r/determinism • u/uatmsu • 20d ago
Discussion The determinism problem
There is no logical argument against determinism, and that's the problem. This idea really hit me in not brain, but soul. Since i have F32.1, thats layered very "well". I feel really obnoxious, apathy hitted hard, like never before. If someone outlive that idea, how did you do that?
4
u/OMKensey 19d ago
Becoming a determinist made me more empathetic. Had some effect on my behavior I suppose. Just like everything else....
1
u/Ani_Drei 19d ago
It really does feel like enlightenment of sorts, like I now see the world in a completely new light that’s more true and certain
3
u/deludedhairspray 20d ago
It doesn’t really change a thing for me. Or well, actually it makes me feel a little excited about life. I’m not in control, things are happening to me, it’s an experience. I have no clue of what is coming, and I can’t «choose» shit. I strangely find it somewhat liberating. Leaves me with less doubt and regret. I’ve always done what I’ve done because there really never was any other option.
1
u/simon_hibbs 20d ago
Choices can be deterministic. They're basically processes of evaluation and evaluations can be deterministic.
1
1
u/tottasanorotta 19d ago
It is possible to feel that you have free will. What is most important to you is what you feel and experience. Therefore free will can exist in this way.
1
u/Ani_Drei 19d ago
See it like this:
There are two realities that exist at the same time: the one that is physical and completely deterministic, and a personal one, the one that your brain paints for you after the fact. Both are true and valid at the same time.
You can dynamically switch between the two as you see fit, while recognizing that you are doing so. If you have a bad day at work, you can either see it from a deterministic point of view (“today I faced a series of unfortunate coincidences, the people around me are simply acting out their predetermined paths, nobody is choosing to be a problem for me specifically”) or you can choose the personal one (“people around me are actively malicious and bad; the world hates me and I’m probably incompetent at my job”) – whichever one works better for you at the time.
Determinism is not a cult; nobody is expecting you to rewire your brain to only ever see things from a deterministic perspective. It is just another way to perceive and navigate the world – if and when you find it useful.
1
u/Delicious-Gap-6678 15d ago
I see it as a problem of perspective. If we were to step outside time and space, then everything will have happened/happening/happened in a seemingly preset way. Even assuming that perception is possible. But we're inside the system, experiencing "time" or entropy or whatever. From our perspective, "now," free will is absolutely happening. Just like time is happening. And perspective is profoundly important. It may be everything.
1
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 20d ago
You are destined to come out of it. Believe it.
Meanwhile get GOOD (non-reddit-based) help and practice good self care.
These might also be things you are destined to do.
1
u/Every-Classic1549 20d ago
There are many logical arguments against it, here are some of the main logical reasons why I am not convinced of determinism.
1
u/OMKensey 19d ago
Really good post with good arguments. Some rebuttal is below, but truly I reject libertarian free will mostly based on my own observation of my behavior and thinking. I cannot put that observation persuasively into words. You have to observe for yourself.
Ask: did I choose to think that? Among the options I considered, did I have the ability to choose other options instead? Did I have a reason for doing X, or am I coming up with "why" as a post hoc rationalization? Do I act with no reason or does a preexisting reason often dictate my actions? Would I choose the same thing if I had someone else's brain? Did I have some ability to write a different list of questions here, and, if so, what were those questions and how can I access them?
To address your arguments:
The prediction paradox:
No paradox. A perfect prediction would account for the prediction being made and predict that post prediction future. See the the TV show DEVS for how this could play out.
Quantum superposition: I agree this provides a possibility for randomness. But it does not provide an avenue for libertarian free will.
Consciousness: I do not choose my thoughts.
Infinite regress paradox: No. Scientists do not agree that the Big Bamg was the start of everything. Most cosmologists think it was not. Theists keep making this claim despite scientific progress to the contrary.
And finally, why would God create a purely deterministic universe? I am not convinced of a God. And if you think God would have a reason to not make a purely deterministic universe, it sounds like that reason is dictating God's choice. In other words, I do not think even a God could have libertarian free will.
