Determinism

From “Pointlessness Doesn’t Follow from Determinism” at the Breaking the Free Will Illusion website
by Trick Slattery

Here however I make the distinction between existential and essential meaning. Having free will would certainly seem to permit us to ascribe particular meaning to particular things, interactions, relationships. But in the is/ought world the ascriptions relating to conflicting goods would be embedded more in existential contraptions than in essential truths rooted in Gods or deontological philosophical concoctions or nature or political ideology.

But having some measure of autonomy is clearly of fundamental importance.

After all, any meaning we ascribed to anything in a determined universe is only meaning we were never able not to ascribe.

Over and again: I must be missing something here. In our waking hours, the entirety of our coherent thought in a determined world would be the equivalent of the entirety of our coherent thought in our dreams: wholly compelled by a brain wholly compelled by the laws of matter.

The difference is merely embedded in all that we are yet to grasp about the physiological relationship between the brain, the mind and “I”.

From my perspective, he seems to make his argument as though he is somehow able to insert “I” into it in much the same manner as someone who believed in free will would.

The fact of the matter. Exactly. How is that not the fact of the matter here?

“Causality and consistency” as it is applicable in determining “what matters” and what is “important” to us, regarding the behaviors we choose, is determined by nature.

Nature has merely evolved into brains evolving into minds evolving into an “I” that is able to delude itself into thinking that what matters and what is important to “me” is because that’s what “I” was able to freely discern for myself.

separate morality from free will
by Phil Goetz
at the lesswrong website

If there is no free will then whatever we call human interactions [inside or outside the law] is in turn necessarily embedded in the laws of matter. So, what difference [ultimately] does it make regarding discussions and debates like this, if they are determined/fated/inexorably compelled by nature to unfold only as they must.

All “practical questions” would seem to be interchangeable with all “practical answers” here: wholly determined.

You can never choose autonomously to do either the right or the wrong thing in a determined universe. Why? Because “right” and “wrong” are just words that were compelled to be invented by those compelled to speak the English language embedded in the psychological illusion of free will. Which is then embedded ontologically in whatever brought into existence nature and its material laws.

If, again, that, in and of itself, can ever actually be known for sure.

Or, again, I am missing something crucial here.

I found this not clear at all. So if you know what he is trying to say, can you paraphrase it.

Do you mean ‘is determined’ by 'is embedded in the laws of nature`?.

Well, it does seem like if one truly believed in determinism one would be interested in other activities. That’s my take. I’d rather eat cake. Of course, the determinist can argue that he or she is compelled to participate in the discussion, but then, I find it odd that their belief in determinism wouldn’t compell them to lose interest in such discussions. What odd machines they are?

It seems like you are saying that determinism, if it is the case, precludes morality. I think I agree. We might still desire to punish people. We might loathe and dislike certain acts. But moral judgments seem odd, yes. Unlike peacegirl, I do not see any of this necessitating turning the other cheek. I will still be interested in responding to slaps with a slap. At least in many cases. I will still want certain people behind bars. But I may be missing things in your post. I found your writing a bit hard to understand. I think I agree, but I might be misunderstanding you.

Well, if “autonomous” is the the opposite of “determined” then it’s just true by definition. :-k

yes. Though it gets even muddier if it was Kant’s idea of autonomous.

Not that desires necessarily offer autonomy, but one’s moral duty, it would seem to me, often comes from outside oneself-like in Kant’s time from the church. That hardly seems autonomous.

And if we look in brains, than this kind of moral duty would include some parts of the brain that one’s desires would not. It’s like saying that if this part of me is in charge than I am free and if this part of me is in charge I am not.

It’s like we’ve given up having an internal unity or democracy.

Yes.

One has to wait for a clarification because the entire post was confusing.

Well, from my frame of mind, he is suggesting that those behaviors most folks distinguish as either moral or immoral can be called one rather than the other by folks who assume that if there is no free will what difference does it make.

I’m merely suggesting that it “makes no difference” because in a determined universe anything that we think, feel, say or do is only as it every could have been.

The tricky part here for those who profess to believe in a determined universe is that they either do or not not acknowledge that even their own analysis of it is only and always in sync with the laws of matter.

Whereas I have taken a particular leap here and now to determinism but I have no way in which to grasp all that can be known about existence itself in order to pin this down…such that I am actually able to demonstrate to others that we do in fact live in a determined universe.

As with “I” in the is/ought world, “I” contemplating quandaries this mind-boggling are at a loss to anchor the “self” to anything solid enough to compel confidence in whatever happens to be believed here and now “in ones head”.

