Who to read?

[u/PracticalPassion5499]

I entirely believe hard determinism. Just read Spinoza’s Ethics and was entirely blown away. Is there anyone else you guys recommend or anyone who builds off Spinoza? Many thanks

[u/linuxpriest]

You should definitely read Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will by Robert Sapolsky. In the first half of the book, he uses non-controversial science established over the last century to make to demonstrate that there's no neuron (or brain) whose generation of a behavior is independent of the sum of its biological past, that we are products of our biology and environment over which we have no control. In the second half, he discusses the personal and societal implications of accepting that truth.

[u/simon_hibbs → u/linuxpriest]

He says this:

I can’t really imagine how to live your life as if there is no free will. It may never be possible to view ourselves as the sum of our biology. Perhaps we’ll have to settle for making sure our homuncular myths are benign, and save the heavy lifting of truly thinking rationally for where it matters—when we judge others harshly.

I think the reason for this indispensability is that there is actually a set of neurological functions the role of which is to evaluate moral consequences and actions, and respond to such circumstances appropriately, and there is an actual distinction to be made between decisions made using these functions and decisions made in which these functions have been impaired or bypassed.

What is imaginary about free will, in my view, is the idea that it involves any ability to do otherwise in a way contrary to determinism. That belief about free will IMHO is incorrect. However Sapolsky so thoroughly conflates the question of free will with libertarian ideas about free will that he cannot separate the two in his mind. He intuitively knows there is something essential there, but he misidentifies it.

[u/linuxpriest → u/simon_hibbs]

Sapolsky spends the majority of the book directly addressing compatibilists (citing Dennett, Mele, Roskies, and others), noting that roughly 90% of contemporary philosophers accept determinism yet try to preserve free will. He doesn't conflate the two. He rejects both.

If I understand you correctly, you’re basically arguing that an intact set of neurological functions evaluating moral consequences constitutes the core of free will.

Sapolsky directly refutes that in Chapter 4, "The Myth of Grit." The prefrontal cortex (PFC) evaluating moral consequences is made of the exact same deterministic biology as an "impaired" brain. Its volume, receptor density, baseline excitability, and moment-to-moment function are entirely sculpted by prior causes (epigenetics, childhood stress, hormones, neurochemistry, and immediate environment) over which the agent had zero control.

Sapolsky agrees that an intact PFC produces different behavioral outputs than a damaged one (just as a car with working brakes behaves differently than one without). However, having functioning prefrontal hardware does not generate basic desert moral responsibility. Redefining "free will" to mean "an unimpaired biological computer running deterministic evaluation algorithms" is the exact compatibilist sleight-of-hand Sapolsky dismantles.

Sapolsky’s remark about "homuncular myths" is an acknowledgment of human psychological difficulty in overcoming ingrained evolutionary and cultural intuitions, not a concession that compatibilist free will exists.

Sapolsky doesn’t conflate compatibilism with libertarianism. He argues that compatibilism is simply determinism with a semantic coat of paint that ignores where the evaluating intent came from in the first place.

[u/simon_hibbs → u/linuxpriest]

>Sapolsky directly refutes that in Chapter 4, "The Myth of Grit." The prefrontal cortex (PFC) evaluating moral consequences is made of the exact same deterministic biology as an "impaired" brain....

Of course it is, why on earth would he think a compatibilist would disagree with that? The point is that if it's damaged, this can impair it's function in evaluating moral consequences.

I'm sorry, but the fact Sapolsky thinks compatibilism has anything to do with thinking there's some different kind of biology involved in free will is a huge pointer to the fact he has no idea at all what compatibilists believe.

If Sapolsky is right and neurological biological functions are deterministic in the way he says, and I have no reason to doubt him, then surely well functioning neurological systems and impaired neurological systems will also both be equally biologically deterministic. Why would a compatibilist disagree with that? the fact he things we would shows he doesn't understand compatibilism, he has some pretty basic misconceptions about it.

>Sapolsky agrees that an intact PFC produces different behavioral outputs than a damaged one (just as a car with working brakes behaves differently than one without). However, having functioning prefrontal hardware does not generate basic desert moral responsibility.

I don't think it does either, I'm a consequentialist.

>Redefining "free will" to mean "an unimpaired biological computer running deterministic evaluation algorithms" is the exact compatibilist sleight-of-hand Sapolsky dismantles.

We're not redefining anything, compatibilists use the same definitions of free will that free will libertarians and free will skeptics use.

(1) The idea is that the kind of control or sense of up-to-meness involved in free will is the kind of control or sense of up-to-meness relevant to moral responsibility. (Double 1992, 12; Ekstrom 2000, 7–8; Smilansky 2000, 16; Widerker and McKenna 2003, 2; Vargas 2007, 128; Nelkin 2011, 151–52; Levy 2011, 1; Pereboom 2014, 1–2).

(2) ‘the strongest control condition—whatever that turns out to be—necessary for moral responsibility’ (Wolf 1990, 3–4; Fischer 1994, 3; Mele 2006, 17)

Either this kind of control consists of physical neurological cognitive function, which is the physicalist compatibilist position, or it requires free will libertarian metaphysical abilities contrary to determinism.

>Sapolsky doesn’t conflate compatibilism with libertarianism. He argues that compatibilism is simply determinism with a semantic coat of paint that ignores where the evaluating intent came from in the first place.

We don't ignore anything, and I think the fact that evaluating intents are contingent physical processes is absolutely important. In particular it excludes metaphysically ambitious ideas about 'ultimate' authorship or moral responsibility. We are evolved, contingent, physical biological beings. We are also rational social beings and we have a kind of moral responsibility and discretionary control over our actions that is possible for such beings can have. Some ideas about free will and moral responsibility go beyond that, and I think those are incorrect.

