Are there multiple versions of Determinism?

[Jok]

Without even getting into why I think that any version of Determinism isn’t a logical conclusion, how many different flavors are there? I originally thought that it was just one, that it was a pure molecules in motion theory, and to simply reply “Oh that’s just illusory” to every single objection that can ever come your way. But I’m listening to something about the Enlightenment, and David Hume’s Determinism definitely sounds different that Thomas Hobbes‘, now I’m confused about it.

When speaking about Hume and Determinism the professor says -

We are programmed by nature to obey our instincts, and our instinctual emotions are triggered by outside stimuli. And so our mental lives are just as much a part of the causality of nature as anything else, like the weather or the tides. We “Feel” like we have free will, but according to Hume it’s not true, just as much as our “Feeling” that we have an inner self isn’t true either.

Yes that’s what I thought it was. But when speaking of Hobbes debating some Bishop the professor says;

Hobbes opponent - “Don’t you think that we are free to do what we want to? Don’t you think that I can scratch my finger or I can choose not to scratch my finger?” Hobbes replied - “That’s missing the point, of course I’m free to do what I want, but I’m not free to want what I want.” And that’s the heart of Determinism.

Well that’s a lot different! And I’m not sure if that last sentence “And that’s the heart of Determinism” was an overall concluding remark from the professor about Determinism, or if it was a concluding remark about Hobbes’ version of Determinism. Either way I didn’t even know there were multiple versions and now I’m confused.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Well that’s a lot different!

No, it isn't. I ascribe to both views, and they both describe the same thing. Everyone is free to choose, but not to choose the cause of the choice (which would be circular reasoning). That is to say, as in both statements presented, the underlying factors, both external circumstances and internal inclinations, the causes leading up to the choice, are beyond the chooser's control. Even if a person were to take a drug to promote one inclination over another, the factors causing the choice to take the drug would be outside of the person's control. Ultimately, the cause of the choice is not the chooser, but something else. Otherwise, the choice causes itself, which would be an irrational proposition.

We feel that we have free will, because we can freely choose and act as we choose. It's an illusion of the second order, not because we don't freely choose, but because our free choice is the result of something other than our choice. Water is free to cascade down a waterfall, and it does so of its own accord, yet, its accord is determined by the situation and its innate nature.

 

[zippy2006]

Without even getting into why I think that any version of Determinism isn’t a logical conclusion, how many different flavors are there? I originally thought that it was just one, that it was a pure molecules in motion theory, and to simply reply “Oh that’s just illusory” to every single objection that can ever come your way. But I’m listening to something about the Enlightenment, and David Hume’s Determinism definitely sounds different that Thomas Hobbes‘, now I’m confused about it.

When speaking about Hume and Determinism the professor says -

We are programmed by nature to obey our instincts, and our instinctual emotions are triggered by outside stimuli. And so our mental lives are just as much a part of the causality of nature as anything else, like the weather or the tides. We “Feel” like we have free will, but according to Hume it’s not true, just as much as our “Feeling” that we have an inner self isn’t true either.

Yes that’s what I thought it was. But when speaking of Hobbes debating some Bishop the professor says;

Hobbes opponent - “Don’t you think that we are free to do what we want to? Don’t you think that I can scratch my finger or I can choose not to scratch my finger?” Hobbes replied - “That’s missing the point, of course I’m free to do what I want, but I’m not free to want what I want.” And that’s the heart of Determinism. We are "free" to "choose" the path that has been predetermined for us.

Well that’s a lot different! And I’m not sure if that last sentence “And that’s the heart of Determinism” was an overall concluding remark from the professor about Determinism, or if it was a concluding remark about Hobbes’ version of Determinism. Either way I didn’t even know there were multiple versions and now I’m confused.

It's the same thing: determinism is the idea that our "free choices" are really caused by antecedent causes and conditions, not by us. Whether those antecedent causes and conditions are described as our instincts, our instinctual emotions, or our underlying wants really doesn't matter. Hobbes is just posturing. What he is saying is that we are "free" to choose what we want, and what we want is predetermined by forces outside of our control. We are "free" to "choose" the path that has been predetermined for us.