“I” might have a new experience, engage in a new discussion or come upon new information and knowledge, that changes my mind about all of this. Thus, only in what appears [to me] to be the rock solid either/or world do I feel more confident about what I believe.

I mean this: if the human brain turns out to be no less an inherent, necessary manifestation of nature’s physical, material, phenomenological etc., laws then you were compelled by these laws to type those words. Just as I was compelled to read them and am now compelled to type these words in turn.

Nothing that is matter would seem to be exempt.

Only I have no way in which to go beyond my very own intellectual assumptions here in demonstrating that.

Bottom line [mine]: If determinism is in fact as I understand it – though what are the odds of that? – all that is “inside my head” is seamlessly intertwined in all that is “out in the world” to be the only possible reality.

Unless

…unless human consciousness is [somehow] not like other matter. Call it a ghost in the machine, call it a spirit, call it a soul. But something so phenomenal it is actually able to choose among options in the manner in which most free will advocates understand it.

But: If either side has presented an irrefutable argument and/or a mountain of evidence to demonstrate it one way or the other, I myself have missed it.

No, my point is more in the way of suggesting that even this exchange itself precludes any measure of autonomy. I ponder the meaning of “I” as dasein confronting conflicting goods in a world propelled by political and economic power. But only because I am compelled by nature to. And what you think you agree or disagree regarding is no less embedded necessarily in the only possible reality.

But that can only be predicated on assumptions that I make. I am not a neuroscientist engaged in the sort of fMRI experiments that probe these things “for all practical purposes”. But even they themselves are unable to finally pin the whole truth down. To the best of my knowledge anyway.

Unlike you being unlike peacegirl, I presume that the manner in which we are like or dislike others is all merely a manifestation of human dominoes being toppled by the laws of matter having been set up by…by what exactly? By God? By whatever brought into existence, existence itself?

I am or am not compelled by nature to think that many folks are or are not compelled by nature to be perturbed by my points here. Why? Because right from the start, I am suggesting that anything that we think, feel, say or do is “beyond our control”.

And that, even to the extent that it is within our control, we will go to the grave ignorant of so much that we still don’t know about existence itself.

It’s just that some [compelled or not] find that frame of mind bleaker than others.

We’re all seemingly in that boat though. We come to the part where the words we use here are connected more to the definitions and the meaning that we give to them in our intellectual contraptions.

Rather than in any capacity we have to demonstrate that, even if we can agree on the definition and the meaning, we are then able to actually prove that human interactions either are wholly determined or are within some measure of our control autonomously.

The words are connected to something in the world. That’s why the words were created in the first place. Not just words like “cat” or “water” but words like “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad” have that connection.

Nobody has to prove those things. That’s not a requirement for anything in life. Autonomy or determinism, one makes the same decisions in exactly the same way.

Yeah, we’ve been over this many times on those threads in which the assumption is made [on my part] that we do possess some measure of free will.

Only it’s one thing to connect the word “water” to the practice of waterboarding. It is what it is. And it is what it is to both the one doing the waterboarding and the one being waterboarded. Water is water.

But when the discussion shifts to connecting the word “waterboarding” to the words “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad”, what then?

In any event, on this thread the focus is on the extent to which the act of waterboarding is interchangable with our reaction to it. Interchangable because in a wholly determined universe both are inherently, necessarily intertwined in what could only ever be.

The is/ought world is embodied only in the psychological illusion of free will.

On the contrary, in a determined universe as I understand it, human beings “proving things” is just another necessary manifestation of nature. It’s not whether one sets out to prove that he can prove his own autonomy, but whether he can choose of his own volition to set out to prove this in the first place.

Why do you think that morality got created in the first place?

Why do you think that the words “right” or “wrong” or “good” or “bad” were created?

You post as if it was all completely arbitrary.

Okay, it’s his own volition. Okay, it’s not his own volition.

What difference does it make it for anything?

What do you get by proving that it’s one way or the other?

I found the post I respond to below rather confusing: is Iamb saying he is a determinist or not. Is he saying he is trying to convince others it is the case or not? Is his new focus on determinism making people uncomfortable or would it if he proselytized for it? Was he when he wrote about morals and determinism saying that determinism precludes them? When I asked he said it was really about the conversation itself and not the morals? Or maybe both. Instead of asking a lot of questions I just went with what my best guess was that he was saying and responded to that.

Yes, I have pointed this out to determinists. Once you decide that your own thoughts are utterly determined, then you have wonderful grounds to question their objectivity, and their application to others. Determinists rarely want to consider that. And, of course, perhaps they are compelled to not consider it, rather like a broken calculator.

