Determinism

[Mike Fleming]

I know this is a forbidden topic on here, but I'm going to say what I have to say and if I get shut down, so be it.

 

I support Stefan's work.  I can't recall a single thing I've disagreed with him on.  Except determinism.

 

Now imo, Stef has based his entire philosophy (or at least thinks he has) on the idea that Free Will is true.  ie.  if everything is determined then what are choices?   And how can there be a right or wrong?

 

I ultimately go with evidence.  All evidence points to the world being deterministic.  Apparently if I think this I have some kind of mental problem, or childhood problem according to Stef?  Could he or someone please elaborate on this?  I will say that I have been psychologically abused and bullied by my mother my entire life so I'm obviously a damaged person.  But if I pretty much agree with Stef on everything else, I'm not sure how it is affecting me negatively when I only really disagree with him on determinism.  Almost seems to be an ad hominem.  Maybe there's something I'm not seeing...

 

I think if Stef can't incorporate determinism into his philosophy then ultimately someone else will come along who can.   Shouting people down works for awhile, but it will fail in the end.

 

What does determinism mean for libertarianism/anarchism?  I really don't know.  I don't have the intellectual capability to figure it out.  But I can't pretend that the magical free will exists either.  I wish I could figure it out.  I feel like there must be a way to fit it but I'm stumped atm.  I know it can't just mean saying obviously any bad thing was going to happen and we should just accept bad things as well as good things.  That's obviously not true.  That just gives an excuse for bad people to do whatever they want.  But beyond that, I'm stumped.  

 

And I wonder if Stef is as stumped but doesn't want to admit it.   Only thing is man, you'll get caught out by the truth in the end.  Best to face it head on.

[Stefan Molyneux]

Well, one of the things you could start with is to try actually addressing my arguments. I laid them out in summary on the last Sunday show, but you can also find a YouTube playlist with the arguments in far more detail - I put the arguments out years ago, but no determinist to my knowledge has ever actually addressed any of the positions I have put forward, which is why I find talking with determinists so fundamentally boring, they simply have it seems to me no capacity to listen or process new information at all, which is why determinism seems true to them I suppose.

[LovePrevails]

  I can't recall a single thing I've disagreed with him on.  Except determinism.

 

So you admit you have the capacity to agree or disagree with something?

So you're not a determinist.

BRAVO.

[batou]

To think that someone can be right or wrong doesn't invalidate determinism. I will try to demonstrate this with a hypothetical scenario (similar to what I think has been going on with humans). 

Imagine that we create millions of little robots that we know are deterministic, we program them to want to live, we write their code so they will seek and do stuff, that will prolong their activity. This already provides them with a preferred state, life over death.

We also add another feature to them, we want them to be able to mutate, so we make their code sensitive to pseudo-random data from the environment.

Now millions of these little deterministic robots are going around the world and mutating. Some of them don't mutate, most stop working because of mutations, but in some the code improves.

They can now make models of the world. They start to understand how to avoid death better. They get the capacity to create models of how the world works and can now judge what to do: If I do this, that will happen. 

Another mutation occurs and some develop the ability of language. With the acquisition of language, they can now compare their models of the world, between each other. And each of these can now judge whose model (they think) is correct, and which one is wrong. Some of them can't reach a conclusion and they agree to disagree.

I hope this demonstrates how the concepts of right and wrong could exist between deterministic robots.

[Mike Fleming]

 

 

Well, one of the things you could start with is to try actually addressing my arguments. I laid them out in summary on the last Sunday show, but you can also find a YouTube playlist with the arguments in far more detail - I put the arguments out years ago, but no determinist to my knowledge has ever actually addressed any of the positions I have put forward, which is why I find talking with determinists so fundamentally boring, they simply have it seems to me no capacity to listen or process new information at all, which is why determinism seems true to them I suppose.

 

 

 

I listened to that show and actually partcipated in the youTube discussion to a certain extent, even though I usually don't.

 

it's clear to me that this is a cause-and-effect universe.

 

You are the one who is claiming free will exists, yet you demonstrate no physical evidence of this.  What you do is work backwards saying there must be choice because I choose so therefore there is free will.  What kind of an argument is that???

 

Where is the physical evidence?  It is encumbent on those making the claim that something exists to prove such a thing exists.  Why does the cause-and-effect universe not apply when it comes to our brains?  Do we have a magical soul? 

 

EDIT: oh and btw, if you could tell me what my problem is for believeing in determinism it would be appreciated.

[Mike Fleming]

 

  I can't recall a single thing I've disagreed with him on.  Except determinism.

 

So you admit you have the capacity to agree or disagree with something?

So you're not a determinist.

BRAVO.

 

 

My agreement and disgreement were pre-determined based on my orginal programming and all subsequent experiences I have that have modified that programming.

 

If you actually think about it, much of the stuff Stef talks about, peaceful parenting leading to a more peaceful world, is based on deterministic ideas.

