Does determinism really negate free will?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you admit that it is impossible (in principle) for determinists to avoid all self-contradiction?

In terms of how one might expect a determinist to behave, no, I don't think it's impossible in principle.

But it really depends precisely what is meant by 'self-contradiction' in this context - strictly speaking, there is no contradiction with determinism - whatever the behaviour (and thought, including the feeling of free will), it's all caused by prior events, and so inevitable.

But also to use words honestly and according to colloquial definitions. If that doesn't happen then adjudicating the meaning of words will ultimately be impossible, and this seems to be the case at hand.

I've had numerous discussions about free will and determinism, where we have agreed or disagreed about various points, without accusations of dishonesty, playing word-games, or not using colloquial definitions. In general, if a word is used in a way the other is unaccustomed to, clarification is requested and made, and the usage is accepted or an alternative word or phrase is agreed.

Again, given your definition of a mistake grass makes mistakes. You can either accept that absurd conclusion, revise your definition, or explain how the definition avoids the absurd conclusion. As usual, I offered an argument and you didn't respond with an argument.

Well, firstly, I didn't invent that definition, it's used out there in the world. Secondly, I originally used it in the context of someone making a mistake, and once you introduced rats and 'entities' into the discussion, I suggested that where an entity "exhibits behaviour recognisably or sufficiently similar to human behaviour in some context" I think it's reasonable to use the same words to describe its behaviour as for humans.

In my view (as I said), that includes numerous creatures, including many mammals and some birds. I don't think it includes grass - unless you know of intelligent grass that behaves like people. I understand that you may disagree with things I have said, but I object to being accused of dishonesty by someone who misrepresents what I've said.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But this just underwrites the very point Chesterton was making. If determinists do not and should not be expected to behave in ways that reflect the belief in 'failure', then why in Heaven's name are they so often using that word to describe reality?!

Because (as I already said) the understanding that the world is deterministic does not suddenly change long-established thought patterns and behaviours - and in everyday interactions, it makes sense to describe events using everyday terms.

Using words as objective descriptions of reality is, after all, behavior that reflects the belief in the realities that those words stand for.

As I said, we often act according to how we feel, or out of habit, contrary to how we rationally know or think the world is; for example, an amputee may rationally know a limb is absent, but still feel discomfort in the missing limb; you may rationally know that you lost your wallet or left it at home, yet still reach for it to pay for something; you may know that gambling or drugs are harming you, yet find you're unable to stop doing them; you may rationalise that death and dying are nothing to be afraid of and you'll go to a far better place, but still find that the idea of death and dying still terrifies you; you may reason that a calm and relaxed approach to life is the best way, but still find yourself furious at being cut up in traffic; you may rationalise that the world is deterministic yet still find yourself feeling and behaving as though it isn't.

 

[SelfSim]

IWell, firstly, I didn't invent that definition, it's used out there in the world. Secondly, I originally used it in the context of someone making a mistake, and once you introduced rats and 'entities' into the discussion, I suggested that where an entity "exhibits behaviour recognisably or sufficiently similar to human behaviour in some context" I think it's reasonable to use the same words to describe its behaviour as for humans.

.. (with the proviso that there's no evidence for how the entity itself might describe its own behaviour).

IOW: there's no evidence that the behaviour itself exists totally independently from the human mind describing it .. same goes for 'Determinism itself'.

In my view (as I said), that includes numerous creatures, including many mammals and some birds. I don't think it includes grass - unless you know of intelligent grass that behaves like people. I understand that you may disagree with things I have said, but I object to being accused of dishonesty by someone who misrepresents what I've said.

FWIW: I can vouch for you being our one of the most honest posters here at CFs .. intellectually, (or otherwise) .. and that's even in spite the clear difference in our 'by default' philosophical stances.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. (with the proviso that there's no evidence for how the entity itself might describe its own behaviour).

IOW: there's no evidence that the behaviour itself exists totally independently from the human mind describing it .. same goes for 'Determinism itself'.

Yes. This topic has conceptual difficulties, linguistic difficulties, and philosophical difficulties...

FWIW: I can vouch for you being our one of the most honest posters here at CFs .. intellectually, (or otherwise) .. and that's even in spite the clear difference in our 'by default' philosophical stances.