 

[Jok]

From my understanding any time a Determinist sticks the words “free“ or “choose“ inside quotes it is done so to emphasize that it’s tongue in cheek, whereas a non-Determinist might stick the words in quotes to stress the opposite effect, to stress the common usage reality of the words. I guess my sticking point is that Hobbes’ reply to the Bishop sounds an awful lot like he sincerely means a genuine freedom of choice. Is that where I’m going wrong, is Hobbes really saying the words tongue in cheek to the Bishop?

 

[Jok]

No, it isn't. I ascribe to both views, and they both describe the same thing. Everyone is free to choose, but not to choose the cause of the choice (which would be circular reasoning). That is to say, as in both statements presented, the underlying factors, both external circumstances and internal inclinations, the causes leading up to the choice, are beyond the chooser's control.

I don’t have any problems with both external circumstances and internal inclinations being factors that are out of our control, at least in an immediate sense as far as internal impulses go. You might be a very irritable person, or a negative thinker, etc, but if you finally decide to put your foot down on your habitual bad attitude, all the sudden your internal influences are different on a day to day basis. You are now light & breezy, it takes much more for stress to enter in as a stimulus. Because you decided enough was enough and you changed your attitude. NOW your day to day internal stimuli is very different. This is a change that YOU introduced.

Even if a person were to take a drug to promote one inclination over another, the factors causing the choice to take the drug would be outside of the person's control.

I agree. But the sliding scale of tolerances vs vulnerabilities to external & internal stimuli (the same exact stimuli) vary greatly among people. Hence a laundry list of labels such as a disciplined person, an undisciplined person, strong willed, easily swayed, prone to excessive indulgences, total abstinence, addictive personality, keeps things in moderation, etc. But in addition it’s not even just a person to person distinction (given the same stimuli) that exists, but also how our choices vary in just us alone. The very same tempting junk foods in the very same situations can result in me sometimes finding the will power to say no, or deciding to indulge a little bit, or diving in head first until I can’t eat another bite. Within the same situation & stimuli I could vary in texting 8 separate people about my experience, or text nobody at all. And the list just goes on & on for equal situations under equal stimuli resulting in alternate choices. And not only is there this cascade of possibilities in our day to day lives, but the choices made from identical stimuli can also vary greatly based on periods of our lives (and this doesn’t even necessarily mean that outside influences have been changing in our lives, there are many examples of people living the same boring existence day in day out who have these out of nowhere epiphanies of change).

Ultimately, the cause of the choice is not the chooser, but something else. Otherwise, the choice causes itself, which would be an irrational proposition.

For determinism “choice” doesn’t even exist! You have cause - stimuli A, B, and C. And you have effect - X, Y, or Z. The non-determinist is the only one positing a choice at all, which is an intermediary “choice” (us) that lies between ABC (cause) and XYZ (effect) that chooses that effect of either X, Y, or Z. “The choice causing itself” isn’t claimed by either the determinist or non-determinist. For the non-determinist stimuli ABC (helps to) cause the choice, and for the determinist choice doesn’t even exist, stimuli ABC causes the effect entirely.

Ultimately, the cause of the choice is not the chooser, but something else.

The cause of the choice is influence of stimuli A, B, and C (which includes internal & external) combined with the will of the chooser.

Otherwise, the choice causes itself, which would be an irrational proposition.

I don’t think anyone claims this though (or at least they shouldn’t). The choice causes the effect of either X, Y, or Z.

We feel that we have free will, because we can freely choose and act as we choose. It's an illusion

But this to me seems like a circular insistence that determinism is true. It seems like every qualitative experience that can possibly be pointed out that would cause trouble for determinism is automatically deemed as illusory BY determinism because it can’t possibly be true because determinism says that physical causes & effects (without non-physical influence) are all that there is.

of the second order, not because we don't freely choose, but because our free choice is the result of something other than our choice.

Why wouldn’t a 2nd order free choice be a free choice? If I’m doing life in prison (1st order determinism against my 1st order free will) but I have a 2nd order free choice to choose my lunch everyday and choose books in the library, wouldn’t me being able to choose these things still be choices, even if they lie underneath an umbrella of a predetermined life inside prison walls?