[Stefan Molyneux]

no, because I'm attempting to change people's minds about parenting

[mikrob]

quote user

  But I can't pretend that the magical free will exists either.  I wish I could figure it out.  I feel like there must be a way to fit it but I'm stumped atm.  I know it can't just mean saying obviously any bad thing was going to happen and we should just accept bad things as well as good things.  That's obviously not true.  That just gives an excuse for bad people to do whatever they want.  But beyond that, I'm stumped.  

quote

 If you are determined to believe in determinism & reject free-will, then there is no possibilty for you to believe anything else. You would have no capacity for distinguishing beween truth & error. You can still make the argument as a determinist but you have no credibility since your understanding (or lack thereof) is out of your control.

[Formelyknown]

 

no, because I'm attempting to change people's minds about parenting

 

Yes, because you can't stop attempting to change people's minds about parenting. If you try or not, both answers will need a rationalisation or a why you won't do it.  I will make a prediction. You will not stop.

[Stefan Molyneux]

no, it's because I am changing people's minds about parenting. tens of thousands of parents have stopped spanking and yelling as a result of my work

[Formelyknown]

 

no, it's because I am changing people's minds about parenting. tens of thousands of parents have stopped spanking and yelling as a result of my work

 

The fact it changes their view or not is what make me predict you won't stop. The fact you added a reason why you keep doing it doesn't unplug you from a determistic point of view. In fact if you just stopped, without any regret and no reason given would of made a strong case from a free-willistic point of view.

[cjtkirk]

Dear Stef:   I absolutely agree with you about the importance of stopping physical violence against children.    So glad you are speaking out.   We need many more such voices.

[Kevin Beal]

 

I support Stefan's work.  I can't recall a single thing I've disagreed with him on.  Except determinism.

Now imo, Stef has based his entire philosophy (or at least thinks he has) on the idea that Free Will is true.  ie.  if everything is determined then what are choices?  

 

If you support his work, but all of his work is based on free will then, . . . that's a problem for you that you need to work out.

[Guest NateC]

 

 

no, it's because I am changing people's minds about parenting. tens of thousands of parents have stopped spanking and yelling as a result of my work

 

The fact it changes their view or not is what make me predict you won't stop. The fact you added a reason why you keep doing it doesn't unplug you from a determistic point of view. In fact if you just stopped, without any regret and no reason given would of made a strong case from a free-willistic point of view.

 

Wtf, Formelyknown.  I know you are trying to make a point ...but placing the future ignorance of parents and the abuse of children on this point?

[RestoringGuy]

it's clear to me that this is a cause-and-effect universe.

I agree.  But it is also clear cause-and-effect and determinism have very little to do with one another.

Determinism means there is only one way things can happen (no room for stochastic processes).  Cause-and-effect does not require such a thing.

Cause-and-effect requires causes to precede effects (temporal causality of timelike events).  Determinism does not require such a thing.

 

[Seneca]

Since we can't know the ultimate cause and effects of anything shouldn't we look to science and research for the answers?  Latest neurology isn't exactly helpful to the research but a lot more helpful than abstract thoughts and vaue praxeological reminitions.  Surely the latest thoughts should be referenced and not vague allusions of is/ought principles.  They can only be so useful with limited knowledge or application of knowledge.

[Kevin Beal]

praxeology is an apriori science

[Seneca]

It isn't a science.  Do you understand how the scientific method works.  A priori knowledge isn't scientific.

[Kevin Beal]

Lol. You should check out the first couple chapters of Human Action by Mises. He explains in great detail how it's a science and later how economics is a science based on praxeology.

I understand that the scientific method stresses reproducability in observation and is very empirical. I understand that. Just read the first couple chapters. The audiobook is free thru Mises.org which you can get via iTunes.

I would highly recommend it. It might surprise you the importance of apriori reasoning as it also goes into the old battles between the empirical school and other philosophical schools back in the day and the limitations they bumped into. It was a real eye opener for me being allz about the empiricism, baby.

UPB is very apriori and I would call it a science, or at least it's very science-like.

One of the biggest differences between austrian economics and all the pretenders to the throne is that austrian ecnomics is apriori. It's just that the evidence also supports it.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

[Seneca]

I have read it and reading doesn't mean agreement and I do not.  And there is no getting away from empiricism as part of the scientific method.  Praxeology isn't there.  It doesn't mean it isn't a tool and can't be used but it is not a science and no scientist will ever say it is, ever no matter how many lol's you throw at it.

UPB can be correct without being scientific.  Just like all bachelors are single isn't a science, reason isn't science and UPB isn't unless it strays into the realms of the scientific method, and I'll smoke whatever but if someone comes along and says hey look at all of this testing and science research I'll be like hey look at that science and ain't it cool but if someone comes along and says hey look at all this untestable thinking I'm doing ain't it science I'll say no.

And put that in your religious hat and smoke it.  Christians might love your bullshit not I, I'll be smoking green until you give me something more reasonable!

