Is there a skeptical/scientific argument against predeterminism?

[Chanakya]

1. Think of it as an argumentum ad absurdum exercise, designed to show up the futility of an-eye-for-an-eye.

2. We are in agreement here.

Like I said to dann, if you've never encountered the instinct for vengeance, whether in yourself or in others, then you probably don't need this argument at all. But if you have, then this argument, this thought, may help.

Sure, simply pointing out the pointlessness of vengeance may work, too, just by itself. If it does, great. On the other hand, it may not, given we're dealing with deep-rooted instinct here, when it comes to vengeance. In which case, this approach may help IMO.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, I was trying to frame it in the context of the cognition talk we've been having.

If you just want an argument for why you shouldn't start hanging left, right and centre, here's another very pragmatic one: because we're not omniscient. There's always the probability to condemn an innocent. and from what's been studied in the late 20'th and early 21'st century, it seems like we've been finding a lot of people guilty that turned out to be innoncent at closer inspection. There are lying witnesses, unreliable witnesses, leading the witnesses, "experts" testifying stuff that later turned out to be PHYSICALLY impossible (as in, literally contradicting even high school level physics,) etc. And then there are people who voluntarily confess to stuff they haven't actually done, and in many cases COULDN'T do. There are famous cases where we have literally two dozen people confessing doing each of them.

Extreme cases create bad case law, as they say. And Hitler is as extreme a case as it gets, including the monumental amount of evidence we have about what he did. Most cases that a legal system has to deal with aren't anything like that. So essentially we must make a legal system that has to deal with FAR less clear cut cases.

So, anyway, if you're wrong and you put someone in jail, well, you probably ruined their life, but you can at least free them later if new evidence proves their innocence. But if you've executed someone, you can't bring them back.

 

[Chanakya]

Sure, that's a good argument for doing away with capital punishment. But it speaks to only capital punishment. Realizing that "them" is no different from "us", barring accidents of birth and circumstance, can probably do a lot to cool off a great deal of the righteous indignation thing, generally speaking.

 

[winter salt]

Well, Al Ghazali was a mystic and indeed as anti-intellectual as you can get. Indeed for him it was foolish of the philosophers to even think that paper burns at a certain temperature. Nah, it burns when and if Allah wills it to burn, or not if he doesn't. Actual example of his, btw. Also, maths was the language of the devil.

Honestly, as anti-intellectuals go, even the Flat Earthers could learn a thing or two from him

Honestly, though, in the context of pre-determination I'm not sure what there is to talk about it. It's not a scientific argument, it's just that some delusional and overtly anti-scientific dude said so. No different nor more worthy of consideration than when the local redneck says so.

In fact, the average bible-thumping redneck may actually be saner. Chances are he's not as rabid a God fanboy as Al Ghazali. Honestly, if you put that much sheer single-minded fanboyism into writing on any other topic, even the fanboys would think you're crazy.

I am aware of Al Ghazali being a mystic. Because I aspired to become one while reading his mystic books as a teenager and got quite damaged intellectually from it.
But I never read his books regarding philosophical arguments. And after my worldview changed never got curious enough to go back and see if he had some merit in his arguments touching philosophical topics.
This topic here reminded me of his causality argument eventhough it was for the supernatural..
I thought I'd get some concrete information on that, for what it's worth it..

I've been reading this thread with great enjoyment. I appreciate your inputs. On the topic I've only read Chapman Cohen's book. (Determinism or Free Will). And it kind of shaped my mind although with some unconvincing points in it.
This thread is giving me an opportunity to revamp my take on the subject.

 

[David Mo]

If there was solid evidence that the best deterrent to crime is to hang every criminal, I could be persuaded, yes.
But as I was saying, the evidence actually points the other way. When there is no way for the punishment to go up, there is no deterrent to further crime once that threshold is crossed. E.g., if you get hanged for a rape or a robbery, there's no reason not to murder the victim too, eliminating a witness.

I have the "excuse" that it is a rather obvious red herring. It has nothing to do with how cognition works, which is what the talk was about. Saving government money is SUCH an unrelated topic to cognitive determinism, it's almost funny.
(...)