Water is free to cascade down a waterfall, and it does so of its own accord, yet, its accord is determined by the situation and its innate nature.

This sounds like a contradiction though. Once the word “determined” is introduced it seems to suck the life out of the prior statements of “free to cascade down a waterfall” and “it does so of its own accord.”
It would only be “free” to cascade down a waterfall if the water had some option B that meant not to cascade down a waterfall. This waterfall situation is pretty much just locked into the force of gravity.

 

[Jok]

What he is saying is that we are "free" to choose what we want, and what we want is predetermined by forces outside of our control. We are "free" to "choose" the path that has been predetermined for us.

Maybe there is a tendency where they play very fast & loose with words like free and choose, and it has me spun around a bit.

 

[solid_core]

I would maybe add Leibniz with his "our future is certain but not necessary".

As he distinguishes between logical/mathematical determinism and determinism of our predictable choices.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

For determinism “choice” doesn’t even exist!

Choice exists for both. The only question is the chain of cause and effect behind those choices.

“The choice causing itself” isn’t claimed by either the determinist or non-determinist. For the non-determinist stimuli ABC (helps to) cause the choice...

The self-caused choice is the indeterminist position. Stimulus A, B and C may all be contributing factors, but the indeterminist still relies upon some manner of cause that has no prior cause. Hence, the indeterminism, because nothing determines it.

The cause of the choice is influence of stimuli A, B, and C (which includes internal & external) combined with the will of the chooser.

For the indeterminist, the will of the chooser is the un-caused cause. All contributing factors aside, the will is the self-determined thing, the predisposition that causes itself, in the mind of the indeterminist.

It seems like every qualitative experience that can possibly be pointed out that would cause trouble for determinism is automatically deemed as illusory BY determinism because it can’t possibly be true because determinism says that physical causes & effects (without non-physical influence) are all that there is.

Not all determinism relies strictly on physical causes. Even supernatural effects have their own causes. The problem with extremely complex situations, or situations where the cause and effect chain is obscure, is that we tend to see it as random, which really means that we cannot follow the pattern, but we perceive (falsely) that there is no pattern. When the cause is spiritual, it is still not lawless. Even the spiritual things must follow the laws of cause and effect.

It would only be “free” to cascade down a waterfall if the water had some option B that meant not to cascade down a waterfall. This waterfall situation is pretty much just locked into the force of gravity.

The water moves according to its own nature under the circumstances in which it exists. The same is true for people, except that people are more complex. As I stated earlier, when the causation becomes too complex to understand, we might be indeterminists and assume that there is nothing to understand. By that, I mean that the indeterminist looks for the cause of a person's actions and goes no further than to say that the person willed it. They stop there. They don't look for the cause of the will, because they don't believe that there is one. The moment that such a person finds a cause, he becomes a determinist.

 

[zippy2006]

For determinism “choice” doesn’t even exist! You have cause - stimuli A, B, and C. And you have effect - X, Y, or Z. The non-determinist is the only one positing a choice at all, which is an intermediary “choice” (us) that lies between ABC (cause) and XYZ (effect) that chooses that effect of either X, Y, or Z.

Right. For the compatibilist our "choice" is necessary and coerced by factors outside of our control. It's not a choice at all. It only has the appearance of a choice.

 

[Jok]

Choice exists for both. The only question is the chain of cause and effect behind those choices.

I’m not sure if we’re on the same page with the word choice, but if events just genuinely have the feeling that I am making choices, however in reality I’m not and it’s just illusory, for me that doesn’t fit the word choice.

The self-caused choice is the indeterminist position.

Ok I guess I am ok with saying self-caused choice, I’m probably splitting hairs but I sort of think it sounds redundant, it seems like the self-causing thing and the choice itself are one in the same. But in another sense I can see how that wording would make sense too. I think of it as “What did I self-cause?” Answer - to raise my arm; “What was my choice?” Answer - to raise my arm.
But the more I think about it the more I think that wording is fine.

Stimulus A, B and C may all be contributing factors, but the indeterminist still relies upon some manner of cause that has no prior cause. Hence, the indeterminism, because nothing determines it.

