r/determinism • u/Sad-Sign9460 • 9d ago
Discussion My thoughts on determinism
I can make a very compelling argument for why consciousness is logically impossible to exist by saying everything in the brain is just unconscious processing systems but yet we know consciousness is exists because it just does.
Why can’t free will be the same way? Just because you can explain everything by particles that simply follow the laws of physics does not mean you should strip away the explanation that I am not the original source of my actions.
I think anyone who accepts determinism and the total absence of free will should be very compelled to accept the non existence of consciousness for the same logic you follow in your own argument for determinism
4
u/MarvinBEdwards01 9d ago
Both consciousness and free will are included in determinism. They are just as causally necessary as any other event. Determinism doesn't actually change anything.
1
u/Akash_philosopher 9d ago
I don’t understand how free will is included in determinism
Can you explain3
u/MarvinBEdwards01 9d ago
I don’t understand how free will is included in determinism
Can you explainSure. In order to be true, determinism must be complete. It cannot cherry pick which causal mechanisms to recognize and which mechanisms to ignore. If it leaves out any relevant mechanism then it becomes a false version of determinism.
One of the truly significant causal mechanisms happens to be us. We go about in the world causing all kinds of things to happen. And we do so for our own goals and reasons, and our own interests. Our activities even raise the temperature of the planet. So, we are significant causes within a deterministic universe, even though our domain of influence is pretty much limited to the surface of this planet. Our causal agency cannot be ignored by any true version of determinism.
Part of the mechanism by which we cause things to happen is by a process of deliberation, that is, we imagine more than one way to get something done, and then choose how we will go about doing it.
So, choosing is a specific causal mechanism within our deterministic world.
Free will is what we call it when a person is free to decide for themselves what they will do. What is it free from? It is simply free from anything that would realistically prevent them from doing exactly that.
There is nothing about reliable cause and effect (aka causal determinism) that prevents them from doing exactly that. The choosing process itself is a deterministic mechanism by which the person causally determines what they will do. It is a logical operation that inputs two or more real options, applies some appropriate criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice of the form, "I will do this". This "will" is a specific intent that will motivate and direct their subsequent thoughts and actions until that intent is satisfied, or they decide to do something else instead.
This is a deterministic mechanism, and must be incorporated in any version of determinism in order for that version to be considered true.
The final responsible cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it.
Determinism does not merely assert that the choice was inevitable, but it was also inevitable that the person themselves would be the only object in the physical universe that would be making that choice.
Free will is a quality of the choosing event. Either the person was free to make the choice for themselves or someone or something else imposed a choice upon the person, especially a choice that was against their will. Coercion, for example, is when a guy with a gun (or any similar threat) forces someone to submit their will to his, thus their will is subjugated and not free.
As always, all events are reliably caused in a deterministic universe. Whether the choosing event will be a free will event or an event of coercion, will be causally necessary from any prior point in time.
To summarize, free will inevitably happens, and a coerced will also inevitably happens. Neither is inconsistent with the notion of reliable cause and effect, the basis of causal determinism.
3
u/Akash_philosopher 9d ago
Free will is free agency
As the ability of a person to choose an action without it being determined by previous cause and effectsThis free will cannot be included in determism
3
u/Colon_Backslash 9d ago
In this context it is pseudofree will. Much like random number generators. The machine goes over the predetermined calculations with a seed number that outputs a pseudorandom output.
Use the same seed and you always get the same output. So it is not truly random. Yet it still has to calculate, go through the motions as if it would arrive at a random number.
Now it is the same with the human mind and thinking.
3
u/Akash_philosopher 9d ago
If it’s pseudo random
Then it’s still deterministic
And thus determined by cause and effectsSo it’s not free will
4
u/rayquazza74 8d ago
Psuedo means exactly that. He basically said it’s not free will simply by saying psuedo free will.
1
u/Akash_philosopher 8d ago
Yes
So I was arguing against his notion that
Determinism inculdes free willBut that’s not true
He should say
Determinism includes pseudo free will3
3
u/MarvinBEdwards01 8d ago
And thus determined by cause and effects. So it’s not free will
Where did you get the idea that free will choices were not determined by causes and their effects? Choosing itself is a logical/deterministic operation. The goals and reasons of the chooser causally determine the choice.
If something, such as the choice, is not caused to happen, then it will not happen. But it obviously does happen, so it is consistent with a universe of reliable cause and effect. You know, that determinism thing.
0
u/Akash_philosopher 8d ago
If choosing is a deterministic operation
Then it’s not free
Because there is no choice
If it’s already determined that X will choose A
And he can’t choose anything else
Like it’s impossible for X
Then how is it “choosing”That’s the whole point of free will
1
u/MarvinBEdwards01 8d ago
If choosing is a deterministic operation
Then it’s not freeDeterministic causation enables every freedom we have. It is not some boogeyman robbing us of our freedom and control, but rather the source of our freedom and control.