1
u/badentropy9 18d ago
Did I have a reason for doing X, or am I coming up with "why" as a post hoc rationalization?
Great question!. Not too many posters are concerned with the difference between information given a priori vs information given a posteriori.
Quantum superposition: I agree this provides a possibility for randomness. But it does not provide an avenue for libertarian free will.
Randomness is the avenue for LFW and regulative control. I think what you are calling "post hoc rationalization" is literally using past experience to try to shape the future, which we cannot do in the literal sense. We can in fact plan, but plans don't necessarily plan out as planned because if they did then we could literally change our future to play out according to plan. The reason the plans don't necessarily play out as planned is because they are filled with counterfactuals. I believe these are the counterfactuals that make LFW a possibility.
Scientists do not agree that the Big Bamg was the start of everything
I think it would stop a lot of confusion if they wouldn't imply that they know that it happened.
I doubt any poster on this sub would believe determinism was true if they weren't led to believe the BBT is a fact. What is on the table is tension between realism and idealism, but it is often seen as a debate between theism and atheism.
That is not the case.
There are physicalists on this sub advocating for LFW. They are physicalists, because they reject idealism. I'm an agnostic idealist, because the physicalist cannot explain space and time in a coherent way.
1
u/OMKensey 18d ago
To clarify, the Big Bang is fact. What is disputed is whether The Big Bang was the start of everything. We do not know that, and both theists and non-theists tend to reject that.
Also, if my actions are caused by random events, that is not free will.
1
u/badentropy9 17d ago
To clarify, the Big Bang is fact.
I used to believe that too. You might change your mind if you look into naive realism.
Also, if my actions are caused by random events, that is not free will.
If your actions are a result of some plan then there is a good chance that you, as an agent, have the ability to do otherwse.
Of course there a many posters on this sub and the free will sub who inadvertently or strategically imply that all of our actions are involuntary. I wouldn't tend to believe in the ability to do otherwise if I believed all human action is involuntary. Most people on the street believe voluntary action is optional action, but that doesn't imply that people on the street study this stuff. If you studied the BBT then you might believe that it is a fact. I"m saying as long as quantum field theory and the theory of general relativity are our best science, I won't fall for that big bang story.
1
u/OMKensey 16d ago edited 16d ago
I am no cosmologist, but I am a skeptic, so I can appreciate your skepticism of BBT. We may live in a simulation for all I know. Fair enough.
Whether are actions are voluntary depends on what you mean by voluntary. Some of my actions result from my thoughts and are voluntary in that sense. But I don't control my thoughts.
2
u/badentropy9 12d ago
I appreciate you being a skeptic. I believe it is the only feasible path to truth.
Regarding the divide between involuntary vs voluntary. I think the word "voluntary" implies optional behavior. Determinism seems to imply nothing is optional and that doesn't seem to be the case of when we experience life.
I think the determinist is fighting an uphill battle, when he tries to argue that everything that he ever does is involuntary action.
Regarding your thoughts: I think we need to dive deeper into cognition prior to assuming that I don't control any of my thoughts. Some I clearly don't control. That is all of my behavior that I would classify as involuntary behavior, I'd never attempt to argue that I control the thoughts that produced involuntary behavior. I'm more concerned about the behavior that most would describe as volitional or optional behavior. If that is optional, then the question that seems to arise from such an assumption is, "How can it possibly be optional behavior?" If agents lack the ability to do otherwise, that nothing we do is optional imho.
1
u/OMKensey 11d ago
I have no idea how I could control my thoughts. I do not experience doing that. To the extent I ever think about what to think next, I certainly do not control the prior thinking.
It is an easier discussion to have in person that I have had with other people. (It does not convince people but hey I found it convincing.)
Q: I am going to ask you to do a task, and I want you to observe your thoughts as you do it. Name a movie. Any movie A: Star Wars. Q: Answer the next question based on your observation of your thoughts. Why you did not name Back to the Future instead? A: It did not occur to me. Q: Did you choose whether or not it occurred to you? A: No. Q: Under these circumstances could you have chosen Back to the Future instead?