Yes I believe in dualism, an indeterminate cause (as detectable at least) because it is a non-physical cause. It IS a cause, but the cause lies outside of physical detection. What would result from a purely physical lens would be a firing off of a chain of events, and the disagreement between determinist and indeterminist would be the question of why the first domino fell.

All contributing factors aside, the will is the self-determined thing, the predisposition that causes itself, in the mind of the indeterminist.

I think so. We just have zero access to know how cause & effect might even work in the non-physical will/mind. But if the playing field (that which we actually have tools in which to analyze cause & effect) only consists of physical reality then that seems like the best way to think about it.

Not all determinism relies strictly on physical causes. Even supernatural effects have their own causes. The problem with extremely complex situations, or situations where the cause and effect chain is obscure, is that we tend to see it as random, which really means that we cannot follow the pattern, but we perceive (falsely) that there is no pattern. When the cause is spiritual, it is still not lawless. Even the spiritual things must follow the laws of cause and effect.

I agree. But spiritual cause & effect we just wouldn’t have any detection tools for. And if all the effects that we see are on the physical playing field, if some physical effects are influenced by spiritual causes then we would have a mystery on our hands even if we lived in a world with an exhaustive knowledge of physics.

As I stated earlier, when the causation becomes too complex to understand, we might be indeterminists and assume that there is nothing to understand. By that, I mean that the indeterminist looks for the cause of a person's actions and goes no further than to say that the person willed it. They stop there. They don't look for the cause of the will, because they don't believe that there is one. The moment that such a person finds a cause, he becomes a determinist.

I just think it would be an impossible task because we have physical detection tools, but not “Willed by spiritual means” detection tools available. At the end of the day If we exhaustively know without question what the first physical domino is in the chain of events where I raise my right arm; the determinist will explain it through their lens and the indeterminist will do the same through their lens.

But the determinist has me rejecting a lot of my immediate knowledge (my thoughts) as illusory, I have to reject a whole lot of experiential knowledge that I thought was immediately known to me as being real if I am really a puppet on a string. That metaphysical price for determinism is too high IMO.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

But spiritual cause & effect we just wouldn’t have any detection tools for. And if all the effects that we see are on the physical playing field, if some physical effects are influenced by spiritual causes then we would have a mystery on our hands even if we lived in a world with an exhaustive knowledge of physics.

The debate about determinism is metaphysical. It doesn't depend on empirical evidence as much as it does on abstract reasoning about the nature of reality, like a mathematical concept.

At the end of the day If we exhaustively know without question what the first physical domino is in the chain of events where I raise my right arm; the determinist will explain it through their lens and the indeterminist will do the same through their lens.

Determinism doesn't stop at the physical, except for the materialist, who rejects the supernatural.

The essence of Christian determinism is that every cause has a prior cause, except for God, who caused everything. The chain of cause and effect has no loose ends. Every contributing factor to any event derives from a prior cause, whether spiritual or physical. If the human will is a first cause, either in part or in whole, then it must be something extant, like God, being uncaused and uncreated. This is the essence of why God calls himself the I Am, and why I think no one but God is self-extant in any way.

It's not enough to say that something is complex, or that we see no prior cause. To be an indeterminist requires believing that there is some element that has no prior cause of any kind, even one created by God. I don't believe in any such thing.

But the determinist has me rejecting a lot of my immediate knowledge (my thoughts) as illusory, I have to reject a whole lot of experiential knowledge that I thought was immediately known to me as being real if I am really a puppet on a string. That metaphysical price for determinism is too high IMO.

Yes and no. Even with determinism everything you thought was true is still true. You are still free to make decisions. Your choices are still your own. You are not just the audience, but a participant. However, the determinism casts a bigger picture surrounding the smaller picture that you know. For example, when people believed that the Earth was flat they were not fundamentally wrong. We all must live as though the Earth were flat. We'd be insane if we spent our lives trying to cling to the side of an orb. The bigger picture of the round Earth paints the flat Earth as an illusion, which it is, in a way, but the reality of life on Earth remains quite flat, even in this world where hardly anyone believes it.

