Re: Determinism Fail

[PatrickC]

Yeah, I know you'd think it would be something simple like semantics, but it basically boils down to the fact that Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action.  He's been repeating this for years, and is apparently convinced that the rest of us are mentally defective because no one else finds it a convincing argument.

Yes, I've known a few determinists over the years that got frustrated with Stefan’s approach to this topic. Whilst Stefan has already neatly put forward his position, part of his reasons 'I believe' are also anecdotal, which I can also vouch for in myself. Since Stefan has seen demonstrable (self-determined) change in his life, whereby he had to make considerable effort to change his will and his thinking. It would be somewhat disingenuous (towards himself) to suggest that it had all been planned for him. Determinism robs a person of their agency and more importantly the ability to choose non (initiated) violence over violence. Not to mention in the area of morality and better parenting in general.

Now that doesn't necessarily hold up scientifically or clinch the argument ofc, which I'm certainly not suggesting. However, it did give me some insight into why free will is entirely possible. In my life prior to making these changes I often believed my life was determined. Not in any spiritual way either, just that it felt my personal control was limited or restricted in some way. This was primarily self-esteem issues as with other things that were not allowing me to consider options and choices where I can and I do now.

[Formelyknown]

Let observe an argument from a free-willist.

He usually use a series of premises that bring them to their conclusion that make him sane. Then explain what series of event bring them to that false conclusion of the insanes.

Why they need to use reason to come up with to the conclusion. Aren't your own free-will by itself enough? 

Why use "Because" to justify your actions? Isn't binding yourself to logic and rationality nullify the freedom of your will? Are you free or not to be yourself or not? 

I agree that causality doesn't bring us to the conclusion you are a determistic. But when did you  or the other debaters use their own free will when you are pointing how the unescability of the someone prefering the truth? Is he insane or exercice his own  free-will. If he is using free-will then the preference of truth is invalide. If he is insane then you need to make the case using logic wich is bind by  a determist view of the universe.

 

[Kevin Beal]

 

Let observe an argument from a free-willist.

 

If you want another argument, then another argument is by Nathaniel Branden in the 2001 edition of The Psychology of Self Esteem starting around pg 52.

 

Why they need to use reason to come up with to the conclusion. Aren't your own free-will by itself enough? 

 

Enough for what? Arguing for a conclusion requires reasons. If you are arguing something, then that's what we're talking about: reasons.

[Seneca]

I'm not really sure about determinism but I'm deeply troubled when I hear neurological scientists discussing the subconcious impulses we see when we see a M sign, that certain genetic make ups lead you to be more predisposed to want fatty foods or have addictive impulses and that food addiction is a real thing.  Then I think well yeah that is will power, but then I read that will power is a product of upbringing and genetics as well. Ultimately when you start considering all the things that contribute to what we assume to be free will you realise that a lot of what you have is predetermined BUT the only logical conclusion to me seems to be you can assume some free choice in at least your influences if nothing in the immediate time frame that you can choose to influence positively around you and if life is long enough yourself.

Its not determinism but damn man I can't believe we're in behavioural determinsm but we're damn close to it.  If you don't believe in behavioural determinsm then tell me you made a rational choice to not be attracted to children, come on all of you willing paedophiles, come forward and tell us the day you just thought it would be a good idea to like kids.  Because damn sure the rest of us decided we liked women because it was behaviourially determined.

But I can't speak to the universal and physics side of things because it seems to grand and out of my depth, I like the psychological and genetic parts though.

[JanC]

A very late response, but it a appeared on facebook yesterday, so it seems appropriate to reopen the discussion:

 

 "A system without free will cannot have preferred states."

 

Depends on what you mean by 'preferred state'. To me it refers to a certain state that an information-system reaches at a certain point in time. And that's something that does happen in a deterministic universe.

 

"Determinists argue against free will."

 

Sure, arguing can be a deterministic (causal) proces. 

 

"Determinists propose preferred states. (determinism is true, free will is an illusion, truth is infinitely preferable to falsehood, etc. etc.)"

 

Well, some determinists, through a causal chain of events, reach certain states of mind, and propose these states to other people, and this may alter theirfuture state of mind. The fact that all of time, including the future, is pre-determined does not change the fact that states of mind are changed over time. And afaik that's all that determinists are saying. 

 

"Thus determinism fails."

 

I fail to see the (performative) contradiction here.

[Arius]

I fail to see the (performative) contradiction here.

 Someone worked very hard to not notice it.