You are recoiling from my question about Hitler. Instead you put another case that don't raise problems to nobody.

You can easily imagine yourself some examples where capital punishment is applied to crimes without any risk to the victims. Death penalty for economic crimes in China, for example.

You are trying to avoid my question because you are clearly uncomfortable with your own answer: "If there was solid evidence that the best deterrent to crime is to hang every criminal, I could be persuaded, yes". This suggest that you don't see any problem in applying disproportionate means against minor faults. This is to say, your unique criterion for penalty is efficacy. Morality or human rights are dead letter.
That is why my question is not red herring. This thread raises the problem of evidence on determinism and the problem of unmorality is a classic argument against determinism.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@David Mo
I have no problem discussing Hitler or punishments. The problem with your question was just that:

A) it's about gassing the mentally deficient. Being retarded or a schizophrenic is not a crime AND

B) being retarded not something you learn to do, so it has nothing to do with cognitive determinism. You can't really deter people from being born retarded, AND

C) it was at least tried to be done in secrecy, hence the deterrence value was not even the goal, AND

D) it's about saving money for the state, which is not the same thing as the deterrence that causes the most effect. It is an entirely different topic from people learning not to do that.

I don't see WTH does it have to do with cognitive determinism at all. THAT is what makes it a red herring.


On the other hand, death penalty in China is good example for a change. Technically I do have an issue with the death penalty that I wrote in #142, and there is the fact that I mentioned repeatedly that actually real world data indicates that over the top punishments are actually counter-productive. But IF -- and that's a big IF -- hypothetically it were shown that that's what works the best, sure, I could be persuaded.

If that makes me an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, so be it. I can live with that.

 

[dann]

If you've never yourself identified with immaterial soul ideas, nor ever had to deal with those who do -- and, more importantly, if you've never ever felt the intuitive vengefulness that kicks in when wronged, nor ever had to deal with those who do so react -- then I guess you have no need of this argument or indeed of this discussion. Otherwise it serves to help correct that kink.


I will join kellyb (whose question you either did not see or did not answer) in asking: What appears crazy to you, or unhealthy, in leaving out ideas of vengefulness and retribution and "just" (that is, eye-for-an-eye) punishment, while at the same time leaving in deterrence and correction?

There is no intuitive vengefulness and it doesn't just kick in when wronged - whatever that may be. It actually requires you to think that something wronged you, otherwise there's no vengefulness. And by the way, in spite of the feeling that you need revenge for something happening to you, people have been known to forgive even the killers of their children.
(You know, what you would probably describe as intuitive forgiveness kicking in ...)

 

[dann]

B) being retarded not something you learn to do, so it has nothing to do with cognitive determinism. You can't really deter people from being born retarded,

... and if you're born retarded, your thinking skills are impaired, they're not determined. Being retarded doesn't force upon you certain ideas - like, vote for Trump, for instance.

 

[winter salt]

Trying to understand the debate topic, I have some simple questions, if I may.

If I believed in my free will does it mean that I believe that I have a soul that "can" make me make decisions free from (or even against) the influences of my body and my experiences and my surrounding world ?

Is there an agenda in the free will argument for supernatural agencies ?

Is the argument for free will scientific in its origin?

 

[David Mo]

@David Mo
I have no problem discussing Hitler or punishments. The problem with your question was just that:
A) it's about gassing the mentally deficient. Being retarded or a schizophrenic is not a crime AND
B) being retarded not something you learn to do, so it has nothing to do with cognitive determinism. You can't really deter people from being born retarded, AND
C) it was at least tried to be done in secrecy, hence the deterrence value was not even the goal, AND
D) it's about saving money for the state, which is not the same thing as the deterrence that causes the most effect. It is an entirely different topic from people learning not to do that.

I don't see WTH does it have to do with cognitive determinism at all. THAT is what makes it a red herring.