Similarly, the reality of determinism doesn't change a thing about how we view ourselves, our responsibility, and the people around us. Though free will is the illusion, it is still a very practical reality. Nothing changes in that regard.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Without even getting into why I think that any version of Determinism isn’t a logical conclusion, how many different flavors are there? I originally thought that it was just one, that it was a pure molecules in motion theory, and to simply reply “Oh that’s just illusory” to every single objection that can ever come your way. But I’m listening to something about the Enlightenment, and David Hume’s Determinism definitely sounds different that Thomas Hobbes‘, now I’m confused about it.

When speaking about Hume and Determinism the professor says -

We are programmed by nature to obey our instincts, and our instinctual emotions are triggered by outside stimuli. And so our mental lives are just as much a part of the causality of nature as anything else, like the weather or the tides. We “Feel” like we have free will, but according to Hume it’s not true, just as much as our “Feeling” that we have an inner self isn’t true either.

Yes that’s what I thought it was. But when speaking of Hobbes debating some Bishop the professor says;

Hobbes opponent - “Don’t you think that we are free to do what we want to? Don’t you think that I can scratch my finger or I can choose not to scratch my finger?” Hobbes replied - “That’s missing the point, of course I’m free to do what I want, but I’m not free to want what I want.” And that’s the heart of Determinism.

Well that’s a lot different! And I’m not sure if that last sentence “And that’s the heart of Determinism” was an overall concluding remark from the professor about Determinism, or if it was a concluding remark about Hobbes’ version of Determinism. Either way I didn’t even know there were multiple versions and now I’m confused.

Back in 1991 when I was taking an Intro to Philosophy class, one of our units of study was upon the topic of Determinism. I'd probably have an answer to your question if I had gained a better knowledge at that time about the various views on Determinism that are out there. But as fate would have it, when it came time for me to later study more about Determinism ...

... I chose not to.

 

[Jok]

Back in 1991 when I was taking an Intro to Philosophy class, one of our units of study was upon the topic of Determinism. I'd probably have an answer to your question if I had gained a better knowledge at that time about the various views on Determinism that are out there. But as fate would have it, when it came time for me to later study more about Determinism ...

... I chose not to.

I don’t wanna hear your excuses! Dig out that old textbook and start reading! I think it’s in that storage box next to all of that china that you never used in the front left corner of your attic lol.

 

[Jok]

Determinism doesn't stop at the physical, except for the materialist, who rejects the supernatural.

Ok then I definitely have a sticking point where I have materialism falsely married to determinism.

The essence of Christian determinism is that every cause has a prior cause, except for God, who caused everything. The chain of cause and effect has no loose ends. Every contributing factor to any event derives from a prior cause, whether spiritual or physical. If the human will is a first cause, either in part or in whole, then it must be something extant, like God, being uncaused and uncreated. This is the essence of why God calls himself the I Am, and why I think no one but God is self-extant in any way.

I don’t want to violate the cause & effect chain. I guess I could think of a visualization. I could think of the physical universe being represented as a huge skyscraper floating in space with billions of open windows. In addition to this there are billions of non-physical tentacles stretching into all of those windows, these tentacles represent the non-physical will of all living organisms (I know it’s weird to think of a non-physical tentacle, but I am not trying to stress a physical tentacle going into the window, I’m trying to draw an analogy of a tentacle representing a non-physical cause & effect chain/ladder). Each room of each window could represent a physical body with hundreds of sockets in the room, and each non-physical tentacle splits off into hundreds of subtenticles after entering the window and they fuse into certain strategic physical sockets, which are strategic cause/effect locations. So we have these intersection points that form a sort of physical/non-physical web, yet each part of the web taken by itself does obey a causal chain all the way back to God (be it physical or non-physical). So God is both the physical & non-physical first cause.

Where these tentacles go into sockets are physical/non-physical points of potentiality, which have the ability to actualize (cause motion) the physical part directly following the socket. So if I sit totally still in the corner of my bedroom for 2 hours straight the potentiality to raise my right index finger is there the entire time. Now I decide to raise my finger! This involved the firing of brain neuron #1. Directly prior to neuron #1 is a fusion point of socket #1 & tentacle #1, it was a dual effort of socket #1 and tentacle #1 to cause brain neuron #1 to fire. Now conversely, the next day I’m watching TV and a weird muscle spasm causes my index finger to twitch upwards. This time tentacle #1 was not involved, even though brain neuron #1 still fired. Whatever happened it was ALL due to a causal chain that only involved parts of the physical skyscraper.