I think the FB person might not know that by "preferred states", we're talking about human behavior.  The argument is not about (or in reference to) physics, information systems, the future, a causal chain, or the universe.  These extraneous elements obfuscate the simplicity of the argument.  It's about people who claim that it is a preferred state for other people to claim there are no preferred states, and how there is a necessary contradiction in doing so.

 

 

 

[JanC]

"I think the FB person might not know that by "preferred states", we're talking about human behavior."

 

Sure, but how did you reach that preferred state? What caused it? 

 

"It's about people who claim that it is a preferred state for other people to claim there are no preferred states, and how there is a necessary contradiction in doing so."

 

Which makes it rather relevant to accurately define the term 'preferred state'. And that's what I was trying to do. And based on that definition I claim that determinism does not mean: 'no preferred states'.

[Arius]

Which makes it rather relevant to accurately define the term 'preferred state'

In the case of human behavior, a preferred state is any behavior a person should perform.  In the case of argumentation, people tend to claim that other people should produce arguments which are true.  The idea being that producing true arguments is the preferable state of human behavior when compared with producing false or truth-indeterminate arguments.

And based on that definition I claim that determinism does not mean: 'no preferred states'.

There are two possible arrangements for states.  Either there are no preferable states or there are preferable states, the two are mutually exclusive.  In the case of no preferable states, there is no difference between what is and what ought be (as any possible difference would give rise to a hierarchy of preferable states).  In the case of preferable states, there must be (at a minimum) more than one possible state, in order for there to be a preference.  That is, there can be an ought-state which is different from the is-state.

Thus, anyone who argues that the number of possible states is exactly one is arguing against preferred states.

Determinists tend to argue that the causal nature of reality limits the number of possible states to one. 

Thus, Determinists tend to argue against preferred states.

If you're not arguing against preferred/alternate states, how do you define "determinism" and is that the most concise word-choice to represent your position?

[JanC]

 

In the case of human behavior, a preferred state is any behavior a person should perform.

 

Defined as such I don't think preferred states exist, although I do believe in conditional preferred states, i.e. if you want to live, you have to display behavior that will keep you alive (eat, sleep, etc.).

 

In the case of argumentation, people tend to claim that other people should produce arguments which are true.

 

Well, I do have a personal preference for a good conversation, and in that sense I'd like you to produce arguments which are true. But I don't think that that's a 'preferred state', as you've defined it. 

 

In the case of no preferable states, there is no difference between what is and what ought be (as any possible difference would give rise to a hierarchy of preferable states).

 

I'd say that the ought doesn't exist altogether, which would make it impissible to compere them. 

There are only presonal preference of how people should behave.

 

Thus, anyone who argues that the number of possible states is exactly one is arguing against preferred states.

 

Agreed in the sense that in a deterministic universe no universal oughts exist. 

 

Determinists tend to argue that the causal nature of reality limits the number of possible states to one.

 

No, zero, based on you definition of preferred state. There are no oughts. There still exist lots of personal preferences, but that's a different thing.

 

If you're not arguing against preferred/alternate states, how do you define "determinism" and is that the most concise word-choice to represent your position?

 

First of all, I don't want to claim that I know that our universe is deterministic. I'm just assuming the position here. 

Determinism would mean something like that there's a causal chain of events from the beginning of time to infinity. All events were caused by earlier events. 

 

[JanC]

But all this being said, it is true that Stef has often used the analogy that, if determinism is true, people are nothing more then to TV-sets sitting next to eachother. Or he says it's like shouting to a rock falling down the hill to go left or right. And that all just seems very silly to me, because determined or not, if my son's teacher calls me up and tell me my son's been in an accident, my state of mind IS being changed (from it's former state), and I will act accordingly (stop with what I'm doing, hop in the car, etc.). 

[Arius]

And that all just seems very silly to me, because determined or not, if my son's teacher calls me up and tell me my son's been in an accident, my state of mind IS being changed (from it's former state), and I will act accordingly (stop with what I'm doing, hop in the car, etc.). 

Amen.

[Kevin Beal]

Emergent properties absolutely can have properties independent of their component pieces. No atoms have color, no water molecules have the quality of wetness, no molecules smell, no particles move of their own volition, toenails don't make decisions. Most everything in the universe is emergent dependent on it's component pieces but completely different from those component pieces. In fact if you don't accept the theory of the god particle then everything in the universe is necessarily emegergent. That's what reality is. The argument that atoms don't have free will therefor humans don't is the fallacy of composition.

[Formelyknown]

 The fact that someone have preferences still doesn't answer the question. Does that preference come from a determinist outcome or free-will? You can turn on the fog machine all you want it still there.