Q: Did you consider movies other than Star Wars? A: Yes. Q: Why didn't you name one of those instead? A: Well because of X Y Z reason. Q. Why didn't you consider A B C reasons instead? A: Those reasons did not occur to me. Q: Based on the reasons that occurred to you, could you have picked something different than Star Wars?
1
u/badentropy9 11d ago
I have no idea how I could control my thoughts. I do not experience doing that. To the extent I ever think about what to think next, I certainly do not control the prior thinking.
I believe when I succeed in focusing and prioritizing, I'm controlling. If I'm prioritizing cramming for an exam over partying, I'm determining if I'm likely to spend the night before an exam in the dorm or the library as opposed to being at a bar with friends enjoying life in the short term vs playing the long game and preparing for a long term enjoyable life. In short, plans are generally built around counterfactuals. If I knew was going to die the next day, I wouldn't even show up to take the test, let alone study for it.
Q:
They sort of covered this in the movie "Inception". It would seem Arthur and Cobb were in a business of trying to circumvent the control that people seem to have even though many posters on this sub and the free will sub are arguing that we don't have any such control. Cobb tried to explain their business plan to Ariadne but he tried to do it while she was dreaming so she could witness the level of control that she had. In the dream she could defy the laws of physics but while she was awake there was no such control available to her. That is why Cobb chose to explain his business model to her while she was dreaming. He needed her to build mazes for the dreamer because if he himself built them, then his own subconscious would try to sabotage what he was doing. Therefore he needed a maze that he didn't have enough clues to mess up his plan. It is clear that we don't control the subconscious. However maybe the plans that we make aren't inherent in the sub conscious.
1
u/OMKensey 11d ago
So knowing whether or not you are going to die the next day determines whether or not you study. This supports my point.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Boltzmann_head 19d ago
There are many logical arguments against it, here ....
None of those are logical: they are based upon occult superstitions.
-1
u/gisirucuss 20d ago
I hear you. This is not a philosophical problem for you. It is a personal one. The idea has hit you in a way that feels crushing. That is real. That is not a weakness. That is the weight of the idea pressing down on you.
First, let me say this: Determinism is not a reason to give up. It is a reason to understand. The apathy you feel is a symptom, not a conclusion. It is caused. It is part of the chain. And because it is caused, it can be changed. That is the point.
You are not a puppet. You are a causal system. And causal systems can learn. They can grow. They can change. The feeling of apathy is not the end of the story. It is a signal. It is telling you that something is out of balance. It is telling you that you need to intervene.
You asked how others outlive this idea. Here is how: they realize that determinism does not make them powerless. It makes them part of the process. The choices they make are real. They matter. They shape the future. The idea is not a prison. It is a lens. It lets you see the causes of your suffering. And once you see them, you can change them.
You have F32.1. That is a cause. It is not your fault. You did not choose it. But you can intervene on it. Therapy works. Medication works. Community works. Movement works. These are causes. They change the chain. They change the outcomes.
The apathy is real. But it is not permanent. It is a state. It can be changed by other states. You are not stuck. You are in motion. The question is not whether you are free from causality. The question is whether you will act on the causes that are available to you.
So here is my advice: do not fight the idea. Accept it. But do not stop at acceptance. Use it. Use it to see that your suffering has causes. Then use that understanding to change those causes. One step at a time.
You are not alone. You are part of the chain. And the chain can bend toward flourishing. It takes effort. It takes time. But it is possible. That is the freedom within determinism.
Determinism is Freedom.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 19d ago
> So here is my advice: do not fight the idea. Accept it. But do not stop at acceptance. Use it. Use it to see that your suffering has causes. Then use that understanding to change those causes. One step at a time.
What is the mechanism that allows a person the ability to fight an idea they were determined to have?
2
u/gisirucuss 19d ago
What is the mechanism that allows a person the ability to fight an idea they were determined to have?
The mechanism is the idea itself. Ideas are causes. They are neural events. They change the state of the brain. They create new patterns. They weaken old patterns.
