Does naturalism imply determinism?

dysert · Jul 25, 2012

I've been wondering about this idea of naturalism, i.e., that humans are nothing more than physical beings. If our brains are just a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses, does that mean our behaviors are pre-programmed? How does free will enter the picture (if at all)?

renewed21 · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
I've been wondering about this idea of naturalism, i.e., that humans are nothing more than physical beings. If our brains are just a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses, does that mean our behaviors are pre-programmed? How does free will enter the picture (if at all)?

It is a given that naturalism implies determinism.

Gracchus · Jul 25, 2012

Stop and think about it! People can do only what they want to do, unless they make a mistake or have an accident. For various reasons, some people have to believe in free will. I choose not to.

Paradoxum · Jul 25, 2012

It probably does.

Even if you believe a soul it doesn't mean you are free of problems. If you act you act for a reason. That reason is based on prior states in yourself and the outside world. That it self is based on the states prior to that. Eventually you get back to a point where you too young to have free will.

So if your actions are based on reasons then you aren't free, and if they aren't then they are random and that isn't free either.

dysert · Jul 25, 2012

Thanks for the quick replies. Isn't determinism a problem though? I mean, if I go out and deliberately hurt someone is it really my fault if I've been pre-programmed to do that? How can I be held responsible for something I had no choice in?

Gracchus · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
Thanks for the quick replies. Isn't determinism a problem though? I mean, if I go out and deliberately hurt someone is it really my fault if I've been pre-programmed to do that? How can I be held responsible for something I had no choice in?

It would not be your fault. But, we could reasonably take measures to prevent your repeating your behavior. Not to punish! Not for some hypotheticial "justice"! Just to prevent, recidivism.

quatona · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
Thanks for the quick replies. Isn't determinism a problem though? I mean, if I go out and deliberately hurt someone is it really my fault if I've been pre-programmed to do that? How can I be held responsible for something I had no choice in?

I understand why you may find this regrettable, but the fact that the conclusion is inconvenient does not really make a case against its accuracy.
(argument from consequence)

KCfromNC · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
I've been wondering about this idea of naturalism, i.e., that humans are nothing more than physical beings. If our brains are just a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses, does that mean our behaviors are pre-programmed?

No, but it many mean that the illusion we have of choice is just that, and instead we're more controlled by environment, genetics and upbringing than we care to admit. But pre-programmed? Not really, unless you ignore all the external factors influencing our behavior.

How does free will enter the picture (if at all)?

I don't know. What do you mean by free will?

Lord Emsworth · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
Thanks for the quick replies. Isn't determinism a problem though? I mean, if I go out and deliberately hurt someone is it really my fault if I've been pre-programmed to do that? How can I be held responsible for something I had no choice in?

The alternative to what you call "pre-programming" is randomness, or something which is indistinguishable from randomness. That is because you would not have anything that you even in principle could point to as the cause(es) for a given action.

And actually, determinism (or maybe better, causality) is far from being a problem. It is what affords control, control over what you do. And without such, you could hardly speak about "will" and that "will" being yours. You can't be held responsible for what you have no control over. I mean, you ought not be held responsible.

(To my mind this has actually little to do with naturalism or not.)

dysert · Jul 25, 2012

KCfromNC said:
No, but it many mean that the illusion we have of choice is just that, and instead we're more controlled by environment, genetics and upbringing than we care to admit. But pre-programmed? Not really, unless you ignore all the external factors influencing our behavior.

I don't know. What do you mean by free will?

What I mean by free will is the choice I have as to whether I punch my co-worker in the nose or not. If I have no free will (i.e., no choice) and instead my behavior is totally controlled by "environment, genetics, and upbringing", then I'm not really responsible if I punch my co-worker am I?

Lord Emsworth · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
What I mean by free will is the choice I have as to whether I punch my co-worker in the nose or not. If I have no free will (i.e., no choice) and instead my behavior is totally controlled by "environment, genetics, and upbringing", then I'm not really responsible if I punch my co-worker am I?

You have a choice if your mental faculties/your will/etc are the determining factor whether or not your co-worker 'meets' your fist. It is actually quite simple.

Eudaimonist · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
If our brains are just a bunch of chemicals and electrical impulses, does that mean our behaviors are pre-programmed? How does free will enter the picture (if at all)?

For that matter, how does awareness enter the picture?

It is reasonably clear that chemicals and electrical impulses do not have awareness as individual entities (there is at least no reason to think that they do), but somehow the complete person does have awareness. This suggests, at least, that one shouldn't be so quick to resort to reductionism to let the properties of the parts dictate what the whole may be capable of.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Paradoxum · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
What I mean by free will is the choice I have as to whether I punch my co-worker in the nose or not. If I have no free will (i.e., no choice) and instead my behavior is totally controlled by "environment, genetics, and upbringing", then I'm not really responsible if I punch my co-worker am I?