Sure. That’s determinism.

Yes, I am pretty sure most of us get what determinism entails. Just some avoid applying it to their belief in determinism and how they arrived at that belief.

I don’t see that as different from my conception of determinism, though you end your presumption in a question so I don’t really know what your presumption is.

I am sure they may perturb people who are free will advocates. And from the determinist perspective, they can’t help that.

Or there are other facets of their lives that thin that bleakness out. And then there are agnostics.

Again, in a determined universe as I understand it, nothing can be arbitrary if everything unfolds only in sync with the laws of matter.

And even to extent that we do possess free will, morality is ever embedded in particular historical and cultural contexts. And in the actual unique sets of experiences we have as individuals apart from what can be the very, very different experiences that others have.

What part of that are you STILL compelled to not understand!? :wink:

My point is no one has yet to convince me [one way or the other] that I am typing these very words of my own volition. My “gut” tells me that I am, but my mind is able to convince me that I’m not.

Here and now.

So, going back to the complete understanding of existence itself, what has anyone been able to demonstrate as the one true proof?

You tell me.

After all, what could possibly be more important to know than this?

Really? That’s the most important thing to know?

You’re just fucking with me now.

Practical stuff like finding a job to pay the bills without creating too much suffering - for me that’s vastly more important than working out if free will or determinism is the case, how to resovle conflicting goods - I thought that was the most important to you-, how to heal a fractured self? - sometimes that seems to be the most important thing to you. How to reconcile with an estranged child? - must be the most important thing to someone. important to whom? is part of what I am getting at…

Isn’t the evaluation ‘important’ a value and thus an appeal to objectivism?

IOW this question carries with it universalism - we do not have to find out whom it is important to - and objectivity - it is presumed that some issues are more important than other, and you are incredulous that another issue could be more important.

And then there is the absence of a demonstration why it is important at all, even to you, let alone universally and objectively.

Maybe, but I still have access to no argument [let alone demonstrable proof] able to convince me that I either am or am not compelled by nature’s laws to be fucking with you.

And then there’s the part where some confront such things as the Nazi death camps and the Communist gulags without the capacity to know for certain that blame is embedded in an utterly confirmed human autonomy.

But you know me. I suggest that, even given some measure of free will, our reactions to those things are only existential contraptions rooted in dasein.

Though, so far, nature has compelled you to fiercely deny that.

It is still fierce, right? :wink:

Sure. I have no control over how you respond to my posts.

You can change the subject. You be a smartass. You can deny all responsibility. You can do whatever.

But where does it get you?

Is proving or demonstrating determinism/freewill the most important thing? I think that’s a legitimate question which may be worth answering.

Gulags and death camps destroyed a lot of lives. Am I certain about that? Yes. I don’t need to know everything about existence to be certain about it.

Are pain, suffering and death only existential contraptions? No.

Why is my reaction to it “only an existential contraption”?

Why isn’t my reaction simply in the nature of being human? Why isn’t it embedded in the structure of the universe?

You can find somebody who doesn’t care? And that proves that it’s all an existential contraption? Is that it?

IOW, why are our reactions to be considered existential contraptions?

This is a good point, which I tried to raise in one of these threads. One problem is that one almost has to list the supposedly different ‘realms’ to make sure that the other people realize you are including both
and
so that they then explain who the
I is
or whatever it is
that is free from causation.
Usually this is posited on the inside of the body.

So one must show that why the internal is free from causation.

One way I have been trying to do this is by asking what my reasons are for making my free choice (since it will not be caused by internal or external causes). And if it does not include my desires and does not reflect my experiences, if these are not causal, then
it’s not really me making the choice anyway.

From a Derridian perspective this me or not me may not matter, but its besides the point since I am reacting to people advocating free will who are talking about choices they make - rather than choices made from the ether.

I think determinism also has problems, but I have found myself tired of arguments that seem facile to me. Face the fears…I have.

Almost all men and women assume that the practical stuff is within reach of their autonomy. But almost none of them come into venues like this to explore this autonomy much beyond those assumptions.

Now, the hard guys are exploring this experimentally. And, who knows, they may well pin it down one day. I’ll know for sure that I had or did not have a real choice in creating this post.

But somewhere in our head we all know just how crucial it is to know this.

And a fractured dasein entangled in conflicting goods is something I explore only in assuming “I” do have some measure of autonomy interacting with others in the is/ought world.

Now, to the extent that one wants to wrap all of this around an understanding of objectivity and universality can revolve more or less around a scholastic discussion or an exchange that focuses more on what is deemed to be important to someone in a particular context.