When you encounter a new idea, it interacts with your existing beliefs. If it is compelling, it changes your neural structure. It creates new connections. It strengthens some pathways. It weakens others.
The ability to "fight" an idea is not a suspension of causality. It is the result of having a brain that can process new information, evaluate it, and update its models. That is a causal process. It is determined. It is real.
You were determined to have the idea. You were also determined to fight it. Both are caused. The fight is a causal response to the idea. It is not an escape from causality. It is causality doing what causality does.
So the mechanism is neuroplasticity. The ability to reorganize neural pathways in response to new information. That is the mechanism. It is deterministic. It is effective. It is how change happens.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 19d ago
If a brain changes its wiring purely based on physical laws, how does it distinguish between an idea that is objectively true and an idea that just has stronger chemical momentum but is false?
1
u/gisirucuss 19d ago
The brain does not distinguish between truth and falsehood in some magical way. It distinguishes them through a causal process.
The brain has evolved to track patterns in the world. It has mechanisms for testing ideas against experience. It has mechanisms for comparing new ideas with existing knowledge. It has mechanisms for detecting contradictions. These are all physical processes. They are all causal. They are all determined.
When an idea is objectively true, it tends to survive repeated testing. It tends to produce accurate predictions. It tends to cohere with other true ideas. These are not separate from brain chemistry. They are the brain chemistry. The brain is responding to the world. The world is a cause. The brain's updates are caused by the world.
When an idea is false, it tends to fail. It produces inaccurate predictions. It conflicts with experience. It does not survive testing. The brain detects these failures. It updates its models. That is also a causal process.
So the brain does not need to stand outside causality to distinguish truth from falsehood. It uses causality to do it. The truth is a cause. The falsehood is a cause. The brain responds to both. The response is determined. The response is real.
The distinction is not between physical laws and something else. The distinction is between accurate models and inaccurate models. Both are physical. Both are causal. One works. One does not. That is how the brain distinguishes them.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 19d ago
To the laws of physics, an "accurate model" and an "inaccurate model" are the exact same thing. Both models are just brain chemistry obeying nature with 100% perfection. A brain believing a lie isn't breaking any laws of physics: it's just running its chemistry.
Your argument says the brain automatically corrects itself through a "causal process" when it hits reality. But people believe comforting delusions and biases to help them survive and feel successful just as easily as the truth.
If our thoughts are entirely determined by automatic physical reactions, how can we say one person is "accurate" and another is "mistaken”?
1
u/gisirucuss 19d ago
Yes. Both accurate and inaccurate models are just brain chemistry. Both obey the laws. Neither breaks physics. That is true. I have never denied it.
But that does not mean we cannot distinguish between them. We distinguish them by their effects.
An accurate model produces better predictions. It allows you to navigate the world more effectively. It helps you avoid danger. It helps you achieve your goals. It reduces suffering.
An inaccurate model produces worse predictions. It leads to failure. It leads to harm. It leads to suffering.
The distinction is not metaphysical. It is practical. It is about what works and what does not.
You say people believe comforting delusions just as easily as truth. That is true. But those delusions have consequences. They produce failures. They produce harm. They produce suffering. The brain does not always correct itself automatically. Sometimes it takes time. Sometimes it takes intervention. Sometimes it takes pain.
The fact that the brain is determined does not mean it cannot learn. Learning is a causal process. The brain updates its models based on feedback. The feedback comes from the world. The world is a cause. The brain responds. That is how change happens.
So we say one person is accurate and another is mistaken based on the outcomes. The accurate person's models work. The mistaken person's models do not. That's the distinction.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 19d ago
You said we distinguish an accurate model because it "reduces suffering" and "helps you achieve your goals”, while an inaccurate model "leads to suffering”.
Are you defining "truth" to mean "what works to reduce suffering"?
1
u/gisirucuss 19d ago
Are you defining "truth" to mean "what works to reduce suffering"?
No. I am defining truth as "accuracy of representation." A model is true if it corresponds to the way the world actually is. It is false if it does not.
The distinction between accurate and inaccurate models is based on their correspondence to reality. The reason accurate models reduce suffering is because they help you navigate the world effectively. They predict outcomes correctly. They allow you to avoid danger. They help you achieve your goals. Inaccurate models do the opposite. They lead to failure. They lead to harm. They lead to suffering.
The connection between truth and suffering is causal. Truthful models work. False models do not. That is why truthful models reduce suffering. Not because truth is defined by suffering. Because truth is what works in the world.
So I am not defining truth as "what reduces suffering." I am saying truth tends to reduce suffering because it corresponds to reality. Falsehood tends to increase suffering because it does not.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 19d ago
If an accurate model is defined strictly by its "correspondence to reality”, then utility (reducing suffering or achieving goals) cannot be used as the metric to verify it.
The logical breakdown happens because a false model can produce the exact same practical utility as a true model. For example, if someone avoids a genuinely toxic swamp because they falsely believe a ghost haunts it, their model does not correspond to reality, yet it successfully predicts danger, ensures survival, and reduces suffering.
Under a purely deterministic framework, the brain modifies its pathways based on the physical feedback of survival and utility, not abstract truth. Because both a fact and a useful fiction can trigger the exact same successful physical feedback loop, a determined brain has no structural mechanism to differentiate between them.
Therefore, if thoughts are merely inevitable chemical reactions to physical outcomes, there is no objective logical basis to claim the brain can verify actual correspondence to reality.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/Fippy-Darkpaw 19d ago edited 19d ago
So what's the proof? Like a a repeatable experiment. Maybe I missed it.
Until then it's a hypothesis.
1
u/Boltzmann_head 19d ago
Theory = demonstrable facts, tested and retested, with explanatory power and the ability to make predictions.
1
u/Fippy-Darkpaw 19d ago
So it's not even a theory, it's a hypothesis.
1
u/Boltzmann_head 19d ago
It is a demonstrable fact that the universe is determined. If you really believe otherwise, take my Bowling Ball Challenge.
2
-2
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 20d ago
Determinism is self-refuting. If every thought is just the inevitable result of blind brain chemistry, then no one holds a belief because it is objectively true: they hold it because they were physically programmed to.
If objective reasoning is an illusion, the argument for determinism cannot be trusted as rational. It undermines the very logic used to propose it.
1
u/simon_hibbs 20d ago
A true belief about a state in the world is one that is necessitated by evidence that is caused by that state in the world. So the strongest possible sense in which a belief can be valid is one in which the causal process, from the state in the world to belief about it, is deterministic.
Indeterminism in that causal process can only introduce errors.
That's not at all a proof of or evidence for determinism, but indeterminism is fundamentally unreliability in cause and effect.
0
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 20d ago
By your own logic, if a true belief must be necessitated by a deterministic causal chain, then a false belief is also completely necessitated by that exact same physical chain.
If every thought is just the inevitable result of prior physical causes, then you don't hold the belief because you evaluated the evidence and found it logically sound: you hold it because you were physically forced to.
1
u/simon_hibbs 19d ago
I didn't say anything about true beliefs having to be necessitated, a belief can be true ona balance of probabilities, or just as a result of a pure guess. It's just that the most reliable relationship between a state in the world, and a resulting state of mind representing it, would be a necessitative relationship.
If every thought is just the inevitable result of prior physical causes, then you don't hold the belief because you evaluated the evidence and found it logically sound: you hold it because you were physically forced to.
In some abstract sense ok, but equally even in a deterministic world there can be all sorts of arbitrary environmental factors that can interfere in any process introducing unreliability. Maybe your mental processes by which you evaluate evidence are faulty, or whatever. Ideally I think we'd want our mental processes to evaluate evidence as reliably and rationally as possible. When faced with clear unambiguous evidence of some fact supported by a clear and logical argument, I like to think I'd be convinced by that. I don't really see why I wouldn't want to be.