On the other hand, death penalty in China is good example for a change. Technically I do have an issue with the death penalty that I wrote in #142, and there is the fact that I mentioned repeatedly that actually real world data indicates that over the top punishments are actually counter-productive. But IF -- and that's a big IF -- hypothetically it were shown that that's what works the best, sure, I could be persuaded.

If that makes me an ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊, so be it. I can live with that.

A) If you are determinist you cannot speak of a crime because determinism exclude any reference to responsibility. There are only causes. A stone cannot commit any crime. Therefore, if a person causes a damage causes a damage and that is final.

B) If you are determinist the word “persuade” has not many sense. There are caused behaviours. If you can modify a behaviour changing its causes, you do it. If you cannot do it, you can eliminate the problem. This is to say, eliminating retarded persons. The final solution, you know.

C) Elimination of retarded people was done in relative secrecy because people are weak and deluded with false concepts such as liberty, morality, etc. But a true determinist know what is to be done.

D) A thief, a killer or a corrupt politician are the same for a determinist. They are behaviours which must be stopped. If you can change their behaviours, you do it. If you cannot, you eliminate the individuals. Or you punish them in a so awful way than other possible evildoers are dissuaded. Other thing will be sappy stuff.

E) I don't know what "cognitive determinism" is. Or, more precisely, I don't know what you mean. I know the words "cognitive determinism" applied to Piaget's evolutionist theory of children’s cognitive processes, but this has no relation with our issue. I remember you that the issue of this thread is the validity of determinism.

F) “But IF -- and that's a big IF -- hypothetically it were shown that that's what works the best, sure, I could be persuaded.”
It cannot be disputed that keeping certain chronically ill and mentally retarded people alive is an objective detriment to society. Clearly it is, if we stick to objective facts. You prefer not to see it, because the consequences are harsh for anti-moralist theories such as determinism and your own.
Your answer is consistent with a determinist point of view and with the final solution of retarded people. That disgusts me. I have not many things to add.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@David Mo
Mate, what is your problem? Seriously.

Your whole post is by now just a hodge-podge of bare postulates about what someone else thinks, what is best for society, etc, without any support other than that you said so. And then at point F you take a statement that was EXPLICITLY made about a different situation and try to pretend it's about eliminating the retarded. That has already crossed over from red herring to strawman.

Well, if your own retarded strawmen disgust you, then don't do them. You have the power

But generally, together with going into delusional speculations in #145 about what secret reasons I must have to not take the bait of your red herring, I can only conclude that at this point you're just trolling.

 

[David Mo]

@David Mo
Mate, what is your problem? Seriously.

Your whole post is by now just a hodge-podge of bare postulates about what someone else thinks, what is best for society, etc, without any support other than that you said so. And then at point F you take a statement that was EXPLICITLY made about a different situation and try to pretend it's about eliminating the retarded. That has already crossed over from red herring to strawman.

Well, if your own retarded strawmen disgust you, then don't do them. You have the power

But generally, together with going into delusional speculations in #145 about what secret reasons I must have to not take the bait of your red herring, I can only conclude that at this point you're just trolling.

I see you've lost the urge to argue and general disqualifications begin. It often happens when one is short of arguments.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I could say the same. Especially when you still dive into baiting a la "It often happens when one is short of arguments." Uh-huh. That determined to derail the talk into your nonsense, huh?

Well, first of all, since you posted a bunch of postulates, it's up to you to have an argument to support them. Speculating about whether I have a counter-argument or not, is cute in its idiocy, but it's still your burden of proof not mine.

That said, problem still is: it is a complete red herring. It has nothing to do with determinism. The whole argument is completely and utterly orthogonal to it. To wit:

1. The retarded are still exactly as retarded, and just as incurable of it, regardless of whether you hypothesize their brains to function deterministically or not.

2. Exactly how productive members of society they are, is also the same, regardless of whether you hypothesize their brains to function deterministically or not.

3. The costs of caring for them are still the exact same, regardless of whether you consider their brains to function deterministically or not.

4. The chances of passing it on to offspring (since really Hitler's reason was eugenics, not philosophy of the mind) are still the exact same, regardless of whether you consider their brains to function deterministically or not.