I suppose that the causal chain of tentacles are some special type of ontological structure/process that formulates a will at the end of it. There is an end product of decision making. Unlike the end product of blind mechanical forces of the causal chain of the skyscraper. The potentiality of where the tentacles enter the sockets is sort of a constantly pending “Ok what do I want to do here?” question of free will, as opposed to the purely chemical reaction types of potentiality elsewhere.

Yes and no. Even with determinism everything you thought was true is still true. You are still free to make decisions. Your choices are still your own. You are not just the audience, but a participant. However, the determinism casts a bigger picture surrounding the smaller picture that you know. For example, when people believed that the Earth was flat they were not fundamentally wrong. We all must live as though the Earth were flat. We'd be insane if we spent our lives trying to cling to the side of an orb. The bigger picture of the round Earth paints the flat Earth as an illusion, which it is, in a way, but the reality of life on Earth remains quite flat, even in this world where hardly anyone believes it.

Similarly, the reality of determinism doesn't change a thing about how we view ourselves, our responsibility, and the people around us. Though free will is the illusion, it is still a very practical reality. Nothing changes in that regard.

Lol you almost had me thinking that maybe I am a Christian Determinist, until you said at the total end “Though free will is the illusion, it is still a very practical reality.” I don’t understand how that is not contradicting itself.

I care much more about concepts than being married to certain terms. I would be more than happy to call myself a Determinist if I just have the meaning confused, but where I’m stuck is that I see the “Core essence” of Determinism as meaning that we are puppets on strings, and the motions of those strings causes a false belief to emerge that we are the ones who moved the strings that way, but in reality we aren’t moving them. I do not know how to hear the words “Free will is an illusion” without it confirming that puppet on a string description!

Are you just saying that our “Causal end product of free will decision making lays on a foundation stone of God, so we are technically not CAUSING our choices, similar to how I am technically not CAUSING myself to move 60 mph across an ocean when I full throttle a wave runner, but technically the wave runner is CAUSING me to move across the water at 60 mph”?

 

[zippy2006]

Yes and no. Even with determinism everything you thought was true is still true. You are still free to make decisions. Your choices are still your own...

...Similarly, the reality of determinism doesn't change a thing about how we view ourselves, our responsibility, and the people around us. Though free will is the illusion, it is still a very practical reality. Nothing changes in that regard.

The falsity of these statements cannot be overstated. If determinism is true then basically everything we thought was true is an illusion, and if someone takes that to heart they will end up in a mental asylum with severe psychosis. ..Not to put too fine a point on it.

"Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain." -St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Lol you almost had me thinking that maybe I am a Christian Determinist, until you said at the total end “Though free will is the illusion, it is still a very practical reality.” I don’t understand how that is not contradicting itself.

Paradoxes always sound self-contradictory. In this case it's a question of perspective, or scale. Looking at life from the human perspective indeterminism makes sense, and we can live our lives according to that belief and not go too terribly wrong. However, as we stand a little further back from the picture we see a whole lot of other influences that determine our will. When we go even further, all the way to the perspective of God, who knows all of these influences and is, in one way or another their ultimate cause, we see an entirely determinist perspective. Both views are perspectives of the same thing, depending on how you look at it, big picture or small picture.

The Arminians (indeterminists) typically don't understand that their own view is not contradictory to the Calvinist (determinist) view, because the latter incorporates two perspectives of which the former is only one. By proving Arminian concepts, such as a person being held responsible for his own decisions, he thinks he has disproved the determinist, but he has not. He has only proved his own position. Proving one side of the coin does not disprove the other.

If I were to ask you who killed Hamlet's uncle, the correct answer would depend on whether you answered from the context of the story, or from the larger context of authorship. In one sense, Hamlet killed his uncle. Is this illusory? Perhaps it would technically be truer to say that Shakespeare killed Hamlet's uncle, but if you were asked the question in a quiz, the former answer would more likely be graded correct, even by a judge who knew the story's authorship. Though the fiction is an illusion, the events within the fiction are judged by the context of that illusion. Hamlet is judged the killer, because that is the practical reality of the matter. Shakespeare is not cuffed and hauled to prison. Hamlet is guilty and Shakespeare is innocent, even despite the fact that Hamlet was the illusion and Shakespeare was real.

