Arguments Against Determinism

The upshot of this is the mystery you mention; the only determinism is embedded in the universe. The free will you speak of is extrapolated from a preconceived determinism to form decrees and dogma, such as the will to power like the creep that killed the little girl in Florida, or in the abstract determinism of the aministration to feel a need for war.

you may be interested in this essay:

http://tomkenyon.com/hathors.htm


"W e want to be very clear here. The path of the spiritual master requires that one take the higher pathway, even if the collective is moving downward. And whether you recognize yourself as a spiritual master or not, you are, at least from our perspective. For you have chosen embodiment at this extraordinary evolutionary moment. You are on the front lines. You are the ones who have the courage to be here. And we bow to you. Whether or not you are experiencing your life the way you wish it to be or not, is not the question. But that you are even alive in a body localized in time and space during these times of immense evolutionary pressure, these point to your mastery. For only a master would dare undertake such a task.

A nd understand that those who you might call tyrants are also masters. And in a very real way, what is happening on earth at this time is a confrontation between the masters of life (by life, we mean open-ended evolution) and the masters of death (by death, we mean close-ended evolution). The friction between those who live for and strive for the higher human destiny, and those who live for and strive for the limitation and the imprisonment of the human race--this friction, is an evolutionary agent."

The flaw in your arguement is that if god DOES know everything....omniscience....then he already knows WHICH path you are going to chose, making all the other paths impossible.

the thing is because he created humans with free will, he has given us a choice to choose which path it is we would take, without his intervention. besides if he knew everything then why the heck would he even need to create a world where he already knows the outcome of whatever is in the future.

Hey Jeff you read those new age articles too? i like to read those things but i never really believed in any of them. i only take whats helpful and useful and dump all the i am god and you are god and we are all god stuff. i never really feel at home with thinking that the next step of the human evolutionary ladder is all of us becoming gods. it just creeps the hell out of me.

Me i have a bad enough time dealing with my normal day to day existence without having to think about turning myself into god or something. Nice article though. i kinda understand the part about the tyrants and the other side. i believe though that there are more to it than just two sides to this thing he is talking about.. mediators are the true powers they onlly follow their own rules and they mostly make those two sides metioned in the article follow the rules whether they like it or not. hahah just kidding im not really into this stuff im just playing. think about it though in real life there are more than just two sides to everything.

anyway thanks for the link it was a nice read. kinda refreshing to read something like that.

Mistaken assumptions:

1. "...determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But "ought to change" implies they are free to change, which is contrary to determinism, since how can one change what is already determined."

--While it is true that hard determinists believe self-determinists are wrong, it doesn't automatically follow that they think others ought to change their minds or that if they wanted someone to change their mind it goes against Determinsm. Determinism simply implies causality. Determinists are caused to believe what they do because of everything in their lives up to that point has caused them to do so. Just because someone doesn't currently believe in determinism. it doesn't follow that they can't change their mind. Determinism would suggest that any change of belief would simply be caused by some prior influence, such a compelling discussion by a determinist.

2. "But if determinism is true, then there is no rational basis for thought, since non-rational forces determine all."

--Determinism isn't irrational nor does it promote the belief that thought has no rational basis. Quite the opposite. Determism says all thoughts and actions are reactions to all prior thoughts, actions and events--very rational indeed. Indetermism (the opposite of determinism) is the belief that some things "just happen" for no reason at all. That, according to a determinist, IS irrational. Determinism negates the belief in Free Will and Moral Responsibility, not the existence of rational thought.

R said it right

In my opinion, you're looking at determinism in the wrong way.

I wouldn't consider myself a determinist, but I used it as my main demonstration of the flaws in the Bible and why I see it as nothing but a “fun story.”

At the core of Christian beliefs are that God is omniscient and omnipresent. This simple believe can NOT “play nice” with the believe that people have free will.

If you take the first belief, that God knows all, then he knows what choices you’ll make. The common believe is that God stands outside our concept of “time and space’ and he sees the path that you’ll take through your life. As soon as you believe that a being exists that knows everything (including what choices you’ll make), you’re not really making ‘choices.’ This doesn’t mean that God is putting his hand in the mix and making the choice for you, it just means that he KNOWS what you’ll do.