5. Whether the state needs to care for its citizens, and how much, is also rather independent of whether you believe in determinism or not.

6. The supposed burden to the state needs to be first demonstrated, not just pulled out of the ass and proclaimed to be beyond questioning. You are not the pope, you don't get to do infallible pronouncements. There are plenty of menial jobs that can be done perfectly well by people with mild or even moderate retardation. Which is to say, IQ 35 or higher. Which covers the VAST majority of people with intellectual deficiency.

But also because:

7. How well a country functions is also dependent on cultural and sociological factors. National unity, morale, etc, are actually very important. It does not follow that starting killing people's relatives is actually better for the country, even if it saves a few bucks in the short term. You have to support that idea, not just postulate that it's unquestionable, silly.

8. "If you are determinist the word “persuade” has not many sense. There are caused behaviours." That is at best a dumb word game, and at worst downright stupid. Persuasion is one way to cause a desired behaviour. The idea that if someone believes in deterministic decision making, they'd necessarily become oblivious to half the data that goes into making those decision, is just plain old nonsense.

9. "If you can modify a behaviour changing its causes, you do it. If you cannot do it, you can eliminate the problem. This is to say, eliminating retarded persons. The final solution, you know." Again, that's downright stupid. It postulates motivations and goals which are not part of just believing in deterministic decision making. Just believing that something works in a certain way, doesn't automatically involve wanting to solve EVERYTHING even vaguely related to it.

10. It also postulates a kind of black and white thinking that is not a given. Even if one believes that certain decisions are deterministic, it doesn't follow that they'd necessarily then classify every single decision into either perfect or deserving nothing short of death. It doesn't follow that basically if you think that thought processes are deterministic, you'd automatically believe in the Nirvana Fallacy. It's a fallacy for a reason. And known to be one.

If you want to postulate that such thinking is inherent, then support it. Or don't. But in the meantime, poisoning-the-well rhetoric about how everyone who's of a different school of philosophy than you is nothing short of a proponent of a "final solution" is itself idiotic.

Not the least because:

11. Even where punishments are involved, there is a benefit from having a more gradual scale. And I've already repeatedly given a reason why. The notion that if someone believes that there's a deterministic cause-effect at work, they'd automatically be unable to comprehend that certain causes work better towards producing an effect, is not a given.

12. "Or you punish them in a so awful way than other possible evildoers are dissuaded." Again, that's postulating that more awful punishments work better. That is not a given. Support it, or don't, but just repeating it like a broken record doesn't at some point just make it true.

But more importantly:

13. That returns in a circle to your implying that being retarded equals being an evildoer. If that seems in any way obvious a premise to you, then the problem is in YOUR mental model, and you can stop projecting. It does not follow that if one believes in deterministic decision making, they'd automatically be oblivious to 2500 years or so of figuring out the best justice system.

E.g., that they'd totally forget fundamental principles like needing a Mens Rea (evil intent) before something qualifies as evildoing, or why those principles are there. In fact, just that one alone automatically excludes anything out of your control from being qualified as evildoing. Unless someone actually wanted to be retarded and made themselves so, it CAN'T qualify as evildoing.

Even more importantly:

14. Again, there you try to sneak in the downright idiotic notion that any "deterrence" can even be conceived when it comes to something like being retarded. You can escalate punishment as high as you wish, it still CAN'T deter someone from being retarded. Again, you just postulate that someone who's a believer in deterministic decision making, would be automatically oblivious to that, and try to apply the same to everything whether it can actually be deterred or not. That is not a given.

Etc.

But basically, as I've said it the first time: "Your whole post is by now just a hodge-podge of bare postulates about what someone else thinks, what is best for society, etc, without any support other than that you said so." Speculating about my possible reasons and reactions to it doesn't change the fact that it's YOUR burden of proof to support all that.

 

[David Mo]

I could say the same. Especially when you still dive into baiting a la "It often happens when one is short of arguments." Uh-huh. That determined to derail the talk into your nonsense, huh?