Are you just saying that our “Causal end product of free will decision making lays on a foundation stone of God, so we are technically not CAUSING our choices....

Our will causes our choices. We do actually freely choose, because the will is free to make its own choices. What we are not free to do is shape our own will, as though we could have a completely neutral position from which to decide how to shape it. If the will could shape itself, then it would shape itself according to how it sees fit, which would be according to how it already is (circular chain of effect). Ultimately, it is shaped by circumstance, both physical and spiritual, and all circumstances find their root in God. The human will does not spring from nothing, having created itself de novo, shaping its own decisions by standards derived from nothing.

 

[zippy2006]

I guess my sticking point is that Hobbes’ reply to the Bishop sounds an awful lot like he sincerely means a genuine freedom of choice. Is that where I’m going wrong, is Hobbes really saying the words tongue in cheek to the Bishop?

Note that the question to Hobbes wasn't about freedom of choice. I suspect that if his opponent had asked whether we are able to choose freely between two contradictory routes Hobbes would have just said, "No." Instead he asked Hobbes if we are free to do what we want. Hobbes responded by saying, "Yes, we are free to do what we want." He means, "We are able to do what we want." For most determinists our wants (or desires) are predetermined and out of our control, and at each moment in time we simply choose according to our strongest desire. So for determinists we are always doing what we want to do, but we are never acting freely. That's how I understand your quote from Hobbes.

Nevertheless, compatibilists will often use the words "freedom" and "choice" in a way that is quite different from common usage.

 

[zippy2006]

Our will causes our choices. We do actually freely choose, because the will is free to make its own choices. What we are not free to do is shape our own will, as though we could have a completely neutral position from which to decide how to shape it. If the will could shape itself, then it would shape itself according to how it sees fit, which would be according to how it already is (circular chain of effect). Ultimately, it is shaped by circumstance, both physical and spiritual, and all circumstances find their root in God. The human will does not spring from nothing, having created itself de novo, shaping its own decisions by standards derived from nothing.

I think you have given a fair description of the Calvinist position in this thread. I have a philosophical question for you.

Why posit the will as a cause of choice? Indeed I am not quite sure what a "cause" even is on determinism, for apparently all of creation is just one big continuous deterministic machine without any discrete parts. The fact that humans isolate certain things as "causes" would seem to be due to indeterministic illusions that we possess rather than any true causal activity on the part of creatures. For example, we see the baseball flying towards the as-yet-unbroken window as two discrete causal objects, but this is only because the human eye is not able to perceive the air, the fluid dynamics of the ball colliding with inertial air particles that divert its path, the amorphous solidity of the glass, or the intricate fracturing, shattering, and dispersion that will occur in a split second. If we could see all of this then, on your view, the designations "baseball" and "glass" would be arbitrary parts of a deterministic machine slowly churning out the inevitable future, nanosecond by nanosecond.

In any case, why posit the will as a cause of choice? Consider the temporal progression:

A(t) -> Will -> Choice
​

..where A(t) is the collection of all antecedent conditions at time t, including things like the person's desires, circumstances, beliefs, etc. With A(t) in place we know exactly what "choice" will result, so why posit a will? Why not say the following:

A(t) -> Choice
​

That is to say, what does the will add to your model? Why posit it at all? What does it help explain? Apparently the same choice results whether or not we posit a will, which is to say that, on Calvinism, the will adds nothing at all to A(t). Is the will just a convenient way to denote the dispositions of a particular human substance, the internal determinisms that go into the equation with the external determinisms in order to produce a "choice"?

 

[Jok]

Note that the question to Hobbes wasn't about freedom of choice. I suspect that if his opponent had asked whether we are able to choose freely between two contradictory routes Hobbes would have just said, "No." Instead he asked Hobbes if we are free to do what we want. Hobbes responded by saying, "Yes, we are free to do what we want." He means, "We are able to do what we want." For most determinists our wants (or desires) are predetermined and out of our control, and at each moment in time we simply choose according to our strongest desire. So for determinists we are always doing what we want to do, but we are never acting freely. That's how I understand your quote from Hobbes.