Well from your point of view you have free will. It isn't as if you don't want to punch someone but an outside force makes you do it. You do it because you choose to.

The 'problem' is that you probably couldn't have acted any difference. It is understandable to want revenge and to hurt some who has done evil. Perhaps, though, it is more truthful to acknowledge that evil people are who they are because of a series of unfortunate events.

jayem · Jul 25, 2012

Strictly speaking, the term determinism, without further qualification, only means that the exact same set of circumstances will always have exactly the same outcome. That's different than claiming that a certain outcome has been pre-determined. Quantum randomness is an argument against pre-determination, but would be compatible with determinism.

dysert · Jul 25, 2012

This is getting more confusing for me as time goes on :-(. Are you all saying the same thing, and I'm just not understanding? Or are some of you saying different things?

Let me try my question from a different angle. If I were to punch my co-worker in the nose, do you think I should be punished? (Assume they did nothing to "deserve" it.) If so, why? If not, why not?

Thanks.

jayem · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
Let me try my question from a different angle. If I were to punch my co-worker in the nose, do you think I should be punished? (Assume they did nothing to "deserve" it.) If so, why? If not, why not?

Thanks.

I'll put this in general terms: Just because behavior may be a product of neural circuitry in the brain doesn't mean there are no consequences if that behavior causes harm. To be more specific: I believe psychopaths do have disordered brains, which renders them unempathic to suffering and makes them prone to hurt other people. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be locked up if they commit assaults. They're dangerous and need to be isolated--probably forceably--from the rest of society. Does this answer your question?

Gracchus · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
This is getting more confusing for me as time goes on :-(. Are you all saying the same thing, and I'm just not understanding? Or are some of you saying different things?

If people use different words, part of the message conveyed may be the same, but it is likely that there will be different nuances. (See: semiotics)

Let me try my question from a different angle. If I were to punch my co-worker in the nose, do you think I should be punished? (Assume they did nothing to "deserve" it.) If so, why? If not, why not?

Sure and immediate "punishment" can deter behavior, but the less sure and the less immediate, the less effective the deterrence. Preventing you from doing it again, would be in order, by whatever means necessary, and you might find this unpleasant, but the infliction of pain is one of the worst ways to deter brutality.

dysert · Jul 25, 2012

jayem said:
I'll put this in general terms: Just because behavior may be a product of neural circuitry in the brain doesn't mean there are no consequences if that behavior causes harm. To be more specific: I believe psychopaths do have disordered brains, which renders them unempathic to suffering and makes them prone to hurt other people. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be locked up if they commit assaults. They're dangerous and need to be isolated--probably forceably--from the rest of society. Does this answer your question?

Not quite. I understand why society would isolate from society someone who has committed an assault (e.g., to prevent them from doing it again). But I'm wondering if the person should be *punished* (more so than just being isolated) for the crime. If they couldn't help themselves, i.e., if they had no choice but to commit the assault, then punishment doesn't seem justified to me.

dysert · Jul 25, 2012

Gracchus said:
Sure and immediate "punishment" can deter behavior, but the less sure and the less immediate, the less effective the deterrence. Preventing you from doing it again, would be in order, by whatever means necessary, and you might find this unpleasant, but the infliction of pain is one of the worst ways to deter brutality.

I assume that "sure and immediate punishment" would therefore change the person's neurochemistry and therefore deprogram them from committing another assault?

Regardless of the answer to that, my previous question still remains, viz., should the person be punished for committing the assault in the first place if in fact they couldn't help themselves, i.e., if their neurochemistry caused them to do it?

jayem · Jul 25, 2012

dysert said:
Not quite. I understand why society would isolate from society someone who has committed an assault (e.g., to prevent them from doing it again). But I'm wondering if the person should be *punished* (more so than just being isolated) for the crime. If they couldn't help themselves, i.e., if they had no choice but to commit the assault, then punishment doesn't seem justified to me.

Well what do you consider punishment? Civilized societies don't flog or use the thumbscrew on anyone these days. But being imprisoned is not a day at the beach. Is that not punishment? And the perp can be sued for pain, suffering, and other damages he caused his victim. Wouldn't losing all his assets also be a kind of punishment?

Does naturalism imply determinism?

Member

what are you waiting for?

Senior Veteran

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Member

Senior Veteran

"God"? What do you mean??

Regular Member

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

Member

Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves.

I believe in life before death!

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

Naturalist

Member

Naturalist

Senior Veteran

Member

Member

Naturalist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency