My only problem with hard determinism

[granpa]

There is just the one self, the one who is posting here of my own FREE WILL which is not an illusion--at least I have no reason to believe it is.

freewill? well, illusion or not, that would be the first one, wouldnt it?


anyway, the point i was making was that there are other ways of thinking of the self that dont involve the idea of freewill.

 

[xr2]

I enjoy this thread, but this is painful to read.

I think the idea that people make their own choices is a fairly logical conclusion to reach. Realizing that there was really only one possible choice, and therefor no choice at all can be a little mind bending.

Here is what I can come up with for a simple example of how this works. Imagine a simple pocket calculator. You take it out and turn it on. Now let's take a moment in time and call that state 0. This state includes every possible variable about that moment in time. From state 0 you press the buttons '2', '+', '3', '=' and the calculator then shows 5. No matter how many times from state 0, if you follow the exact same procedure, you will end up with the exact same result.

Now, let's take the same idea and expand on it. You are about to walk into a store, but there are two doors you can go through. Now let's create state 0 again. From state 0, you can decide to go through the right door, or go through the left door, or even go through neither door and leave. So let's assume you chose to go through the right door. If we reset things back to state 0, you will choose to go through the right door again, because you've already shows that from a given state, that's the door you will choose.

Now if it were me at state 0 instead of you, I could choose the left door and not the right door, but then I would choose the left door if things were repeated. So the idea is that we each maintain our individuality, but from a given set of circumstances, there is really only one way each of us could act. Because of this, while you think about things, and act a certain way, it is impossible for you to act any other way.

 

[Washington]

I enjoy this thread, but this is painful to read.

I think the idea that people make their own choices is a fairly logical conclusion to reach. Realizing that there was really only one possible choice, and therefor no choice at all can be a little mind bending.

Here is what I can come up with for a simple example of how this works. Imagine a simple pocket calculator. You take it out and turn it on. Now let's take a moment in time and call that state 0. This state includes every possible variable about that moment in time. From state 0 you press the buttons '2', '+', '3', '=' and the calculator then shows 5. No matter how many times from state 0, if you follow the exact same procedure, you will end up with the exact same result.

Now, let's take the same idea and expand on it. You are about to walk into a store, but there are two doors you can go through. Now let's create state 0 again. From state 0, you can decide to go through the right door, or go through the left door, or even go through neither door and leave. So let's assume you chose to go through the right door. If we reset things back to state 0, you will choose to go through the right door again, because you've already shows that from a given state, that's the door you will choose.

Now if it were me at state 0 instead of you, I could choose the left door and not the right door, but then I would choose the left door if things were repeated. So the idea is that we each maintain our individuality, but from a given set of circumstances, there is really only one way each of us could act. Because of this, while you think about things, and act a certain way, it is impossible for you to act any other way.

A note of caution. Unfortunately, in differentiating between acts that are determined and those thought to be free of cause we often use words like "decide," "chose," "choose," and "choice" for both. Obviously in the determinist world there is no such thing as a "choice" in the free-will sense of the word. No more so than a calculator making a "choice" in adding two numbers. The calculator must display "5" when "2," "+," and "3" are punched in. That said . . . .

The problem with comparing a human decision that starts a 0 state with that of a calculator that starts at a 0 state is that in a calculator the state actually is 0. No other information exists in it that that will impinge on the answer to our problem. In humans no such 0 state exists. We can't erase everything that has transpired up to that point---a necessary condition---to match the 0 state of the calculator. We don't live in a vacuum and our minds don't operate in one. Choosing door A instead of door B requires some kind of mental operation, either conscious, unconscious, or both. And its these operations that bring us to the point (determine) of going through door A . And these mental operations are themselves determine. Other than this your example does have merit. No matter how many times you rewind the film Bogy will always say; "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

 

[xr2]

is[/I] 0. No other information exists in it that that will impinge on the answer to our problem. In humans no such 0 state exists. We can't erase everything that has transpired up to that point---a necessary condition---to match the 0 state of the calculator. We don't live in a vacuum and our minds don't operate in one. Choosing door A instead of door B requires some kind of mental operation, either conscious, unconscious, or both. And its these operations that bring us to the point (determine) of going through door A . And these mental operations are themselves determine. Other than this your example does have merit. No matter how many times you rewind the film Bogy will always say; "Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

I didn't mean for state 0 to signify a blank state with no past, it was just an arbitrary label I chose to represent a specific moment in time. But I can see how your interpretation of what I wrote makes sense, even if it's not what I intended. I will need to be more careful with my labels.

 

[quatona]

Now if it were me at state 0 instead of you, I could choose the left door and not the right door, but then I would choose the left door if things were repeated.

Yes, this is what determinism would imply (except, of course, that "choose" is not the appropriate term here).
Unfortunately, the same event (with the exact same setup) never repeats, so your example doesn´t make a case for or against anything.

 

[elman]

freewill? well, illusion or not, that would be the first one, wouldnt it?


anyway, the point i was making was that there are other ways of thinking of the self that dont involve the idea of freewill.

I cannot concieve of a way of think of self without self being able to think and make choices. Remove the ability to think and make choices and you remove the self and replaced it with some kind of biological machine.

 

[elman]

I enjoy this thread, but this is painful to read.

I think the idea that people make their own choices is a fairly logical conclusion to reach. Realizing that there was really only one possible choice, and therefor no choice at all can be a little mind bending.

Here is what I can come up with for a simple example of how this works. Imagine a simple pocket calculator. You take it out and turn it on. Now let's take a moment in time and call that state 0. This state includes every possible variable about that moment in time. From state 0 you press the buttons '2', '+', '3', '=' and the calculator then shows 5. No matter how many times from state 0, if you follow the exact same procedure, you will end up with the exact same result.

Now, let's take the same idea and expand on it. You are about to walk into a store, but there are two doors you can go through. Now let's create state 0 again. From state 0, you can decide to go through the right door, or go through the left door, or even go through neither door and leave. So let's assume you chose to go through the right door. If we reset things back to state 0, you will choose to go through the right door again, because you've already shows that from a given state, that's the door you will choose.

Now if it were me at state 0 instead of you, I could choose the left door and not the right door, but then I would choose the left door if things were repeated. So the idea is that we each maintain our individuality, but from a given set of circumstances, there is really only one way each of us could act. Because of this, while you think about things, and act a certain way, it is impossible for you to act any other way.

Thank you for the explanation. I am not convinced we can be certain I would always chose the right door, but your explanation is appreciated.

 

[elman]

Because there is no third choice; there is caused and there is uncaused. "Chosen" entails some inscrutable third category whose contents are defined almost entirely by a feeling that neither of the other two categories is emotionally satisfying.

You don't feel like you choose; you feel like your "choice" is not determined. But as I have already explained, determinism entails orders of magnitude more events than can ever conceivably be modeled, so the expectation that something can "feel" determined is unrealistic to begin with.

But the inability to feel determinism does not prove determinism is true. Chosen does not entail some inscrutiable third category between caused and uncaused. I am one of the causes. What I decide is one of the causes. It may not be and I believe is not the only cause. I am influenced by many things in making my decision, but I am not totally controlled and therefore, I am a cause of somethings that happen.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
So I have evidence my decision are not controlled outside of me or other than by me.

No, you don´t. You just feel it is so.

I have no evidence it is a false feeling.



Quote:
Correct. All I can know is what I see in front of me. I have no reason to believe it is other than as I see it.

"Choice" is nothing you can see, just as "being determined" is nothing you can see. They are interpretations of what you see.

Determined is not an interpretation of what I see. It is a denial of the reality of what I observe.

Quote:
I don't recall the logic but it did not convince me I am not seeing what I think I am seeing and experiencing. What has circular reasoning got to do with your logic not being convincing enough to override what I see?

Nothing. Your circular logic is completely independent from what I say.

Where is the circular reasoning?



Quote:
My responses are I don't believe your causal chains are all there is if you are leaving my decisions out of the causal chains.

And the question is: is there such thing as a decision for you to make?

And the answer is it appears there is.

Quote:
Why is it that your definition of determinism which I have not yet seen is the correct one?

I didn´t say it was the correct one. Actually I said the very opposite: That there is no such thing as a "correct" definition. But if you are responding to a definition that is not mine you are not addressing my concept.

And without knowing your definition the word becomes unuable.



Quote:
What is so hard about that is you keep saying I have no ability to effect my world by my own choices and I do. I do it all the time.

This part of the discussion was about your idea that determinism means something is forced upon you, and I told you that this is not my idea. If you argue against things being forced upon you you don´t argue against my idea. That was all.

If what I do is not my choice, then why is it not being forced upon me?
Since I have no choice in the matter, what is happening is certainly not voluntary on my part. In order for it to be voluntary I would have to be able to accept it, but I am not able. I have no choice.

On another note: So far I have merely questioned your claim that it´s obvious that you have such a thing as choice.

OK why is it not obvious?

 

[xr2]

Thank you for the explanation. I am not convinced we can be certain I would always chose the right door, but your explanation is appreciated.

The follow up question here is what would cause you to choose the other door?