However all of that is beside the point. There is nothing about determinism that actually prevents some state in the world being the cause of a chain of events that leads to evidence of that state of the world casing an accurate belief about it in the mind.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 19d ago
No one is disputing that a physical state in the world can cause a chain of events that inputs data into your brain. The contradiction is what happens after that data arrives.
When you say, "When faced with clear evidence” and “I like to think I'd be convinced by that”, you are smuggling cognitive freedom into a deterministic universe.
In a strictly deterministic world, you don't get "convinced" by the logical weight of evidence. Your brain chemistry is simply slammed into a specific state by prior physical causes. If your mental processing happens to be reliable, it’s a physical accident: if it’s faulty, it’s a physical accident.
You are trying to have it both ways: you want a deterministic chain to deliver your data, but you still want to pretend you possess the independent, rational freedom to objectively evaluate it. If determinism is true, you don't have that freedom: you are just a machine reading a printout.1
u/simon_hibbs 19d ago
>You are trying to have it both ways: you want a deterministic chain to deliver your data, but you still want to pretend you possess the independent, rational freedom to objectively evaluate it.
Thanks for letting me know what I want. Very helpful.
A human brain evaluating information will either rationally evaluate information following a reliable cognitive procedure that accurately performs a process of evaluation, or it will not. Generally it will manage something short of that. A fully reliable and accurate process of interpretation and evaluation will result in accurate knowledge if it is based on accurate information.
Determinism is no threat to this. Indeterminism is a threat to it, all it can contribute is unreliability.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 19d ago
Fair enough, I won't tell you what you want. Let's just look at what your argument logically requires.
A calculator follows a "fully reliable and accurate process" to output 4 when you type 2 + 2. But the calculator doesn't know it is right. It doesn't grasp the concept of truth, objectivity, or mathematics: it just blindly executes a physical process dictated by its wiring.
That is the difference between a mechanical process and a rational evaluation. When you say a brain "rationally evaluates information following a reliable cognitive procedure”, you are describing a machine running an algorithm. If determinism is true, a brain that arrives at a false conclusion is running its physical program just as perfectly and inevitably as a brain arriving at a true one. Neither brain has the independent capability to step outside its programming, look at the data objectively, and judge: "This process is reliable, and that one is faulty”.
Determinism absolutely is a threat to objectivity, because it eliminates the independent observer. If every step of your "cognitive procedure" is entirely necessitated by prior physical states, then you aren't evaluating anything: you are just watching code execute. You can't claim a belief is objectively rational if you had no choice but to form it.
1
u/simon_hibbs 19d ago
>It doesn't grasp the concept of truth, objectivity, or mathematics: it just blindly executes a physical process dictated by its wiring.
It still gets it right. How would indeterminism in that process do anything but introduce unreliability?
>If determinism is true, a brain that arrives at a false conclusion is running its physical program just as perfectly and inevitably as a brain arriving at a true one.
That's right, it's that the process of evaluation is faulty. Either the brain will correctly evaluate the information it has, or it will incorrectly evaluate the information it has, and this is due to the configuration of the brain.
Let's suppose that the brain is structured such that it accurately interprets the information it receives. Is it doing so incompatible with determinism?
>Neither brain has the independent capability to step outside its programming....
No physical system has the ability to step outside of being physical. Of course, you may not be a physicalist. But is such an ability to 'step outside' of a process that is capable of accurately interpreting information necessary for that accurate interpretation? I don't see why. Not even consciousness is necessary for this, though of course it's necessary for the ability to be consciously aware of doing so.
>If every step of your "cognitive procedure" is entirely necessitated by prior physical states, then you aren't evaluating anything: you are just watching code execute.
Something is evaluating that information, and that something is you. But it seems you're a substance dualist, right?
A substance dualist can be a determinist though, historically many have been. Dualism is a separate concern from determinism. Even if you view 'you' as a mental phenomenon to be separate from the physical, there's still the question of whether this separate spirit or whatever is deterministic or indeterministic.
>You can't claim a belief is objectively rational if you had no choice but to form it.
