My position with this issue, as with any other, is tenative and I know that parsimony is only a rule of thumb, not an absolute.

But seeing as you believe in the principle it is certainly not clear which side parsimony would fall on in the FW-Determinism debate.
If complete determinism were the case a truth-is-parsimonious position is incapable of explaining the origin and continued existence of the universal experience of being free to choose.

If you could show me a mind phenomenon that cannot (in principle) be connected to brain function, I will believe in free will.

Incorrect. We have the universal feeling that we make free choices. In your worldview that universal feeling is incongruous and requires an evidenced explanation rather than simple philosophical assumption.

"A feeling" is not evidence. People have "felt the presence" of every god in history but most or all must have been wrong.

Yes, it's blind faith. My position has some evidence (all of human experience). Your position has no evidence, and is only believed in a philosophical sense by some people because it fits with their overall belief system. But in everyday life these people show every sign of contradicting their stated beliefs, by consistently acting in a manner contrary to these beliefs.. e.g. acting in a way which strongly suggests they believe humans actually are morally responsible for their actions.

Skipping this because it is covered above.

I remember some time ago you being probably justifiedly angry at Sunni Man. If Sunni Man's actions were simply physical laws playing themselves out why be angry at Sunni? It wasn't his fault, after all.
You might as well equally blame electricity for his views.

But according to you there is no freedom. So how could a desire for it be useful in any way? Food and water provide a measurable physical benefit to the organism, and are therefore useful (essential) to survival. Therefore desiring food and water is of clear benefit.
How does a desire for (illusory) freedom provide any physical benefit to the organism?
Imagine a Universe just like ours, which is completely determined, but the humans in it have no sense that they are making free decisions.
What is added to that Universe by giving those humans an illusory sense that they are making free decisions?
Of what possible benefit would that be?


Not irrelevant. A and B are related.
If you hold an unevidenced belief regarding A which results in complete absurdity in B then that ought to make you re-examine your belief in regard to A.


Which would be the better course of action? To stop him or to help him?

Boulders tend to obey the laws of gravity no matter how long they spend in jail. Human brain chemistry, on the other hand, makes connections between certain actions and certain consequences.

You'll note that I mentioned in both examples that the perpetrator dies during the act. Who/what was responsible for those acts? The shooter or the gun? Equally so? Or does it only make sense to say that the shooter was responsible, and not the gun?
The only non-absurd option is to say that the shooter was responsible and culpable, and this is because we all recognize implicitly that we make free moral choices.
If the gun jammed would it be sensible or absurd to praise the gun for this act of mercy on its part?


What makes you feel good is having a belief on the FW-Determinism issue which fits in with your overall worldview. So you blindly believe in complete determinism, even in the face of all of human experience being to the contrary, and having no evidence for your own position, and it leading to moral absurdity. I'd say it's actually you who is trying to bend reality to what you want to be the case.

I'm skipping the morality argument for now because it has no bearing on whether or not free will exists. Even if I can't give you a metaphyical answer to "why be morally outraged", it does not mean that I am not correct.

I think the discussion is interesting but I think it is an irrelevant distraction.

 

[plumjam]

It is my doing, but I hate when posts get broken into 8 or 9 issues. I'm to going to focus on as few issues as possible.



No, I'm saying that the hypothesis with the fewest number of unfounded assumptions is most likely the correct one. I acknowledge that free will might exist but I cannot believe in it until I see evidence.

What kind of evidence would convince you?
In my view complete determinism is an unfounded assumption. Free will is not unfounded, because all of human experience argues in its favour.

If you could show me a mind phenomenon that cannot (in principle) be connected to brain function, I will believe in free will.

Given that all reports of mind phenomena are communicated via a brain, how could that be done? Particularly to someone determined to believe otherwise?
So you're effectively saying "I'll change my mind if you can meet this impossible requirement."
Which effectively means you'll never change your mind, no matter what. Which means discussion is pointless.
Which goes back to what I said at the start about it being a barren debate.

"A feeling" is not evidence. People have "felt the presence" of every god in history but most or all must have been wrong.

Feelings are definitely evidence. Your only evidence that raping kids is wrong is derived from the evidence of feeling.

Skipping this because it is covered above.

I'm skipping the morality argument for now because it has no bearing on whether or not free will exists. Even if I can't give you a metaphyical answer to "why be morally outraged", it does not mean that I am not correct.

I think the discussion is interesting but I think it is an irrelevant distraction.

Of course you'd like to avoid the morality issue. Your position on FW renders all morality absurd. If you're going to want to render all morality absurd I'd say the burden of proof is on you, and you'll need to have a case which is much stronger than simple philosophical assumption and dubious extrapolation.
You have no evidence. I do (all human experience).
May the jury retire

 

[KingMerv00]

What kind of evidence would convince you?
In my view complete determinism is an unfounded assumption. Free will is not unfounded, because all of human experience argues in its favour.

So it boils down to "Humans feel like they have free will, so they do"?

Given that all reports of mind phenomena are communicated via a brain, how could that be done?

(Bolding mine)

You don't see that as a problem for your side? The more we explore the brain the more we find that consciousness is created by the laws of nature.

Particularly to someone determined to believe otherwise?

That's just not true.

So you're effectively saying "I'll change my mind if you can meet this impossible requirement."

I'll change my mind if you can show me the decision making process is not a function of the brain. The only reason it seems impossible is because each and every neurological experiment shows that the brain is an electrochemical system and electrochemical systems are predictable.

Add booze - The "decisions" become less rational.
Add addictive drugs - The "decisions" become geared toward getting more of the drug
Add adrenaline - The "decisions" become based on emergency thinking.
Take testosterone supplements - Seek out sex.

If free will were not a function of the brain, it should be impossible manipulate choices biochemically.

Your only evidence that raping kids is wrong is derived from the evidence of feeling.

I agree but discussing morality is not the same thing as objective reality. Value judgments are the domain of philosophy and politics, not science. I never meant to imply otherwise.

Of course you'd like to avoid the morality issue.

Seriously, I don't. Start another thread and I'll join you there.

 

[porch]

We have the universal feeling that we make free choices. In your worldview that universal feeling is incongruous and requires an evidenced explanation rather than simple philosophical assumption.

We also have the universal experience that the earth feels stationary, and we can clearly see the sun, moon and stars revolving around us. It's not a stupid thing to believe that that is what's actually going on. It's not so wise to hang on to that belief, though, once we've acquired the knowledge that we have that quite strongly suggests things are otherwise. I can't see how you're doing much different here.

I can't relate to what you were saying about wanting to believe in determinism. For some people, they seem to have no problem accepting it. Personally, as it really began to sink in for me (that the behaviour of living matter is governed by the same laws as all other matter, and that I never really knew what I thought Free Will was, anyhow) it seemed kind of scary, or something, and I felt quite resistant to it. I was kind of bummed out for a few weeks. After a while, though, I adapted and I'm as happy as ever. In the end, I still make choices and sometimes it's a torturous process, sometimes it's all whimsy and sport, and I have to deal with the consequences of my choices, good or bad. That is what I experience, and tomorrow I'll see the sun rise and travel across the sky just as it did before. I've lost nothing, and gained a better understanding of what it is that I see.

 

[The Atheist]

So all you are saying is that determinism is difficult impossible to demonstrate?

That's almost right, I'll come back in another page or so and see if I can improve on it.

 

[arthwollipot]

So why would you want to blindly believe in something which has no evidential support, goes against all human experience, and results in moral absurdity?

How exactly does this statement not equally apply to Christianity?