Well, first of all, since you posted a bunch of postulates, it's up to you to have an argument to support them. Speculating about whether I have a counter-argument or not, is cute in its idiocy, but it's still your burden of proof not mine.

That said, problem still is: it is a complete red herring. It has nothing to do with determinism. The whole argument is completely and utterly orthogonal to it. To wit:

1. The retarded are still exactly as retarded, and just as incurable of it, regardless of whether you hypothesize their brains to function deterministically or not.

2. Exactly how productive members of society they are, is also the same, regardless of whether you hypothesize their brains to function deterministically or not.

3. The costs of caring for them are still the exact same, regardless of whether you consider their brains to function deterministically or not.

4. The chances of passing it on to offspring (since really Hitler's reason was eugenics, not philosophy of the mind) are still the exact same, regardless of whether you consider their brains to function deterministically or not.

5. Whether the state needs to care for its citizens, and how much, is also rather independent of whether you believe in determinism or not.

6. The supposed burden to the state needs to be first demonstrated, not just pulled out of the ass and proclaimed to be beyond questioning. You are not the pope, you don't get to do infallible pronouncements. There are plenty of menial jobs that can be done perfectly well by people with mild or even moderate retardation. Which is to say, IQ 35 or higher. Which covers the VAST majority of people with intellectual deficiency.

But also because:

7. How well a country functions is also dependent on cultural and sociological factors. National unity, morale, etc, are actually very important. It does not follow that starting killing people's relatives is actually better for the country, even if it saves a few bucks in the short term. You have to support that idea, not just postulate that it's unquestionable, silly.

8. "If you are determinist the word “persuade” has not many sense. There are caused behaviours." That is at best a dumb word game, and at worst downright stupid. Persuasion is one way to cause a desired behaviour. The idea that if someone believes in deterministic decision making, they'd necessarily become oblivious to half the data that goes into making those decision, is just plain old nonsense.

9. "If you can modify a behaviour changing its causes, you do it. If you cannot do it, you can eliminate the problem. This is to say, eliminating retarded persons. The final solution, you know." Again, that's downright stupid. It postulates motivations and goals which are not part of just believing in deterministic decision making. Just believing that something works in a certain way, doesn't automatically involve wanting to solve EVERYTHING even vaguely related to it.

10. It also postulates a kind of black and white thinking that is not a given. Even if one believes that certain decisions are deterministic, it doesn't follow that they'd necessarily then classify every single decision into either perfect or deserving nothing short of death. It doesn't follow that basically if you think that thought processes are deterministic, you'd automatically believe in the Nirvana Fallacy. It's a fallacy for a reason. And known to be one.

If you want to postulate that such thinking is inherent, then support it. Or don't. But in the meantime, poisoning-the-well rhetoric about how everyone who's of a different school of philosophy than you is nothing short of a proponent of a "final solution" is itself idiotic.

Not the least because:

11. Even where punishments are involved, there is a benefit from having a more gradual scale. And I've already repeatedly given a reason why. The notion that if someone believes that there's a deterministic cause-effect at work, they'd automatically be unable to comprehend that certain causes work better towards producing an effect, is not a given.

12. "Or you punish them in a so awful way than other possible evildoers are dissuaded." Again, that's postulating that more awful punishments work better. That is not a given. Support it, or don't, but just repeating it like a broken record doesn't at some point just make it true.

But more importantly:

13. That returns in a circle to your implying that being retarded equals being an evildoer. If that seems in any way obvious a premise to you, then the problem is in YOUR mental model, and you can stop projecting. It does not follow that if one believes in deterministic decision making, they'd automatically be oblivious to 2500 years or so of figuring out the best justice system.

E.g., that they'd totally forget fundamental principles like needing a Mens Rea (evil intent) before something qualifies as evildoing, or why those principles are there. In fact, just that one alone automatically excludes anything out of your control from being qualified as evildoing. Unless someone actually wanted to be retarded and made themselves so, it CAN'T qualify as evildoing.