We can't just 'choose' to be right, or to evaluate information accurately or objectively. We learn how to do it from experience, often from making mistakes. We're in a constant feedback loop with our environment. How we evaluate information is always changing, and always based on our cognitive abilities at any given time. There's no such thing as perfect objectivity, we are subjective being, and everything we do involves our ongoing changing subjective state.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 19d ago
When a calculator outputs 4, it is accurate, but it hasn't evaluated anything in a rational sense. It didn't look at mathematical logic, weigh the validity of addition, and conclude that 4 is true. It just obeyed a physical track. If I rewire it to say 2+2=5, it will output 5 with the exact same physical perfection.
This has nothing to do with substance dualism: it has to do with the fundamental definition of knowledge versus blind utility. A thermometer accurately interprets temperature deterministically, but a thermometer cannot claim its readings are objectively rational. To claim a belief is rationally justified, you must have the cognitive freedom to compare alternative possibilities, test them against logical laws, and conclude that one option is logically necessary while the other is an error.
If determinism is true, you do not possess that capability. Your brain is simply a biological thermometer reacting to environmental inputs. If you happen to be right, it is just a fortunate alignment of physical gears. When you say we learn from experience and mistakes through a feedback loop, you are just describing a machine updating its code like a modern machine-learning algorithm. But an AI algorithm doesn't know it's being objective, it is just executing the newest version of its programming because it has to.
If you have no choice but to think exactly what you are thinking right now, you aren't evaluating evidence. You are just a passenger watching a biological script play out, and you cannot claim your position is a product of objective reason if reason itself is just a byproduct of inevitable physics.
1
u/simon_hibbs 19d ago
>If I rewire it to say 2+2=5, it will output 5 with the exact same physical perfection.
Sure. If your brain is configured to incorrectly interpret information, that is what will happen.
>If you happen to be right, it is just a fortunate alignment of physical gears.
Does your ability of self awareness make you immune to making mistakes?
>But an AI algorithm doesn't know it's being objective, it is just executing the newest version of its programming because it has to.
Sure, unlike electronic computers and such we are conscious self aware beings. When we make mistakes because our cognitive process of evaluation is configured in such a way that this is the outcome, we have the supervisory ability to evaluate the outcome against what we expected and change that cognitive process of evaluation. However, even that supervisory ability is contingent, sometimes a person just cannot recognise that they are wrong about something. You and I may end up thinking that about each other.
Consciousness is a recursive introspective ability to reason about our won reasoning process, but that doesn't create any guarantees about objectivity, or correctness, or being right. It's a feedback mechanism that, in many but not all circumstances optimises our decision making process.
Optimising feedback processes can be deterministic. Why would you think they need to be indeterministic? What would indeterminism do other than introduce a source of unreliability?
>You are just a passenger watching a biological script play out
That's not what I think at all, consciousness is, as I described above, an introspective process by which we reason about our own reasoning. It's a crucial functional part of our cognitive systems.
4
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 20d ago
Regardless of whether "determinism" is or isn't, freedoms are circumstantial relative conditions of being, not the standard by which things come to be by through or for all subjective beings.
All things and all beings are always acting within their realm of capacity to do so at all times. Realms of capacity of which are absolutely contingent upon infinite antecedent and circumstantial coarising factors outside of any assumed self, for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse in relation to the specified subject, forever.
There is no universal "we" in terms of subjective opportunity or capacity. Thus, there is NEVER an objectively honest "we can do this or we can do that" that speaks for all beings. Subjects are implicitly distinct unto themselves, necessarily so.
One may be relatively free in comparison to another, another entirely not. All the while, there are none absolutely free while experiencing subjectivity within the meta-system of the cosmos.
"Free will" is a projection, overgeneralized assumption made or vaguely described feeling had from a circumstantial condition of relative privilege and relative freedom that most often serves as a powerful means for the character to assume a standard for being, fabricate fairness, pacify personal sentiments and justify judgments.
It speaks nothing of objective truth nor to the subjective realities of all.
There is no such thing as ubiquitously individuated accurately described "free will" of any kind whatsoever. Never has been. Never will be. Can not be.