[Guest darkskyabove]

From "The Mantle of Science" by Murray J. Rothbard (https://mises.org/daily/2074#2):

"At very best, the application of determinism to man is just an agenda
for the future. After several centuries of arrogant proclamations, no
determinist has come up with anything like a theory determining all of
men's actions. Surely the burden of proof must rest on the one advancing
a theory, particularly when the theory contradicts man's primary
impressions. Surely we can, at the very least, tell the determinists to
keep quiet until they can offer their determinations — including, of
course, their advance determinations of each of our reactions to their
determining theory. But there is far more that can be said. For
determinism, as applied to man, is a self-contradictory thesis, since
the man who employs it relies implicitly on the existence of free will.

If we are determined in the ideas we accept, then X, the determinist, is determined to believe in determinism, while Y,
the believer in free will, is also determined to believe in his own
doctrine. Since man's mind is, according to determinism, not free to
think and come to conclusions about reality, it is absurd for X to try to convince Y
or anyone else of the truth of determinism. In short, the determinist
must rely, for the spread of his ideas, on the nondetermined, free-will
choices of others, on their free will to adopt or reject ideas.
In the same way, the various brands of determinists — behaviorists,
positivists, Marxists, and so on — implicitly claim special exemption
for themselves from their own determined systems.
But if a man cannot affirm a proposition without employing its
negation, he is not only caught in an inextricable self-contradiction; he is conceding to the negation the status of an axiom.

A corollary self-contradiction: the determinists profess to be able,
some day, to determine what man's choices and actions will be. But, on
their own grounds, their own knowledge of this determining theory is
itself determined. How then can they aspire to know all, if the extent of their own
knowledge is itself determined, and therefore arbitrarily delimited? In
fact, if our ideas are determined, then we have no way of freely
revising our judgments and of learning truth — whether the truth of
determinism or of anything else.

Thus, the determinist, to advocate his doctrine, must place himself
and his theory outside the allegedly universally determined realm, that
is, he must employ free will. This reliance of determinism on its
negation is an instance of a wider truth: that it is self-contradictory
to use reason in any attempt to deny the validity of reason as a means
of attaining knowledge. Such self-contradiction is implicit in such
currently fashionable sentiments as "reason shows us that reason is
weak," or "the more we know, the more we know how little we know."

Some may object that man is not really free because he must obey
natural laws. To say that man is not free because he is not able to do
anything he may possibly desire, however, confuses freedom and power.
It is clearly absurd to employ as a definition of "freedom" the power
of an entity to perform an impossible action, to violate its nature."

[batou]

Since man's mind is, according to determinism, not free to think and come to conclusions about reality, it is absurd for X to try to convince Y or anyone else of the truth of determinism.

A mind doesn't need to have free will to make conclusions about reality, as it can be determined to seek seek truth from the start.

In the first place, each human being knows universally from introspection that he chooses.

A computer program also chooses (conditional if statements), does it have free will?

Surely the burden of proof must rest on the one advancing a theory, particularly when the theory contradicts man's primary impressions.

My primary impressions are that determinism is true. I am a man, so he is not speaking for all of us.

It is as much the onus on determinists to prove determinism, as it is for free willers to prove free will. But the more we know about causes to events, the more it all seems deterministic to me.

 How then can they aspire to know all, if the extent of their own knowledge is itself determined, and therefore arbitrarily delimited? In fact, if our ideas are determined, then we have no way of freely revising our judgments and of learning truth — whether the truth of determinism or of anything else.

The extent of my knowledge may be determined, but I don't know to what extent it was determined. Perhaps I was determined to know everything, but probably not.

For the second part, no, we can't freely revise knowledge, whatever that means. But we can deterministically revise knowledge based on new data. 

Determinism simply says, that the state state at time t=t+1 is determined by the state at previous time t=0. 

We have two worlds, they are absolutely the same up to a point in time. 

In universe 1, there is a person, that beats his children. He continues to do so up to time X and continues to do so, until he dies.

In universe 2 the same person does the same. He beats his children, but just before time X, he comes into contact with freedomainradio and he stops beating his children. 

A free willer would say, that the person in universe 2 stopped beating his children out of free will. A determinist would say that both outcomes were equally determined, but the circumstances in universe 2 were not the same (in universe 1, the person never knew about freedomainradio), so the outcome was also different.

 

 

 

 

[DaveDoggOwns]

 

From what I gathered Stef has deduced that choice is an emergent property - humans are able to compare pleasure with pain and therefore have choice.

