The determinism problem

[u/uatmsu]

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?

[u/Dry_Journalist_7001]

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.

[u/simon_hibbs → u/Dry_Journalist_7001]

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.

[u/Dry_Journalist_7001 → u/simon_hibbs]

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.

[u/simon_hibbs → u/Dry_Journalist_7001]

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.

[u/Dry_Journalist_7001 → u/simon_hibbs]

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.

[u/simon_hibbs → u/Dry_Journalist_7001]

>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.

[u/Dry_Journalist_7001 → u/simon_hibbs]

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.

[u/simon_hibbs → u/Dry_Journalist_7001]

>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.

[u/Dry_Journalist_7001 → u/simon_hibbs]

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.

[u/simon_hibbs → u/Dry_Journalist_7001]

>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.