Determinism

[TheRobin]

 

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

 

An emergent property isn't independant of whatever came before it, but a result of the interactions of the single parts that make up the new whole thing. An example would be a crystal-molecule is an emergence of all the single atoms that go into it and has different properties than each individual atom. But the property of the crystal molecule are the direct result of the properties of the individual atoms none the less.

Or to quote from the wiki for a more general exlanation: "An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a
collective. If emergence happens over disparate size scales, then the
reason is usually a causal relation across different scales. In other
words there is often a form of top-down feedback in systems with
emergent properties.The processes from which emergent properties result may occur in either
the observed or observing system, and can commonly be identified by
their patterns of accumulating change, most generally called 'growth'.
Why emergent behaviours occur include: intricate causal relations across
different scales and feedback, known as interconnectivity.
The emergent property itself may be either very predictable or
unpredictable and unprecedented, and represent a new level of the
system's evolution. The complex behaviour or properties are not a
property of any single such entity, nor can they easily be predicted or
deduced from behaviour in the lower-level entities, and might in fact be
irreducible to such behavior. The shape and behaviour of a flock of
birds or school of fish are also good examples.

One reason why emergent behaviour is hard to predict is that the number of interactions
between components of a system increases exponentially with the number
of components, thus potentially allowing for many new and subtle types
of behaviour to emerge.

On the other hand, merely having a large number of interactions is
not enough by itself to guarantee emergent behaviour; many of the
interactions may be negligible or irrelevant, or may cancel each other
out. In some cases, a large number of interactions can in fact work
against the emergence of interesting behaviour, by creating a lot of
"noise" to drown out any emerging "signal"; the emergent behaviour may
need to be temporarily isolated from other interactions before it
reaches enough critical mass to be self-supporting. Thus it is not just
the sheer number of connections between components which encourages
emergence; it is also how these connections are organised. A
hierarchical organisation is one example that can generate emergent
behaviour (a bureaucracy may behave in a way quite different from that
of the individual humans in that bureaucracy); but perhaps more
interestingly, emergent behaviour can also arise from more decentralized
organisational structures, such as a marketplace. In some cases, the
system has to reach a combined threshold of diversity, organisation, and
connectivity before emergent behaviour appears."

[Naddrin Kentlar]

 

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

 

 

yes, and the reason is that the field of study is so complex that it needs to be divided into subfields, aka astronomy, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, biology, anatomy, molecular biology ... and so on. And yet each and every subfield is trying to discover the rules that govern their mechanics, and so far they're quite successfull about it.

 

but, you are basically saying that life is special, and because it's special it can have free will, and substract itself from the laws of nature, as in    2H2 + O2 might produce water or not, if there's 'life' engulfing it or not?

[Kevin Beal]

 

An emergent property isn't independant of whatever came before it, but a result of the interactions of the single parts that make up the new whole thing.

An emergent property isn't independent like it exists without it's component pieces, but it is absolutely independent in quality. Atoms don't have color, water molecules don't feel wet, particles don't smell or move of their own volition, pinky toes don't think or choose. But obviously, empirically these phenomena exist. 

To say that a thing is a way because it's component pieces are that way is the fallacy of composition.

(Lol, I posted this in the wrong thread before).

[Kevin Beal]

but, you are basically saying that life is special, and because it's special it can have free will, and substract itself from the laws of nature, as in    2H2 + O2 might produce water or not, if there's 'life' engulfing it or not?

 

That's a specious argument. Because it's different it's false. By that logic math is "special" and psychology or whatever other field you want is "special".

[Naddrin Kentlar]

yet all the fields are governed by laws and rules. And if we can't indetify the rule yet, we certainly try to. Because that's how all the fields of science advance.

 

And the argument was that once an atom becomes life, it stops beeing governed by laws and rules ?. And what is a decision more then neurotransmitters and electrons moving inside your brain ?.

 

Just because we don't know the answers to all the questions doesn't make it 'magic' or 'life'. I prefer to stand personally with the millenia of human advancement, that proved a lot of things that once were thought as magic, or having a will of their own to be false. Like lightning, fire, or why does it rain today or not.

 

It's like saying: 'I now know we were wrong about all the things before .... but this one ... this one is really true', just because we don't know the answers yet ?

[Kevin Beal]

 

And the argument was that once an atom becomes life, it stops beeing governed by laws and rules ?

 

That's not what anyone said, obviously.