The determinist didn't communicate his point well and that’s why I don't believe it was properly dealt with. The determinist's point of view is that all things behave according to physical law therefore man and his ability to feel pain or pleasure and make choices between the two are contained within a mechanistic universe. In other words the determinists deduce that a man cannot make a choice other than the one he prefers - he is predetermined to make it based upon every event that has transpired in the universe up to that moment.

 

I don't know if Stef would agree or disagree with that statement, but I do feel like he was just looking at the other side of the coin. My hunch is that he (being an atheist) would more or less agree and therefore the entire issue is only one of misunderstood semantics.

 

Describing how choice occurs is not a refutation of the existence of choice. It only proves that determinism and free will are two ways of understanding the same thing. (See neutral monism)

 

[Funkmaster_A]

In the context of the phrase "determinism is true and free will is false," "free will" means that our will is free from the laws of cause and effect.  It's fine to believe in determinism and other definitions of free will.

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

A mind doesn't need to have free will to make conclusions about reality, as it can be determined to seek seek truth from the start.

 

Prove it.

 

A computer program also chooses (conditional if statements), does it have free will?

 

Are you serious? Deriving secondary consequences to prove primaries. A computer program is written by a human (so far). Let's take it a step further: If...Else statements. Still written by a human. Would you like to play again?

 

My primary impressions are that determinism is true. I am a man, so he is not speaking for all of us.

 

All bow down to the truth of what one claims! The fact is Rothbard is talking about universal experience, not your personal agenda.

 

It is as much the onus on determinists to prove determinism, as it is for free willers to prove free will. But the more we know about causes to events, the more it all seems deterministic to me.

 

Are you claiming that cause and effect disproves free-will? Would you also claim that quantum physics disproves religion? Same cognitive disconnect.

 

 

The extent of my knowledge may be determined, but I don't know to what extent it was determined. Perhaps I was determined to know everything, but probably not.

 

Three simple words would have sufficed for the entire argument: I DON'T KNOW.

 

Determinism simply says, that the state state at time t=t+1 is determined by the state at previous time t=0. 

 

Even though determinism is NOT that simple, I'll grant you. Now that you've determined the state at t=t+1, show me the state at t=t+2. That would be a prediction. Therefore, by your own reasoning, determinism can predict future events. Start predicting.

[batou]

1. I can write a function on a deterministic machine, that seeks to know weather something is true or false. 

2. If a human creates a deterministic machine and write a program on it, does it stop being deterministic?

3. He can't be talking about universal experiences, since my experience is that the world is deterministic. I never said to bow down to me, I was simply saying that the onus of proving something is on both sides, for determinism and for free will. Free will isn't obvious, as Rothbard says, he simply shifts the burden on proof on determinists and takes free will as a given.

4. Yes, to cause and effect and determinism. No to religion. I don't see a cognitive disconnect, where is it?

5. I don't have all the data, so I could make such predictions. Also making predictions doesn't prove or disprove determinism.

[Kevin Beal]

 

my experience is that the world is deterministic

 

I'm sorry. That's sucks. It seems you can't help but say false things

[batou]

I say them as I am determined to. You say them out of your free will, so I guess you are responsible . 

[Guest darkskyabove]

 

I say them as I am determined to. You say them out of your free will, so I guess you are responsible . 

 

Exactly. I am responsible for what I say, and do. Are you?

Once again (for the gazillionth time), a determinist fails to answer the underlying premise of determinism. If existence is determinable, then determine it! Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Show me, at least, one factor of the universe that is determined. And claiming your bias as a factor, although slightly clever, fails to address the issue.

What the hell is determinism supposed to have determined?

When will the claimants attempt to answer.

Instead, it's a merry-go-round of "you can't prove free-will", followed by personal anecdotes.

I don't have to prove free-will. I, and many others, live it everyday. Though fairly valid "proofs" have been proposed for many years, I have yet to read a valid proof of determinism; in fact, I've yet to read a reasonable attempt at a proof.

Determinists are the ones claiming the non-apparent. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it.

If your ultimate goal is thinking that I am investing too much time in refuting your non-argument, hoo-haa-haa-haa! I have only begun to waste time. I could easily make this a mission: to debunk the bunk!!!

I'll leave you with my own version of YOUR argument: I choose to accept free-will, therefore, I have made a choice, therefore, free-will is true. It's a winner!

[JanC]

Determinism vs free wil is a false dicotomy. Indeterminism won't get you free will either. 

[Kevin Beal]

 

Determinism vs free wil is a false dicotomy. Indeterminism won't get you free will either. 