 

[xr2]

Yes, this is what determinism would imply (except, of course, that "choose" is not the appropriate term here).
Unfortunately, the same event (with the exact same setup) never repeats, so your example doesn´t make a case for or against anything.

Choice may be a sticky word here, but my point is that while I have say in what I do or what I choose in any given situation (or what I'm calling state), that I couldn't have chosen anything else. So while to me it seems as if I am making a choice, I really couldn't do anything other than what I chose.

 

[elman]

Choice may be a sticky word here, but my point is that while I have say in what I do or what I choose in any given situation (or what I'm calling state), that I couldn't have chosen anything else. So while to me it seems as if I am making a choice, I really couldn't do anything other than what I chose.

Why do you believe you could not have chosen other than you did?

 

[elman]

The follow up question here is what would cause you to choose the other door?

Perhaps nothing would cause the choice to be different except whim. If the first choice was whim or for no particular reason then the different choice in the same conditions would also be whim or no particular reason, like chosing heads of tails in a coin flip. Each time I make such a choice, I might make the other choice if the exact situation is repeated because I had no reason to pick the one I did in the first choice.

 

[quatona]

Choice may be a sticky word here, but my point is that while I have say in what I do or what I choose in any given situation (or what I'm calling state), that I couldn't have chosen anything else. So while to me it seems as if I am making a choice, I really couldn't do anything other than what I chose.

I´m afraid I don´t understand, xr2.
I really can´t think of any concept of "choice" (other than merely being a synonym for "acting") that I could apply so that these sentences make sense.
The first part of the first sentence appears to contradict the second part: I don´t know what "choosing" means, if you can´t "choose" anything else.
I do understand, though, how one can experience oneself as being "choosing" despite the fact that his actions are determined.

Maybe you can reword your statement for me?

 

[TeddyKGB]

But the inability to feel determinism does not prove determinism is true. Chosen does not entail some inscrutiable third category between caused and uncaused. I am one of the causes. What I decide is one of the causes. It may not be and I believe is not the only cause. I am influenced by many things in making my decision, but I am not totally controlled and therefore, I am a cause of somethings that happen.

"I" is, in this context, merely a placeholder for "that which chooses." Your argument is entirely circular, as quatona has been observing.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Why do you believe you could not have chosen other than you did?

It would have to involve some change in causes or effects. According to your system, the only thing that would change is something about "I." What is it that would change and why?

 

[elman]

It would have to involve some change in causes or effects. According to your system, the only thing that would change is something about "I." What is it that would change and why?

See my coin flip example. Change perhaps for no reason since the original choice was based on whim and no reason. Plus in cases where I decided based on a reason for that decision, there may have been reasons for making a different choice and the second time I might chose those reasons as more important, particularly if the reasons came close to balancing each other out and the original choice was more or less a coin flip between the choices, both of which or all of which had equaly good reasons to act on.

 

[elman]

"I" is, in this context, merely a placeholder for "that which chooses." Your argument is entirely circular, as quatona has been observing.

No I am not just a placeholder for that which choses. I am that which choses. How is that circular?

 

[xr2]

Perhaps nothing would cause the choice to be different except whim. If the first choice was whim or for no particular reason then the different choice in the same conditions would also be whim or no particular reason, like chosing heads of tails in a coin flip. Each time I make such a choice, I might make the other choice if the exact situation is repeated because I had no reason to pick the one I did in the first choice.

The exact same situation can't be repeated. I don't mean if you pick heads or tails after the 1st flip was head and the 2nd flip was tales. I mean if the whole of existences was in the exact same state. You were in the exact same mood, every electron in your brain in the same place as it was. Every atom in the universe in the same exact place, etc.

The end idea here is that for you to make a different choice, something has to be different. If I could account for every possible variable and repeat the same exact coin flip 50 times, I should get the same result 50 times. For me to get a different result would require some difference. Reality is too complex to be able to recreate the same exact situation, so a given situation can happen only once, and in that once, you made a choice, and the only choice you could in that situation.

 

[xr2]

I´m afraid I don´t understand, xr2.
I really can´t think of any concept of "choice" (other than merely being a synonym for "acting") that I could apply so that these sentences make sense.
The first part of the first sentence appears to contradict the second part: I don´t know what "choosing" means, if you can´t "choose" anything else.
I do understand, though, how one can experience oneself as being "choosing" despite the fact that his actions are determined.

Maybe you can reword your statement for me?

From what I can tell, we believe the same thing. From my perspective, my actions are of my own choosing. From an outside perspective I am merely reacting to stimulus in the only way I can. I understand that objectively, there is no choice, because I could have only possibly made one choice.

If I'm still not making sense, I will try again later.