Thank you, I try I'd also say the same of you - and that your philosophical stance, although frustrating at times, has been very helpful in extending my view of belief.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, firstly, I didn't invent that definition, it's used out there in the world. Secondly, I originally used it in the context of someone making a mistake, and once you introduced rats and 'entities' into the discussion, I suggested that where an entity "exhibits behaviour recognisably or sufficiently similar to human behaviour in some context" I think it's reasonable to use the same words to describe its behaviour as for humans.

In my view (as I said), that includes numerous creatures, including many mammals and some birds. I don't think it includes grass - unless you know of intelligent grass that behaves like people. I understand that you may disagree with things I have said, but I object to being accused of dishonesty by someone who misrepresents what I've said.

But you're back to the fallacy of begging the question. The question at hand is whether determinism accounts for human behavior, and the particular argument has to do with mistakes. You gave a substantive definition of 'mistake' which turned out to entail the absurd conclusion that grass makes mistakes. In response you avoid directly addressing that definition or giving a new substantive definition, and instead provide a vague claim about mistakes being "sufficiently similar to human behaviour in some context." But that's the very question at hand. Asserting it within your definition is the fallacy of begging the question; it is not a real argument. If mistakes are constrained as being "sufficiently similar to human behavior," then of course humans make mistakes and grass doesn't. The problem is that the whole point of my grass argument was to show that your deterministic definition of 'mistake' is not sufficiently similar to human behavior (or to anything that could reasonably be called a mistake). To merely assert that it is is complete evasion; an avoidance of the argument at stake.

...This sort of thing happens every time we try to hash something out. I'm not saying that your primary aim is dishonesty or sophistic reasoning, but it seems that you have accustomed yourself to fallacious modes of argumentation, and it is tedious to maintain such a dialogue.

So again, rational discourse provides you with three options, "You can either accept that absurd conclusion, revise your definition, or explain how the definition avoids the absurd conclusion."

Because (as I already said) the understanding that the world is deterministic does not suddenly change long-established thought patterns and behaviours - and in everyday interactions, it makes sense to describe events using everyday terms.

As I said, we often act according to how we feel, or out of habit, contrary to how we rationally know or think the world is; for example, an amputee may rationally know a limb is absent, but still feel discomfort in the missing limb; you may rationally know that you lost your wallet or left it at home, yet still reach for it to pay for something; you may know that gambling or drugs are harming you, yet find you're unable to stop doing them; you may rationalise that death and dying are nothing to be afraid of and you'll go to a far better place, but still find that the idea of death and dying still terrifies you; you may reason that a calm and relaxed approach to life is the best way, but still find yourself furious at being cut up in traffic; you may rationalise that the world is deterministic yet still find yourself feeling and behaving as though it isn't.

True, and this is why Chesterton's C. S. Lewis quote was so apt. Still, his critique is perfectly legitimate.

 

[SelfSim]

But you're back to the fallacy of begging the question. The question at hand is whether determinism accounts for human behavior, and the particular argument has to do with mistakes. You gave a substantive definition of 'mistake' which turned out to entail the absurd conclusion that grass makes mistakes.

If you hadn't noticed, its entirely possible for @FrumiousBandersnatch to shift, temporarily, his default (Realist?) philosophical position to one where your declaration of the 'the question at hand' is actually reversible from: 'is whether determinism accounts for human behavior', to: 'is whether human behavior accounts for determinism' .. (which is also my preference, because its objectively also consistent with scientific findings).

Swapping the philosophical positions behind both enquiries there, highlights the direct influence of philosophical beliefs, (even though both can be argued as being logically consistent).

The difference-maker then becomes the objective evidence, producible by science, on a case-by-case basis.

 

[zippy2006]

If you hadn't noticed, its entirely possible for @FrumiousBandersnatch to shift, temporarily, his default (Realist?) philosophical position to one where your declaration of the 'the question at hand' is actually reversible from: 'is whether determinism accounts for human behavior', to: 'is whether human behavior accounts for determinism' .. (which is also my preference, because its objectively also consistent with scientific findings).

Swapping the philosophical positions behind both enquiries there, highlights the direct influence of philosophical beliefs, (even though both can be argued as being logically consistent).

The difference-maker then becomes the objective evidence, producible by science, on a case-by-case basis.

I do think there is a lot of shifting going on, but the "question at hand" was determined by the argument I made, which was based on the idea that determinism cannot account for true human mistakes. Either that argument can be answered or it can't. His proposed answer implicates grass in mistakes, and I already highlighted the three options that Frumious can now choose from.

If Frumious wants to present a separate point about "whether human behavior accounts for determinism," he is free to do so, but he is not free to shift the goalposts of the argument I already offered.

 

[Chesterton]

It seems I'm not choosing my words carefully enough... I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. I meant that what people do is deterministic, but the knowledge that the world is deterministic is not sufficient to change their behaviour to completely reflect that knowledge, e.g. they still behave as if they and others have free will, moral responsibility, and so on.

What do you think would be sufficient to change the inevitable? (Doh! Now you've got me speaking in contradictions!)

And secondly, would you want the change? Would you want people to reflect this knowledge? Have you ever contemplated the enormity of this absurd philosophy? Every war, every peace, every love, every hate, every crime and every virtue...none of it real, all of it meaningless. Just a set of mindless physical processes playing themselves out for no reason. I think it would be unbearable if it were possible to actually believe it (which IMO it isn't). I think suicide would be in order to escape the torturous illusions, once the knowledge was had.

 

[SelfSim]

I do think there is a lot of shifting going on, but the "question at hand" was determined by the argument I made, which was based on the idea that determinism cannot account for true human mistakes. Either that argument can be answered or it can't. His proposed answer implicates grass in mistakes, and I already highlighted the three options that Frumious can now choose from.

If Frumious wants to present a separate point about "whether human behavior accounts for determinism," he is free to do so, but he is not free to shift the goalposts of the argument I already offered.

.. My reply is coming .. (board software 'eagerness' to blame for this post).

 

[SelfSim]

I do think there is a lot of shifting going on, but the "question at hand" was determined by the argument I made, which was based on the idea that determinism cannot account for true human mistakes.

'True' human mistakes is an issue though.

Either that argument can be answered or it can't.

Well if that's so, how do you account for that science can't rule out unknowns and 'truth' in science isn't really a consistent criterion.

His proposed answer implicates grass in mistakes, and I already highlighted the three options that Frumious can now choose from.

I'm happy to leave that up to him .. but my leaning is towards using the concept of Determinism, on a case-by-case objective basis, seems to satisfy the requirement for testable predictions (and not necessarily your 'truth' proposition).

Perhaps he can also form testable hypotheses(?), where the measurements therefrom are already, in practice, demonstrated as having 'hard' theoretical precision limits and uncertainties?

If Frumious wants to present a separate point about "whether human behavior accounts for determinism," he is free to do so, but he is not free to shift the goalposts of the argument I already offered.

If he does, I'll be on the lookout for his open disclosure of it .. (otherwise, any 'hidden' assumptions are fair game, IMO).

 

[Neogaia777]

It begs the question, if a person came to have all knowledge about everything that is deterministic (which in my mind is everything, etc) but and/or anyway, if a person came to have all knowledge about everything that is deterministic, including himself, etc, would he or she then be able to choose, or think, or do or act or behave, etc, differently, etc...?

I don't think they would, because the way in which they would have came to that knowledge in the first place would have all been deterministic, etc, so it would all just be yet just another set of already determined, or already pre-determined, set of paths or courses already, etc...?

Seems to be no escape from it until we leave this world for something different to me, etc...?

And that's still only still just a "maybe" still at that, etc...?

Anyway, just some of my thoughts right now...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

There is an additional reason I believe in determinism the way I do, etc...

And that is because I have been shown it beyond any kind of doubt to me, etc, and am still being shown it sometimes now still today, down to this very same day sometimes still, etc...

But, if I tried to share examples, then you guys would probably just write it off as just "coincidence" or whatever, etc, as it ventures off into the realm of belief for most of you, etc...

But, just let me say that, not only are all our own choices or decisions or actions fully known, etc, and not only are just our own words already fully known, etc, but even all our very own thoughts even, are all already fully known already even already, etc, and all those all, "way, way ahead of time" already also, etc, so that nothing is ever secret or hidden or ever not already fully known already at all ever, etc, and that's about all I am going to say about it right now, for now, etc...

Everything being deterministic, became my only answer or recourse to this apparent contradiction, etc...

The only way it could "fit" or "make sense" logically, etc...

And then I started learning about the science, and how a lot of things it were deterministic or operated deterministically as well, which only pushed me toward it further, etc...

It explains it all for me, etc...

And so I have come to accept it as the truth, etc...

I also got my Bible or God theory/theology to fit in with it as well, so it has to be true for me, but that's a story for another time, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

There is an additional reason I believe in determinism the way I do, etc...

And that is because I have been shown it beyond any kind of doubt to me, etc, and am still being shown it sometimes now still today, down to this very same day sometimes still, etc...

But, if I tried to share examples, then you guys would probably just write it off as just "coincidence" or whatever, etc, as it ventures off into the realm of belief for most of you, etc...

But, just let me say that, not only are all our own choices or decisions or actions fully known, etc, and not only are just our own words already fully known, etc, but even all our very own thoughts even, are all already fully known already even already, etc, and all those all, "way, way ahead of time" already also, etc, so that nothing is ever secret or hidden or ever not already fully known already at all ever, etc, and that's about all I am going to say about it right now, for now, etc...

Everything being deterministic, became my only answer or recourse to this apparent contradiction, etc...

The only way it could "fit" or "make sense" logically, etc...

And then I started learning about the science, and how a lot of things it were deterministic or operated deterministically as well, which only pushed me toward it further, etc...

It explains it all for me, etc...

And so I have come to accept it as the truth, etc...

I also got my Bible or God theory/theology to fit in with it as well, so it has to be true for me, but that's a story for another time, etc...

God Bless!

This "entity" or whatever, has been "tapping me on the shoulder" from time to time, or a lot of the time, etc, to let me know that He already fully knows all of this already, and has already known all of this already, (past tense), from the very start, or the very beginning of time already, etc...

But, many of you will say that part of it starts to veer off into the realm of belief, or that I am "delusional", etc, so...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

This "entity" or whatever, has been "tapping me on the shoulder" from time to time, or a lot of the time, etc, to let me know that He already fully knows all of this already, and has already known all of this already, (past tense), from the very start, or the very beginning of time already, etc...

But many of you will say that part of it starts to veer off into the realm of belief, or that I am "delusional", etc, so...?

God Bless!

He has also been telling me/showing me that He also knows where everything else is going to be, and be saying/doing/thinking/choosing, as well also, etc, and that this is at all times, or is at any given time at any point in time also, so it's not just limited to me, etc, and He has been showing me this also, etc, but I thought I explained that already, etc, that it's not just limited to me, etc, but includes all of you, and everything else in this universe also, etc...

But and/or anyway, for me, a kind of hard determinism, from the very beginning, is the only answer to that, etc...

God Bless!

 

[zippy2006]

.. but my leaning is towards using the concept of Determinism, on a case-by-case objective basis, seems to satisfy the requirement for testable predictions (and not necessarily your 'truth' proposition).

Because Determinism is a theory which encompasses all cases, it cannot be used on a "case-by-case" basis. In a way similar to (2) in post #183, you seem to be confusing causation with determinism.

 

[SelfSim]

Because Determinism is a theory which encompasses all cases, it cannot be used on a "case-by-case" basis. In a way similar to (2) in post #183, you seem to be confusing causation with determinism.

So you say I'm confusing determinism with causation but I see you're doing the same with 'theory' there(?)
(Don't worry responding just being rhetorical there ..)

Coming clean though, the determinism I'm talking about in my posts you're quoting, is the one recognised and used in math and physics ... otherwise known as 'causal determininism'.
After all, we're in a Science Forum, not a philosophy forum so I claim that physics' 'causal determinism' should be the default meaning wherever 'Determinism' is used, IMO.

Happy to use 'causal determinism' to distinguish it from the absoluteness apparently embedded in your 'Determinism', although Absolutism tends to instantly cause massive arguments around scientific thinkers.

 

[zippy2006]

So you say I'm confusing determinism with causation but I see you're doing the same with 'theory' there(?)
(Don't worry responding just being rhetorical there ..)

Coming clean though, the determinism I'm talking about in my posts you're quoting, is the one recognised and used in math and physics ... otherwise known as 'causal determininism'.
After all, we're in a Science Forum, not a philosophy forum so I claim that physics' 'causal determinism' should be the default meaning wherever 'Determinism' is used, IMO.

Happy to use 'causal determinism' to distinguish it from the absoluteness apparently embedded in your 'Determinism', although Absolutism tends to instantly cause massive arguments around scientific thinkers.