Physics has different behavior than quantum physics and until a grand unified field theory exists there are going to be inconsistencies between fields of science, this due to (as was already stated) emergent properties. Biology has properties "laws and rules" that govern it that don't apply to physics and vice versa just as physics and quantum physics have different "laws and rules".

[Naddrin Kentlar]

 

 

And the argument was that once an atom becomes life, it stops beeing governed by laws and rules ?

 

That's not what anyone said, obviously.

Physics has different behavior than quantum physics and until a grand unified field theory exists there are going to be inconsistencies between fields of science, this due to (as was already stated) emergent properties. Biology has properties "laws and rules" that govern it that don't apply to physics and vice versa just as physics and quantum physics have different "laws and rules".

 

 

oky so, if everything has laws and rules, then how does free will come in existance ?. The only way would be to say there's something that doesn't have laws governing it.

I appologise if this might look like a straw man argument, but the supposition was that when life comes into existance what ? something different happens. The only thing different that would make free will possible would be that life stops beeing governed by rules and laws, or have a soul.

 

[Kevin Beal]

 

oky so, if everything has laws and rules, then how does free will come in existance ?. The only way would be to say there's something that doesn't have laws governing it.

I appologise if this might look like a straw man argument, but the supposition was that when life comes into existance what ? something different happens. The only thing different that would make free will possible would be that life stops beeing governed by rules and laws, or have a soul.

 

Free will comes into existence the same way that every other emergent property comes into existence. There is no need for the suspension of physical laws or of souls to explain it. In fact, saying there is is begging the question because you assume the validity of determinism in order to make the argument: "there is causality therefor there is no free will".

I don't know how free will works or came about except that it's UPB, but I don't need to in order to say that determinism is boloney. Determinism doesn't explain anything, it stops further inquiry. It's the "scientific" equivalent of "god did it".

[TheRobin]

 

 

An emergent property isn't independant of whatever came before it, but a result of the interactions of the single parts that make up the new whole thing.

An emergent property isn't independent like it exists without it's component pieces, but it is absolutely independent in quality.

I don't understand what you mean with "independant" then. Independant of what?

Atoms don't have color, water molecules don't feel wet, particles don't smell or move of their own volition, pinky toes don't think or choose. But obviously, empirically these phenomena exist.

To say that a thing is a way because it's component pieces are that way is the fallacy of composition.

 

 

Not quite, I think. To say a thing as a whole is necessarily the same way as all of its individual pieces is a fallacy. But things are what they are because of its components and their resepctive interactions, aren't they?

It is also fallacious to claim that a property (if it is to be stable) can negate the properties of the parts out of which it emerged in the first place, I think. Else it would be eating its own tail and will destroy itself. (There are some cool chemical reactions that actually do that, constantly switching from one property to another for quite some time )
A good example would be the state, which emerges out of a society, which can only be formed if people acept the NAP. But since the state violates the NAP this is leading to the downfall of society and consequently of the state.

hmm, though I guess "stable" is also relative to the timeframe with which one wants to measure a system and its dynamic.

btw, just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm not really arguing for or against anything here, I just wanted to insert a correction in regards to the emergent properties thing (which I think is in and of itself an important thing to get a good grasp on).
In regards to the topic at hand though, see my other post/question in the other thread, if you want to help me understand the debate. I'd appreciate it.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

 

 

oky so, if everything has laws and rules, then how does free will come in existance ?. The only way would be to say there's something that doesn't have laws governing it.

I appologise if this might look like a straw man argument, but the supposition was that when life comes into existance what ? something different happens. The only thing different that would make free will possible would be that life stops beeing governed by rules and laws, or have a soul.

 

Free will comes into existence the same way that every other emergent property comes into existence. There is no need for the suspension of physical laws or of souls to explain it. In fact, saying there is is begging the question because you assume the validity of determinism in order to make the argument: "there is causality therefor there is no free will".

I don't know how free will works or came about except that it's UPB, but I don't need to in order to say that determinism is boloney. Determinism doesn't explain anything, it stops further inquiry. It's the "scientific" equivalent of "god did it".

 

 

oky. I understand the ideea about emergent properties. Like hydrogen burns, and we can breath oxygen. Yet water doesn't burn, and we can't breath it. So water would have completly different characteristics, but still has it's own laws that govern it.