I myself am an Agnostic. I spend a good deal of my life reading, thinking, and trying to figure out the meaning of life, but I, unlike most people I know, have the ability to say, “I don’t know.” That doesn’t mean I don’t WANT to know, and that I don’t try really hard to figure out the answers. It just means that I don’t know, and I don’t believe anyone does… as of yet.

BUT, if you believe in a God that knows all, determinism is the only logical course… which gets rid of your free will

Some of your arguments are the most common arguments against determinism that I hear. People respond, “Well, if everything is already determined, and I can’t change them…” <--- That last part of that statement is where they’re logic falls apart. Determinist s believe that everything that happens is a result of seemingly endless amount of things that affected the final result. You CAN affect what will happen. That you will want to, or not want to, affect something’s outcome is also a result of another seemingly countless amount of things affecting you.

The concept of “random” is a good example of this. A determinist doesn’t believe that random exists, and it’s pretty easy to see why. If you flip a coin, it’s very easy to understand that which side lands up is not really random. It’s based upon wind, the strength you applied, gravity, etc… All of those smaller parts are decided based upon other things like: amount of trees and mountains in your area, if you work out, how large our planet is, etc… Those are based upon: What the soil is like, and how much rainfall your area gets, if you had many role models that worked out, who knows

This list goes on and on and on and on, but they’re all based upon something, i.e. random isn’t real.

Wow, this is really crazy, because I was really considering writing an article on determinism, and then I found this one!

Anyway, I'm not yet sure how I feel about determinism. I find it to be scientifically very compelling, and yet I tend to lean away from it. I think that's possibly just caused by the impacts of determinism- no one is responsible for their actions because they can never choose their genetics, environments, or previous experiences. While that is rather frightening, I'm not sure it really disproves determinism.

Currently I'm leaning towards a different but similar theory. I'm not sure if it has a name, but it was explained to me by the same friend who introduced me to determinism. This philosophy basically argues that all of the components that determinism argues create the action we will take actually only increase the probability of a certain action.

I don't think determinism can be entirely true because I think that sometimes, when put in the same situation, a person can make a different choice. If I go to an ice cream store, I may like chocolate and vanilla equally, and I may have had both of them countelss times before and loved them each time, but one day I may choose one flavor, and the next day, another. But at the same time, this could probably be explained by something else scientific.

So I'm really not sure how I feel about determinism.

Molly,

If you find fault with the concept of Determinism or one of its basic supports, no problem. Just don't turn off to it because you don't like the conclusions that it reaches. That's just lying to yourself because it's comforting and safe.
Personally, I'm not completely happy with the conclusions either (no moral responsibility, value systems rendered pointless and the non-existence of God), but I cannot find a single good reason to disagree with the overall concept.
Knock it down because it's weak, not because it's right.

-R

My own article about determinism is also forthcoming. At this point, the basis of my philosophical thought on the subject is this: Don't mess with my free will.

Molly, If you find fault with the concept of Determinism or one of its basic supports, no problem. Just don't turn off to it because you don't like the conclusions that it reaches. That's just lying to yourself because it's comforting and safe. Personally, I'm not completely happy with the conclusions either (no moral responsibility, value systems rendered pointless and the non-existence of God), but I cannot find a single good reason to disagree with the overall concept. Knock it down because it's weak, not because it's right. -R

Right, I completely agree. It's like I don't want it to be right, and I have a "feeling" that it's wrong, but I can't find any reason why. It's very frustrating. Just intuitively, it seems like humans have to have some sort of choice and free will, but I don't know why that's true.

Right, I completely agree. It's like I don't want it to be right, and I have a "feeling" that it's wrong, but I can't find any reason why. It's very frustrating. Just intuitively, it seems like humans have to have some sort of choice and free will, but I don't know why that's true.

I think in the case of free will, the burden of proof lies with whoever argues against it. I can point to the fact that I could have either eaten an apple or a banana, and chose the apple. However, all of the arguments against free will that I can think of begin with the phrase "but what if..."

I think in the case of free will, the burden of proof lies with whoever argues against it. I can point to the fact that I could have either eaten an apple or a banana, and chose the apple. However, all of the arguments against free will that I can think of begin with the phrase "but what if..."

I disagree.