Even more importantly:

14. Again, there you try to sneak in the downright idiotic notion that any "deterrence" can even be conceived when it comes to something like being retarded. You can escalate punishment as high as you wish, it still CAN'T deter someone from being retarded. Again, you just postulate that someone who's a believer in deterministic decision making, would be automatically oblivious to that, and try to apply the same to everything whether it can actually be deterred or not. That is not a given.

Etc.

But basically, as I've said it the first time: "Your whole post is by now just a hodge-podge of bare postulates about what someone else thinks, what is best for society, etc, without any support other than that you said so." Speculating about my possible reasons and reactions to it doesn't change the fact that it's YOUR burden of proof to support all that.

I appreciate your long comment. It is a great effort of communication. Unfortunately it is a mistake from the beginning. I means this phrase that you repeat several times:

“The retarded are still exactly as retarded, and just as incurable of it, regardless of whether you hypothesize their brains to function deterministically or not.”

The main thesis of psychological determinism is that every human behaviour has a cause at least. My argument against determinism is not based whether this is factually true or not or applied to retarded or everybody. My argument is analytical. It is based on an inconsistency of determinism. That is to say, the postulates of determinism lead to conclusions that are contradictory to common intuitions and are undesirable even to determinists.
Therefore, I begin with the supposition or hypothesis that the main thesis of determinism is true. Let us see:

1. If every human behaviour is caused or determined by a sequence of causes a man is not morally responsible of his acts. The same that you don't blame (morally) a rock for the damages caused by its fall.

Can we pass to the following premise?

 

[Chanakya]

I'm interested in this, David Mo. I believe you're wrong, and I believe it is easy enough to directly show that. But before I do that, I'm interested in seeing how your approach might pan out. Please proceed.


One observation, though. Even if you can show that determinism leads to undesirable results -- big 'if' -- that would still not speak to the truth value of determinism. You realize that, right?

Just as antitheism is not an argument for atheism, similarly here.

So perhaps you could, along with proceeding with your argument, also address this preemptive objection of mine.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@David Mo
As Chanakya correctly noted, if you don't address whether determinism is factually true, then it's at best just a big appeal to consequences fallacy. But as I was saying, you never proved that determinism actually implies wanting to gas the retarded, so in reality it's just a poisoning the well fallacy. Spiced up with a big reductio ad hitlerum for maximum emotional bullcrap.

Look, even if conceivably believing in quantum mechanics would make me want to design a better nuke, while believing in the Tooth Fairy would make me provide free dental care, the fact still remains that the former is true while the latter is false. Going some version of "oh noes, don't believe X, the ones who believe X are worse than HITLER!" is just stupid.

So, as I was saying, you've been spending all this time trying to derail the talk into some irrelevant nonsense.


That said, sure, as I was saying before, it seems to me like a big reason for this push for determinism is to avoid personal responsibility. So, sure, in a certain sense I have already agreed to that one point.

 

[Chanakya]

... it seems to me like a big reason for this push for determinism is to avoid personal responsibility...

I'm sorry, I don't see that. Which push for determinism do you refer to here? And why do you think a big reason for that is to avoid responsibility?

Who is avoiding responsibility? Responsibility for what? And how do you figure that they're doing this?

(If you're saying determinism can be (mis-)used to advocate abdication of responsibility, sure, I'm with you. But that's like saying RCC confession can foster irresponsibility, or that atheism can foster anarchy. It can, sure. I agree. But that's different from showing it must. And that's also different from showing that's what's happening in practice.)

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Considering that what is repeatedly stated is that if you take decisions for reasons, you can't be morally blamed for anything you do, I'm not sure how personal responsibility is even possible in that setup.

 

[David Mo]

Chanakya and HansMustermann:

Before stirring up the ghost of fallacies, carefully follow my reasoning, please: I am not going to prove that determinism is true or false. I am going to show a logical/moral consequence of admitting determinism. If my argument is correct it cannot be a fallacy.

I will continue as soon as I have time again.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That would still make it at best a red herring for the topic we're in, since the actual topic is the validity of it.

That said, if you want to claim any consequences, you still have to show that they are actual consequences and not just poisoning the well. I.e., you'd still have to support the connecting dots there.