 

But that's not how most people are using the term. When they say determinism, they mean "free will is illusory", and why? Because causality. . . of course. No explanation is apparently needed. You can just say "causality" and that's it, it's done. They are saying that what they are doing is delusional and expect to be taken seriously. And it's not as if determinism explains anything or adds to anyone's understanding. It's just one of those "wouldn't it be crazy if" things like solipsism or astral travel.

I've heard different definitions of determinism that attempt to make it and free will not be mutually exclusive, but that always struck me as just word games. Maybe determinism is compatable with free will and maybe god is the universe, but I'm inclined to accept the definitions that most determinists put forward and that it doesn't mean the opposite of that.

[cherapple]

 

... He [stef] gives opposing positions about 6 uninterrupted seconds to develop their case.

 

Maybe this has already been said, but determinists say "Stef doesn't listen or give us a chance to speak!" Well, does Stef have free will to make this choice, or not? If he's pre-determined to interrupt and overwhelm the conversation, then why do determinists bother to keep trying to convince him? It must be pretty frustrating to be locked in a pre-determined battle of disagreement that they don't have the choice to escape.

Hmm, where has this situation happened before?

[Funkmaster_A]

 Stef's metabolic state, memories, genetics, environment, personality, &c. cause him to do that (or, "cause him to want to do that").  The shorthand term for that complex process is "a choice."

[JanC]

Yes, but now that Stef has been made aware that he was kind of rude (if he was, I don't know, but for arguments sake), maybe he'll act differently in the future (= changing his mind/behaviour). And even though the future has already been set in stone, it doesn't mean Stef behaviour in the future is going to be the same as in the past. At least that's not what determinism is saying. We don't know what's going to happen and we don't know what will trigger, in this case, Stef's behaviour. Determinists are not saying that they or anybody can change what's actually going to happen, but we are all part of what's going to happen. 

 

[Stefan Molyneux]

 Only those who accept free will get to call me rude - otherwise we might as well call rain rude.

Beliefs have consequences.

[Arius]

but determinists say "Stef doesn't listen or give us a chance to speak!"

Because hosting a weekly internet radio call-in show does not provide enough of a chance.

Because he won't take your Skype call to help resolve your personal issues through a variant of talk therapy.

Because he convinces people of the truth of arguments by shouting them down, rather than walking them through a reasoned process.

Because he doesn't post in this forum in response to criticisms of his arguments.

 

.....

Maybe the people who say "he doesn't listen" don't pay attention to what he actually does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Formelyknown]

 

 Only those who accept free will get to call me rude - otherwise we might as well call rain rude.

Beliefs have consequences.

 

Only determinist can call others insane because they are able to understand a planes can't copulate with a bird even if both can flies.

[Kevin Beal]

 

Only determinist can call others insane because they are able to understand a planes can't copulate with a bird even if both can flies.

 

People who believe in free will are so stupid that that they can't tell the difference between large heavy flying machines and birds. Determinists are smart enough to know there is a difference.

If you are a determinist then you don't need to be responsible for the things that you say, or your spelling or your grammar.

[JanC]

Only those who accept free will get to call me rude - otherwise we might as well call rain rude.

 

Beliefs have consequences.

So emotions don't exists in a determinist universe? Emotions that I have can not be caused by deterministic processes?

Cutting someone of in a conversation is annoying for the other party, it causes emotion. Such behaviour can be called 'rude'. Calling you out on it might cause you to behave differently next time. 

(again, not saying you did cut someone of, just for arguments sake)

[JanC]

...otherwise we might as well call rain rude.

Of course rain can't be rude and it can't effectively be changed in the future, but rain can be pretty annoying, therefore people have umbrella's.

Now we know that people can be effectively changed (from present to future), and that they respond to sensory input. That's way people say to you things like: Stef, you're rude, change your behaviour.

If you're saying that's not possible for your behaviour to be changed, then you're saying that in a deterministic universe, people would always display the exact same behaviour form brith to death, which would be ridiculous. Minds change over time.

[JanC]

If he's pre-determined to interrupt and overwhelm the conversation, then
why do determinists bother to keep trying to convince him?

Because the future hasn't happened yet, and we're all part of the future unfurling in front of us. People's behaviour matters with respect to what's going to happen, even though they may not have the fundamental free will to decide what they're going to do.

Me deterministically writing down these argument for you may effect your mind in such a way that you become convinced of my position. Deterministic processes can change minds.

[JanC]

If you are a determinist then you don't need to be responsible for the things that you say, or your spelling or your grammar.

True, what's your point?