When it comes to proof, people who argue for it use logic to show their point (see most of the post above). Most of the arguments for free will contain of of the following lines: "God said so", "It just doesn't feel right", or just can't stand the thought that it might be true.

I can point to the fact that I could have either eaten an apple or a banana, and chose the apple.

This doesn't really prove or disprove anything.

Right, I completely agree. It's like I don't want it to be right, and I have a "feeling" that it's wrong, but I can't find any reason why. It's very frustrating. Just intuitively, it seems like humans have to have some sort of choice and free will, but I don't know why that's true. I think in the case of free will, the burden of proof lies with whoever argues against it. I can point to the fact that I could have either eaten an apple or a banana, and chose the apple. However, all of the arguments against free will that I can think of begin with the phrase "but what if..."

I don't think you default to either side because one can't be proven. The thing about determinism is that is does have a lot of scientific proof. In that case, I think we should be trying to prove why it isn't true. That's the concept that I"m struggling with. I don't want it to be true.... but I don't find any good reason for that.

As for the apple and the banana, determinism would argue that you can't choose what your tastebuds happen to like better, and that your liking the apple better is based on past experience that you've processed. Pretty much everything can be explained by some sort of chemical process that I don't really understand, which is probably why I find it so hard to argue.

One of the supports FOR Determinism is that of ignorance. Since we don't fully understand all of Nature's immutable laws (like the Grand Unified Theory) and don't have complete knowledge of the state of things (exactly where each electrib is at any given time) and don't fully understand our own Complexity, we can't fully know how every factor helps determine our motivations. That doesn't deny the existence of these motivations, just our ability to know them completely.

So, one doesn't choose to have a banana over an apple (or vice-versa). Everything that you've been, done, experienced, etc. up to that moment "determines" your selection of one over the other. The feeling that you have a choice is really just ignorance of the factors involved in determining your selection.

As for the apple and the banana, determinism would argue that you can't choose what your tastebuds happen to like better, and that your liking the apple better is based on past experience that you've processed.

Its not about me liking one over the other...its about me choosing one and not the other.

So, one doesn't choose to have a banana over an apple (or vice-versa). Everything that you've been, done, experienced, etc. up to that moment "determines" your selection of one over the other. The feeling that you have a choice is really just ignorance of the factors involved in determining your selection.

That's really not a convincing argument because of what I pointed out earlier: theres a "what if." The choice I make takes into account everything that I do know, which I know I know, and which you know I know. So, everything that we do know points to me having free will. Your argument, however, says "but what if there are things we don't know?" What if there isn't? What if there is a Matrix? What if there isn't?

I know I chose one thing over another. You think there's something that made me make that particular choice. I still think the burden of proof lies with you.

As for the apple and the banana, determinism would argue that you can't choose what your tastebuds happen to like better, and that your liking the apple better is based on past experience that you've processed. Its not about me liking one over the other...its about me choosing one and not the other. So, one doesn't choose to have a banana over an apple (or vice-versa). Everything that you've been, done, experienced, etc. up to that moment "determines" your selection of one over the other. The feeling that you have a choice is really just ignorance of the factors involved in determining your selection. That's really not a convincing argument because of what I pointed out earlier: theres a "what if." The choice I make takes into account everything that I do know, which I know I know, and which you know I know. So, everything that we do know points to me having free will. Your argument, however, says "but what if there are things we don't know?" What if there isn't? What if there is a Matrix? What if there isn't? I know I chose one thing over another. You think there's something that made me make that particular choice. I still think the burden of proof lies with you.

Like I said before, I don't think the burden of proof is greater for either side because we never default to one theory if we can't prove another.

Beyond that, first, the reason you "choose" one fruit over the other is because your tastebuds and chemical processes and experiences leading up to that moment tell you that you like one more or want to have one more, thus meaning you aren't really choosing to have it.

Also, I don't think R's argument was a "what if" statement. I think R was just refuting the idea that because we don't understand all of the chemical processes, it doesn't mean they don't exist. The original argument we were both getting at is that it's not "what if" we have these chemical processes, it's that we do, but not every average Joe understands them, and thus people don't really buy determinism. I think it's hard to prove or disprove determinism here because none of us are really qualified to. I think you have to be a scientist.

I think it's hard to prove or disprove determinism here because none of us are really qualified to. I think you have to be a scientist

agreed.