[Kevin Beal]

Lol. Okay, it's not all that important whether or not it's a science. How about the simple proposition that a theory has to be internally consistent at a bare minimum and if it isn't then we don't need to go looking for evidence? Because that's the implication here.

[Seneca]

 

Lol. Okay, it's not all that important whether or not it's a science. How about the simple proposition that a theory has to be internally consistent at a bare minimum and if it isn't then we don't need to go looking for evidence? Because that's the implication here.

 

 

I'm actually OK with internally consistent but I don't want to get into praxeology to much because it isn't relevant.

[Kevin Beal]

 

I'm actually OK with internally consistent but I don't want to get into praxeology to much because it isn't relevant.

 

You brought it up...

[RestoringGuy]

A tough logical problem with wanting internal consistency in an absolute way is that, if you want to stick with one system of axioms, completeness is lost (by Godel's incompleteness theorem).  So there will be truths that are undecidable by proof methods.  "This sentence is unprovable by system X" is clearly a true statement whenever X is what we accept as the "right" system.  Why should that be a problem?  If the universe is deterministic, we have no access to that truth because the universe can only play out one possible set of results, and those results are all encapsulated by simply making some axioms that contain the laws of physics and some initial conditions.

As a deterministic universe evolves, there is a truth that we humans can never deduce because we are part of that system that does the deducing.  But with a nondeterministic universe, there is a chance a proof can be completed.  The price we pay is that mistakes may be made and we've lost consistency on short-term scale, but the experiment (mental or otherwise) can be repeated until we are convinced.  Determinism is more consistent.  But nondeterminism is more complete.  It would seem to me our universe sometimes allows one thing to be achieved as long as it allows the other to fail.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

the point is really if  there's randomness in the universe, then there can be free will.

for now, today science can predict the position of an electron in an atom to a certain degree.

anyone knows of any examples of pure randomness in the universe ?

[JanC]

the point is really if  there's randomness in the universe, then there can be free will.

 

Why? If some of your choices are caused by random events, how does that make your will free?

[Naddrin Kentlar]

because you, I, everyone else is matter, that follows the laws of physics. The only way to be above the laws of physics would be to bring in concepts like soul/god to inject free will into people.

 

Edit. think of it like a computer is never able to generate a true random number.

[JanC]

because you, I, everyone else is matter, that follows the laws of physics. The only way to be above the laws of physics would be to bring in concepts like soul/god to inject free will into people.

This doesn't explain how true randomness can make free will possible. I am of the oppinion that free will does not exist, whether or not the universe is deterministic or not.  

Edit. think of it like a computer is never able to generate a true random number.

If the universe is indeterministic (if true random events occur), than I don't see why a computer (by definition) cannot generate a random number. 

 

[Naddrin Kentlar]

yeah that's me failing at comunication once again .

 

assumption - the human brain is a highly complex computer. computers cannot generate randomness.

 

but if you can inject randomness in a thinking process, and disrupting the thought process that would reach certain conclusions, then you have chaos generating decisions.

And that you could call free will. Meaning something above the laws of nature. Something that cannot be predicted or calculated in advance.

 

[MysterionMuffles]

hmm...now I understand why this topic became off limits. Determinists only prove determinism by their own determinism to remain determinists, while whoever argues free will proves both to be nearly true.

[JanC]

yeah that's me failing at comunication once again .

No problem. Besides, English is not my first language, so it might be my fault not understanding you correctly. But I'm trying! :-)

but if you can inject randomness in a thinking process, and disrupting the thought process that would reach certain conclusions, then you have chaos generating decisions.

And that you could call free will. Meaning something above the laws of nature. Something that cannot be predicted or calculated in advance

Yes, but I wouldn't call that free will. That's still just randomness.

Free will should apply to a person making choices. If you add randomness to the decision-making proces it's not the choice of the person's will anymore. He is not free to make it, because it is caused by a random event. 

Imagine you have a strong preference for beer over wine, but some random event causes you to choose to have a glass of wine. Does that sound like free will to you? []

[Stefan Molyneux]

Free will is not randomness; the best way to understand it is to think of life itself.

Matter does not move of its own accord - until it becomes part of an organic living creature, and then its movements are not random.

To say that matter is either inert or moves about randomly would not account for the specific movements of living creatures.

It's a false dichotomy.

[JanC]

To say that matter is either inert or moves about randomly would not account for the specific movements of living creatures.

True. I'd say matter 'moves about' because of the impulse it got from the big bang (however that started), it's physical properties and it's interaction with other matter.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

so let me understand this correctly. You say that there's something more to life then matter itself ?. Something not quantified by science, aka soul or some sort of it ?

once an electron enters my body and starts moving between my neurons contributing to the decisions I make by activating an neuron or chain of neurons,  that electron becomes part of 'life' and somehow is extempt from the laws of physics ?

[Stefan Molyneux]

well, there's a reason that biology is a distinct discipline from physics, it's because life has special properties independent of matter, emergent properties