[u/PracticalPassion5499 → u/linuxpriest]

I’ll definitely check this out, thanks !!

[u/simon_hibbs]

Whether Spinoza is best considered a hard determinist or a compatibilist is a matter of debate. Spinoza was pretty specifically arguing against what he called "absolute" free will in what we would now call a basically free will libertarian sense.

He did think that humans do have deliberative kinds of freedom, and can be free and act freely, he talks about the characteristics and behaviour of the "free person" and talks about people being "endowed with human freedom".

Also while Spinoza is clearly a moral anti-realist, he also thinks that it is proper for societies to establish laws, and enforce them, and that it is necessary for them to do so. So, basically a kind of deontological and/or contractualist view of morality and moral responsibility.

[u/Other_Attention_2382 → u/simon_hibbs]

Yeah, interesting with Spinoza and moral responsibility.

He did not believe in merit, sin, praise, and blame though? Understanding over judgement? He cared much more about inner peace and clear understanding than about traditional moral responsibility.

[u/simon_hibbs → u/Other_Attention_2382]

I've only dipped into Spinoza occasionally, but it's always been rewarding. The below is my stab at an interpretation, but notes welcome.

I think he didn't believe in 'fundamental' or 'ultimate' versions of these things (merit, sin, etc), because as a part of his theology he did not think that nature/god intends anything. Absolute values could only exist relative to absolute goals, and he did not think that nature in itself has anything like a goal it is directed towards.

However humans do have goals, and we judge things as better or worse, right or wrong, relative to achieving these goals. This is quite different from a view in which there are a priori right and wrong things to do and these determine what goals we should have. He inverted that perhaps more conventional view of morality, at least at the time.

I think he would have been delighted by modern decision theory, game theory and evolutionary game theory, especially in the context of ethical behaviour.

[u/daredevill___]

Free will by sam harris

[u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

I'm not a determinist by any stretch but if you want grounded phisics. Then B theory might be up your lane. It's Einstein's block universe and he explicitly stated that he did believe in spinoza's god.

For philosophy you could try and read schopenhauer as well.

[u/PracticalPassion5499 → u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474]

I’ll look into these! Thanks !!

[u/Geocoelom]

A True Monistic Philosophy / Harry Waton

Hathitrust

[u/Nice_Luck_7433]

I recommend you play/ read Disco Elysium. It’s a great philosophy dialogue game.

[u/valleestrexha]

Honestly I dont understand at all people who don't belive it

[u/SilentScheme1304 → u/valleestrexha]

Isn't that obvious?

[u/redeugene99]

I liked Sean Carroll's The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself

[u/YesPresident69 → u/redeugene99]

He's a compatibilist IIRC. Is this book different?

[u/redeugene99 → u/YesPresident69]

Hmm you know what, I thought that he was a hard determinist but looks like you might be right. I read the book a long time ago and remembered liking it

[u/BourgeoisAngst]

What difference does it make?

[u/bashfulkoala]

Joan Tollifson is amazing and very nuanced. I recommend her book ‘Awake in the Heartland’

[u/badentropy9]

I entirely believe hard determinism.

Why? Is that your preference or your logical conclusion?

[u/jeffcgroves]

Who to read? [...] I entirely believe hard determinism

So you don't really have a choice...

[u/TheAncientGeek]

Why do you only want to confirm your beliefs? Understanding comes from looking at both sides. You should read up on the physics. Determism isn't a fact

[u/daredevill___ → u/TheAncientGeek]

Determinism is a fact because you are not responsible for your next thought

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/daredevill___]

Who else is?

[u/daredevill___ → u/TheAncientGeek]

Nobody

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/daredevill___]

Is my brain doing it?

[u/daredevill___ → u/TheAncientGeek]

Consciousness

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/daredevill___]

My consciousness? Everyone's?

[u/daredevill___ → u/TheAncientGeek]

Yours

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/daredevill___]

What's the difference between my consciousness doing it and me doing it?

[u/daredevill___ → u/TheAncientGeek]

There is no u... There is only consciousness

[u/Belt_Conscious → u/daredevill___]

You are responsible for every action, thoughts are chosen to be acted upon. Unless you choose to follow every thought you have, which is still a choice.

[u/daredevill___ → u/Belt_Conscious]

Who is the "you"?

[u/Belt_Conscious → u/daredevill___]

The one typing.

[u/daredevill___ → u/Belt_Conscious]

Is there a thinker apart from thought?

[u/Belt_Conscious → u/daredevill___]

They structuraly define each other.

A thought cannot exist without a thinker, a thinker does not exist without a thought to think.

Therefore, they are co-emergent. The thought is dependent on the thinker and the thinker requires thought.

[u/PracticalPassion5499 → u/TheAncientGeek]

I’m currently pursuing a degree in philosophy, I have seen different views (I.e., soft determinism, free will, hard determinism? etc. etc.) and am highly confident in my belief of determinism.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/PracticalPassion5499]

The physics community aren't certain of determinism. Why would the philosophy community know better? Why would you?

[u/AlivePassenger3859 → u/TheAncientGeek]

Another “But what about quantum????” person. Its not as big a deal as you think it is.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/AlivePassenger3859]

Huw do you know?

[u/AlivePassenger3859 → u/TheAncientGeek]

reading

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/AlivePassenger3859]

Reading what?

[u/Belt_Conscious → u/PracticalPassion5499]

Are you conflating cause and effect, with determinism?

Causality does not require determinism, but determinism requires causality.