Philomedy,

In response to your remarks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's really not a convincing argument because of what I pointed out earlier: theres a "what if." The choice I make takes into account everything that I do know, which I know I know, and which you know I know. So, everything that we do know points to me having free will. Your argument, however, says "but what if there are things we don't know?" What if there isn't? What if there is a Matrix? What if there isn't?

I know I chose one thing over another. You think there's something that made me make that particular choice. I still think the burden of proof lies with you."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determinism says that you have no choice. The "illusion of free will" (stealing from holbach) is solidly based in your ignorance. This is not a personal attack against you, by the way. I have the same kind of ignorance, as does everybody else.

You say you know what you know, which is close to the mark. You probably DO know most of what you know, but there is still the subconcious to consider as well as your ego. I'm not going to get freudian on you but people aren't always completely honest with themselves. We make allowances, rationalize our actions when we (if observing ourselves from the outside) tresspass on our own internal moral compasses, etc. You may also believe that you know MORE than you really do know. Most drives KNOW they are above average in skill, but how can most people be above average at anything? If they were right, wouldn't that just raise the average anyway? More likely, they aren't correct. Most likely, some of them are downright mistaken about what they "know".

So, that takes into account what you know you know. What about what YOU DON'T KNOW YOU DON't KNOW? How can anyone possibly take into account things they haven't the slightest inkling even exist in the first place? If you don't know about something, does it still exist? Of course it does. There are well over 6 billion people I've never actually met who are walking around the whole planet right now. There have been billions of people who never got mentioned in any book, class, video, newsreel, documentary, song or poem I was exposed to in my life (up to this moment). Does that mean that they never existed? Again, of course not.

So why is it so hard to believe, in a day and age when science and technology continually discover more and more about the Universe we live in right down to our very fabric of being (such as the Human Genome Project), that there are things you don't even know exist? Knowing what you know isn't enough. You would, quite literally, need to be omniscient (such as the concept of God is said to be) to know everything that Determinism claims affects your actions. Until then, your ignorance and mine, as humans, limits our understanding and knowledge of the universe and all the factors which affect our motivations. That doesn't mean they aren't there, nudging us along. It just means we aren't capable of recognizing or understanding them.

What points you in the direction of believe you have Free Will, once again, is ignorance of all the unknown and unrecognized causal forces at work all around you. It's not mysticism either. We know that the brain is electro-chemical in nature. Since the brain is a physical object and subject to all the immutable laws of nature (which we still don't fully understand--like Gravity). Our minds (conciousness), being an aspect of our brains, are therefore subject to the phyiscal processes of our brains. Our thoughts, being aspects of our minds, are also affected by the physical processes of our brains, which are subject to the laws of nature. Any physical cause (which is in turn the effect of a prior cause) which affects our brains also affects our thoughs. Memories are chemical in nature, being a part of the brain. So even past experiences, stored as physical entities in your brain, can contribute to your motivations in the present--if they are stimulated and accessed in some way. You don't need to know how your brain works down to the last electron to know that it works (somehow).

Got lost there for a second. Anyway, the "choice" you make to eat an apple or banana isn't really a choice. It's the result of an unknown number of real, physical factors (caused by previous processes great and small) which culminate in an overwhelming motivation/desire to have one over the other. You are never really in control. Not for the smallest amount of time conceiveable. None of us are, according to Determinism. We only THINK we are because of our ignorance of the universe and the limitations of our incredibly complex but finite brains.

True that...

...especially so if you do believe that any being does exist that is omniscient, and does know all the thinks that go into our supposed "decisions." As soon as you believe in this being, the concept of free will just flies right out the window.

I believe that if there is no being that exists (and WE still haven't figured out all the answers) that knows all of the answers to all these questions, then it's alright to believe in a pseudo "free will". In this situation, there is nothing capable of doing all the math and figuring out what "decision" we, as people, might make. As soon as either we are able to crunch the numbers to figure out what decision someone will make before they make it, or if there IS a God type being that knows all the answers, free will just doesn't make sense.

Now, if you happen to believe in Deism and that God created the world, and just stepped back and is watching what is happening, then I believe free will is possible. Deism lends itself, I believe, to a belief that God is every so powerful of course, but not necessarily "all knowing." If he were "all knowing" then what fun would it be to step back and "watch what happens", he would already know... as the Christian God does.