Nevertheless, compatibilists will often use the words "freedom" and "choice" in a way that is quite different from common usage.

Ok thanks. That’s definitely what I disagree with, because of how our tendencies/disciplines to comply or to resist things vary greatly not only between people, but can also vary greatly within the same exact person (given identical pulls of desires in different situations)

 

[Jok]

Paradoxes always sound self-contradictory. In this case it's a question of perspective, or scale. Looking at life from the human perspective indeterminism makes sense, and we can live our lives according to that belief and not go too terribly wrong. However, as we stand a little further back from the picture we see a whole lot of other influences that determine our will. When we go even further, all the way to the perspective of God, who knows all of these influences and is, in one way or another their ultimate cause, we see an entirely determinist perspective. Both views are perspectives of the same thing, depending on how you look at it, big picture or small picture.

It feels like this speaks more of God’s foreknowledge than it would speak of illusory free will (from any viewpoint, even from your third most furthest view of human actions).

The Arminians (indeterminists) typically don't understand that their own view is not contradictory to the Calvinist (determinist) view, because the latter incorporates two perspectives of which the former is only one. By proving Arminian concepts, such as a person being held responsible for his own decisions, he thinks he has disproved the determinist, but he has not. He has only proved his own position. Proving one side of the coin does not disprove the other.

If I were to ask you who killed Hamlet's uncle, the correct answer would depend on whether you answered from the context of the story, or from the larger context of authorship. In one sense, Hamlet killed his uncle. Is this illusory? Perhaps it would technically be truer to say that Shakespeare killed Hamlet's uncle, but if you were asked the question in a quiz, the former answer would more likely be graded correct, even by a judge who knew the story's authorship. Though the fiction is an illusion, the events within the fiction are judged by the context of that illusion. Hamlet is judged the killer, because that is the practical reality of the matter. Shakespeare is not cuffed and hauled to prison. Hamlet is guilty and Shakespeare is innocent, even despite the fact that Hamlet was the illusion and Shakespeare was real.

Ok this then would be where I’m not on board with determinism. In the case of Shakespeare it’s definitely true that from a further distance of thought Shakespeare definitely killed Hamlet’s uncle, the entire turn of events was designed by Shakespeare’s mind.

But with God I see a power that Shakespeare just didn’t have, the power to inject decision making self awareness into His characters. But I also see another power that God has, a power to read time & space backwards, forwards, inside out, upside down, etc. I think it would be like already knowing tomorrow (but already knowing tomorrow IF you don’t leave your house and interfere with anything! For if you leave your house anything that you do could cause a domino effect. Your time/space foreknowledge WOULD reboot & update if you interfered with something, because you changed things by leaving your house). So it would be like shaking your head in disgust and saying to yourself “Wow I can not believe that my brother did that NEXT week!”

So I think it’s not that God arranged a deterministic chessboard with predetermined moves, it’s that He has the power to read time in all directions.

But I can also see where you are coming from, THE MOMENT that God moves the chessboard of the world around in any way shape or form He would immediately be disappointed and/or proud of millions of different people’s future decisions immediately, decisions that haven’t even happened yet for many years (many people not even born yet). And his foreknowledge would only reboot if he stuck His finger into reality again and nudged something, BUT then he would once again immediately know how everything plays out in it’s entirety. Lol it definitely is weird to think about.

Our will causes our choices. We do actually freely choose, because the will is free to make its own choices. What we are not free to do is shape our own will, as though we could have a completely neutral position from which to decide how to shape it. If the will could shape itself, then it would shape itself according to how it sees fit, which would be according to how it already is (circular chain of effect).

I agree, I am born as me and you are born as you. For my whole life I will deal with the quirks and intricacies that make up me being me, and you with the things that make you you. The way that things will nudge & pull at you will differ from me. I may be way more emotionally charged than you, I may be way more vulnerable to certain temptations than you, etc. We both have wills that can override, adapt, give into things, get jaded by things much differently. What will challenge us, move us, break us, etc, throughout life will be unique to how we are born.