My same point applies to causal determinism, which is the same as determinism. Causal determinism encompasses all cases, and therefore it cannot be employed on a "case-by-case" basis. Here is a definition:

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Causal Determinism)

​

When the OP talks about determinism this is precisely what they are talking about, and it is what Frumious and I have been discussing. Frumious would no doubt agree with me that determinism is the thesis that every event is deterministically caused, and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about applying such a theory on a "case-by-case" basis.

 

[SelfSim]

My same point applies to causal determinism, which is the same as determinism. Causal determinism encompasses all cases, and therefore it cannot be employed on a "case-by-case" basis. Here is a definition:

"Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Causal Determinism)​

.. and so you reference the encyclopedia of Philosophy as a counter to how science makes use of any concept for its own different purpose which is generally other than trying to 'prove' the existence of absolute truths assumed as existing .. by all philosophies?
Surely you recognise that context is all important when it comes to definitions and what they mean?

When the OP talks about determinism this is precisely what they are talking about, and it is what Frumious and I have been discussing. Frumious would no doubt agree with me that determinism is the thesis that every event is deterministically caused, and that it therefore makes no sense to talk about applying such a theory on a "case-by-case" basis.

Sure .. but its not my fault that others are confused about what distinguishes science from philosophy. I will continue to point out how science's notion of causal determinism actually makes the conversation of practical use in progressing its queries.

Its pretty clear that the conversation between yourself and @FrumiousBandersnatch demonstrates, (for the umpteeth time), how philosophy debates end up going nowhere of practical importance, (whilst raising 'emotional temperatures')?

 

[zippy2006]

.. and so you reference the encyclopedia of Philosophy as a counter to how science makes use of any concept for its own different purpose which is generally other than trying to 'prove' the existence of absolute truths assumed as existing .. by all philosophies?
Surely you recognise that context is all important when it comes to definitions and what they mean?

SEP is very well regarded, but you are free to offer a different definition of "causal determinism" from a different source.

Sure .. but its not my fault that others are confused about what distinguishes science from philosophy. I will continue to point out how science's notion of causal determinism actually makes the conversation of practical use in progressing its queries.

Causal determinism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific theory (nor a theory of "math and physics").

Its pretty clear that the conversation between yourself and @FrumiousBandersnatch demonstrates, (for the umpteeth time), how philosophy debates end up going nowhere of practical importance, (whilst raising 'emotional temperatures')?

I am not really interested in having a long conversation about why determinism pertains to philosophy rather than to science, but the thing to note is that such a claim is not controversial, nor do I believe Frumious would contest it. Further, no one disagrees about what causal determinism means, and your claim that it may only apply on a "case-by-case" basis is simply incorrect. Determinism does not refer to something that is limited in scope.

Again, the easiest thing would be for you to find a reputable source which gives an alternative definition of causal determinism.

(The reason I get impatient with Frumious is because he is intelligent. I have no doubt that he understands what is meant by "determinism," and that it is not something that is limited in scope. Our disagreement is not due to a misunderstanding of that word.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But you're back to the fallacy of begging the question. The question at hand is whether determinism accounts for human behavior, and the particular argument has to do with mistakes. You gave a substantive definition of 'mistake' which turned out to entail the absurd conclusion that grass makes mistakes. In response you avoid directly addressing that definition or giving a new substantive definition, and instead provide a vague claim about mistakes being "sufficiently similar to human behaviour in some context." But that's the very question at hand. Asserting it within your definition is the fallacy of begging the question; it is not a real argument. If mistakes are constrained as being "sufficiently similar to human behavior," then of course humans make mistakes and grass doesn't. The problem is that the whole point of my grass argument was to show that your deterministic definition of 'mistake' is not sufficiently similar to human behavior (or to anything that could reasonably be called a mistake). To merely assert that it is is complete evasion; an avoidance of the argument at stake.

...This sort of thing happens every time we try to hash something out. I'm not saying that your primary aim is dishonesty or sophistic reasoning, but it seems that you have accustomed yourself to fallacious modes of argumentation, and it is tedious to maintain such a dialogue.

So again, rational discourse provides you with three options, "You can either accept that absurd conclusion, revise your definition, or explain how the definition avoids the absurd conclusion."

I've explained what I meant by the word and the context for that usage. If you won't accept it, so be it.