Some issues:

"As soon as either we are able to crunch the numbers to figure out what decision someone will make before they make it, or if there IS a God type being that knows all the answers, free will just doesn't make sense."

--Our ability or inability to parellel and even "peek ahead" of Determinism is irrelevant to the argument of whether Determinism is correct. I just doesn't matter what we can, or cannot do. Determinism would operate the same in either case. Our ignorance (the inability to know all the contributing factors, let alone "crunch the numbers") of Determinism gives us the illusion (false perception) of Free Will. Free Will isn't contingent on whether we can figure out all the causal connections to our actions (not decisions, since that would imply Choice/Free Will). Free Will, under Determinism, simply doesn't exist, whether we figure it all out or not. There is no way, even if we were omniscient, to get out from under the conclusion that Free Will doesn't exist, will not exist and cannot exist. There just isn't anyway to get to Free Will. "You can't get there from here", as the saying goes.

"Now, if you happen to believe in Deism and that God created the world, and just stepped back and is watching what is happening, then I believe free will is possible."

--Even this, were it true, would not get you Free Will. Since God, in this example, is operating under a "hands off" management style, Causality (an aspect of Determinism) would still be in effect and none of us would have Free Will. It doesn't matter so much HOW the universe starts, for Determinism. It's about how it operates. If there are immutable (even for God) laws of nature and if the "mind" (conciousness) is an aspect of the brain (a physical, thinking thing), then Determinism would prevail.
------------------
In fact, Theological Determinism (separate and distinct from Determinism) argues that Yahweh (the Judeo/Christian concept of God) has no Free Will either. Let me lay it out for you:
Premise 1: Yahweh exists and He is essentially Omniscient.
Premise 2: Yahweh is Eternal. He exists at every point in time; always was, is and will be; not born of any other God. Yahweh has no beginning OR end; separate from linear time.
Premise 3: Forknowledge Assumption: Yahweh knows what was, what is and what will be.

So, how does this show that Yahweh has no Free Will? Here it is:
Yahweh's "knowing" is not the same as our knowing. What we know will happen, based on innumerable prior examples and experiences, will probably happen but doesn't have to. The example I was given was that of two neighbors. Each day, for 30 years, Bob's neighbor Jim mows the lawn every Saturday morning at 9am. EVERY WEEK, FOR THIRTY YEARS. Bob "knows" that Jim will do the same thing next week, too. Thing is, Bob doesn't know Jim will do it, but he has every reason to expect it, based on prior experience.
Now to Yahweh. If Yahweh knows something will happen, its because thats how it will happen. Remember, Yahweh is essentially omniscient and already knows how the universe plays out. Yahweh's very "knowing" guarantees something will happen since nothing there's no way it could be different, without proving Yahweh isn't omniscient. If you can show one of the premises doesn't hold true, then you aren't talking about Yahweh. You're talking about something other than Yahweh.
So, how does this eliminate Free Will for Yahweh? Because, just as Yahweh knows how everything will happen along all points of time in the universe, Yahweh also knows what Yahweh will do along all points of the time in the universe. For Yahweh to exercise Free Will and do other that what Yahweh knows what Yahweh did, is doing and will do, is an impoosibility.
-------------------
Back to Determinism vs. Free Will:
What hasn't come up much in this discussion is what is the opposite of Determinism? It's not Free Will, by the way. The opposite of Determinism is Indeterminism. The concept that instead of everything having a cause (as in Determinism), some or all actions, events, objects, etc. DON'T have a cause. They just happen. Not because God willed it, not because of anything. For no reason at all, things just happen. Does this get us Free Will? No, it doesn't. Just as Determinism doesn't allow for decisions or choices, only reactions, Indeterminism says we don't decide what to do, we just do it. Not because we want to, need to or are even compelled to. Just because. So, even the opposite of Determinism won't get you Free Will or moral responsibility. No one is responsible for anything, good or bad, because they never had a choice. Determinism says they were caused to act in a certain way and Indeterminism says we just did it, with no deliberation or causal forces or reasoning.