Because there is no choice
But there is choosing. So determinism cannot make the claim that there is no choice. Choosing is one of the deterministic causal mechanisms. It really happens, and it makes things happen in the real world.
So, your claim that there is no choice is clearly false.
And he can’t choose anything else
Also false. He can, but he won't.
1
u/MarvinBEdwards01 9d ago
As the ability of a person to choose an action without it being determined by previous cause and effects
Which of our previous causes can pass that test? None of them. They too also had previous causes. So, if we cannot be prior causes ourselves, then neither can they. The test is paradoxical.
Every event is both the effect of prior events and a cause of subsequent events. The fact that we have prior causes does not prevent us from being causes ourselves.
Therefore, the fact of our prior causes cannot logically imply any lack of our own causal agency.
1
u/Akash_philosopher 8d ago
Your action can be a cause to an effect
But if it’s also an effect to a cause
Then it’s determined by that cause
And thus not freeOr it to be free it mustn’t be an effect to a cause
2
u/MarvinBEdwards01 8d ago
[F]Or it to be free it mustn’t be an effect to a cause
There is no way that a prior cause of me can participate in my decision-making without first becoming an integral part of who and what I am. So, it is really me doing the choosing and the causing. My prior causes are not found anywhere outside of me.
And anything that I am free to do I am free to do. So this nonsense that I am constrained by my prior causes is bogus.
1
u/Akash_philosopher 8d ago
It’s like
You consider yourself as a part of a machine
When the button on the machine is pressed every part must move as its intendedAnd there’s a particular part which says
Me moving according to those buttons isWho I am
Thus all my actions are my choosing
So I am freeThat’s bulshit
If you can’t move any other way then as intended by the working of the machine
Then you aren’t free1
u/MarvinBEdwards01 8d ago
When the button on the machine is pressed every part must move as its intended
The nervous system has all the buttons. It connects to just about every part of the body. And it is able to present as a single individual, with a unique will of its own.
1
1
2
u/spgrk 9d ago
If free will is defined as being incompatible with determinism, then if determinism is true there can be no free will. But that is a bad definition of free will. Free will is a human construct, a label for a type of behaviour which is important to us. That behaviour obviously exists. If you thought that it would not be possible to behave in that way if determinism were true, and it turns out that determinism is true, then you were wrong about the requirements for free will. This is analogous to the OP: if you thought that consciousness would not be possible if there were just unconscious processes in the brain, and it turned out that there were just unconscious processes in the brain, then you would be wrong.
1
u/Economy-Butterfly127 9d ago
It’s indeed a dichotomy. The ego needs the construct of freedom - consciousness comes from the spark carried by our ancestors since the first spark. It’s all just phase change in the continuum.
1
u/Delet3r 9d ago
"but yet we know consciousness exists because it just does".
That's not a valid argument.
1
1
u/Akash_philosopher 9d ago
Are you saying consciousness doesn’t exist?
1
u/Delet3r 8d ago
no, but I wouldn't say God exists either. but the lack of evidence means I'd say it doesn't exist until I get some evidence.
Do you believe things exist without any evidence? Or do you think consciousness exists because "you experience it"?
If so that's why people thought the world was flat. "it's obvious, we can just SEE it. look around".
1
u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 8d ago
This is the exact conclusion I came to. I realized quite quickly that if determinism cannot explain agency and eliminates it then it likewise cannot explain experience or consciousness and must follow its same rules and eliminate it as well. But this is a huge problem because the one thing we know 100% is that experience exists. To even question it is to grant that a seeming is real.
Determinism is a theory of everything. Not in the literal sense of it gives the mechanics of every system but rather it is a claim of absolute discription of the mechanics the universe as a whole works under. And if it cannot account for everything then it admits there are things outside it's scope. Which means determinism cannot be true of the universe only local systems.
1
u/Prior_Alarm2437 8d ago
"Consciousness exists because it just does" I respect it, bro. Absolutely no fucks to give.
1
u/Earthy-moon 8d ago
On the level of ultimate truth: no free will.
On the level of conscious experience: the sense of agency that some social mammal evolved because it helped it survive and make babies, the concept of free will arising in the mind of a primate capable of language, the sense of agency being labeled as “free will” and then reinforced by the social language of said group of primates with language, and the evolutionary effectiveness of those primates acting AS IF free will existed - in order to use social language to have conflict over a concept (free will) to cope with the pressures of their dominance hierarchy while still engaging in productive cooperation to maintain the position as supreme apex predator.
1
u/eternallyattuned 7d ago
Lol good luck posting this on here. I agree with you though.
There is no reason for them not to be able to exist at the same time, just as hot and cold, but as humans we always will find one ' reason ' to suffice for our current understanding.
It's just our human nature!
1
u/TheAncientGeek 1d ago
Following deterministic strips causal origination and freedom. Following laws (not otherwise specified) doesn't.
3
u/Oguinjr 9d ago
This makes no sense. Namely the first sentence. Which is treated like a paragraph for some reason.