So, where does that leave Free Will? Nowhere. God (if God exists) doesn't necessarily have it and Indeterminism won't get it for you. To prove that will have Free Will (and that Determinism is wrong), you would have to show that our actions have consequences (causality) but that our actions--based on decisions we make--don't have any causes themselves. Roderick Chisolm took a stab at this and didn't come up with (in my opinion) a good resolution. Chisolm's argument is that we all have non-physical "Agents" (read Souls) which cause--without actually doing anything--our brains to set our bodies in motion. Everything from our brain to the final results of our actions, is called "Transuent Causation" (not transient, not a mis-spelling). Transuent Causation is pretty much like regular old Causation. Each action is caused by a previous action. No problem there. But what about from the "Agent" to the brain? What's that? It's called "Immanent Causation" (not imminent and also not mis-spelled). Immament Causation can only come from and Agent or from God. Agents can be influenced by the brain (which relays all of our experiences and sensations) but aren't "caused" or compelled by the brain to do other than the Agent wishes to do. When the Agent does make a decision, it (as said before) causes the brain to act but the Agent doesn't actually do anything. Not to the brain or to anything else. The term Prime Mover, Unmoved (a reference to one of Thomas Aquinas' reasons for the existence of God), comes to mind. Nothing actually causes the Agent to decide one way or the other, it just does--but not randomly like things do under Indeterminism. Chisolm fails to describe what these Agents really are, how they work, how they're able to cause phyiscal changes in the brain without being physical themselves. He also doesn't really explain why God and human Agents (again, not brains) are able to break the chains of causality and start new ones with every Immanent (deliberate by uncaused) act. Why does Causality apply to everywhere else in the universe but NOT to the decisions of Agents?

Anyway, that's all I've got for now.
-R.

***In the interests of full disclosure, I just finished a college course in Philosophy and wrote to "A"-graded papers on Hard Determinism (as defined by Holbach). One explained it, the other defended it from other philosophical thinkers and critics. So, I'm "hot" right now on Determinism.

I don't really want to make this into an argument (but aren't discussions like this nothing more than arguments), but you seemed to be trying "shoot down" my point. If you would read my few simple lines I wrote, I wasn't saying free-will could definitely exists or not exist. I was mostly just making a point that the concept of free-will doesn't "play nice" with an omniscient being.

The only time I started saying that free-will was possible, I called it a "psuedo free-will." I don't see anything wrong with applying the term "free-will" to our situation if we are unable to fully predict what someone might or might not do in a given situation. It's like the term "random." Most people will agree with you if you start laying out examples showing how easy it is to demonstrate that nothing is really "random." I don't see anything wrong with applying this term to situations that might not truely be random, but it's basically impossible to predict the outcome of the given situation without aid of all sorts of expensive equipment.

I sure am sleepy I think I'll choose to go to sleep... hahahaha

Spaltaeux,

If it looked like I was shooting down your point, it's only because I was. Not for the pleasure of the shooting, but to point out areas of weakness. I don't know you, you don't know me and this is just some web discussion page. I find exchanges/debates like these are a great way for people to learn from each other and to sharpen their arguments for the in-person exchanges we all get into at some point. Better to hash it out here and polish details or re-examine positions than in the company of people who know you. Nothing that happens in here matters in the real world. If you can knock holes in Determinism, you will be the better (wo)man. I couldn't do it, so I adopted it. Just make sure that you attack its supports and not its conclusions. Disagreeing something for no reason (or for poorly-constructed reasons) is not going to get you very far. I'm not claiming you've done this, just throwing it out there.

Personally, I don't think we will ever get to the point of being able to "look ahead" in the way that Determinism seems to offer. First, we'll never have all the information we need (such as where every sub-atmomic particle is and where it's headed) nor will we be able to do the math necessary. There are just too many variables involved. Keep in mind, Determinism isn't a blueprint for telling the future (for the two reasons I just mentioned). It's simply a way of explaining in broad terms how the universe works. And, once again, our inability to duplicate it doesn't negate or damage Determinism.

As to the Pseudo-Free Will feeling: Just and illusion woven from our own ignorance. We either have Free Will or you don't. Determinism states we don't and I have yet to see something more compelling that says we do (through logic and reasoning, not faith).

Hope you slept well, I certainly will be. Had my final Final this morning and need to catch up.