 

So free will I understand might be an emergent property of matter beeing alive. Why would it be so special and different from everything else we know in the universe, that it wouldn't have rules of functioning. Because .. if free will has rules by what it functions, then would imply that is predictable. And if anyone can predict what decision person X will make then one cannot really say person X has free will.

 

[TheRobin]

if free will has rules by what it functions, then would imply that is predictable.

Without going into the free will debate, I just want to point out that, just because something has rules according to which it works doesn't mean it's necessarily predictable. Because the relation among individual parts may be so that a slight change in one can have exponential change in the whole, thus making predictions impossible or extremely limited. A good example would be the weather.

You might want to see the so called Butterfly Effect or Chaostheory (or Systemtheory in general) for more thorough explanations, if that interests you.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

 

if free will has rules by what it functions, then would imply that is predictable.

Without going into the free will debate, I just want to point out that, just because something has rules according to which it works doesn't mean it's necessarily predictable. Because the relation among individual parts may be so that a slight change in one can have exponential change in the whole, thus making predictions impossible or extremely limited. A good example would be the weather.

You might want to see the so called Butterfly Effect or Chaostheory (or Systemtheory in general) for more thorough explanations, if that interests you.

 

as far as I studied it back in highschool, Chaos Theory says only that a system is so complex and has so many interdependent variables, that minor variations in input data can lead to huge variations in outcome. But just because something is rather dificult for a computational system to simulate today doesn't make it random. It just makes it difficult to predict.

 

[TheRobin]

I didn't want to imply that things are random because of that.But certain system can become impossible to predict if the accuracy required for an actual prediction is higher than what can be obtained. And accuracy is also limited to a certain degree (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for that). So it's not that it could be predicted, but we don't have the technology, but that it will never be able to be predicted as a result of how matter behaves. Or at least that's my understanding of it.

[steve_]

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.

 

Hey Stef, I had a few concerns with your arguments from the last sunday show. I commented on youtube too, but they probably got quickly swallowed by other commenters.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ID5cnG90Ijg#t=159s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ID5cnG90Ijg#t=228s

These states are just personal preferences, no? Whether or not free will is a thing, isn't the preference for another to believe truth over falsehood just a personal preferece over anything objective?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ID5cnG90Ijg#t=320s

Regardless of the debate we can all see that we have made choices and have been affected by other people when choosing things, right?

@ the boulder scenario. If you note my first point, we of course have a personally preferred place for a boulder to land if there's a chance it might hit your house, or you. I wouldn't say there is an objective preference set by the universe/god or anything.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ID5cnG90Ijg#t=659s

I think mixing the word 'choice' in here is confusing issues since they don't have the ability to choose; they're just subject to other things (gravity, colliding objects).

If a bunch of people do an Armageddon(?) and fly up to an asteroid on a rocket ship and plant a bomb on it then that would be the same as telling it to choose to move another way since it's just an attempt at changing a (guestimately) predicted outcome.

It wouldn't be contradictory, it's just you having a personal preference to change a (guestimately) predicted outcome.

 

[RestoringGuy]

But certain system can become impossible to predict if the accuracy required for an actual prediction is higher than what can be obtained. And accuracy is also limited to a certain degree (see Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for that). So it's not that it could be predicted, but we don't have the technology, but that it will never be able to be predicted as a result of how matter behaves.
Or at least that's my understanding of it.

By chaos, it does not matter how small a random event is, because it can still be magnified to macroscopic effect by some arrangements of matter.  The hatred of the word "random" by the free will people seems caused by the faulty idea that random=senseless.  Anything that is non-determined is random by definition, so free will is technically random.  That is not the same as meaningless or senseless, but pop culture seems to use the word random in that way.  The mathematical concept missing from this discussion is called Independence.

When two random events (eg. two coins being tossed) are totally uncoupled, they are not just random, they are also "independent".  The result of coin A has no measurable effect on the result of coin B.  On the other hand, if you have a bucket with 2 red and 1 blue marble inside, and you draw one marble and see it is red, the probabilty of getting a blue marble on the second draw has now moved from 1/3 to 1/2 simply because you witness what happened on the first draw.  Without observing the red marble, probability would stay 1/3.  If you study the "Monte Hall problem" it is good example of how knowledge, probability, and choice become amazingly intertwined.  It makes sense to me that brains can be totally limited to material action (like determinism), and emergent properties exist (free will) and the apparent contradiction goes away once dependent probabilities are considered and you consider that the brain has so many interconnected "random" events which clearly are not all "independent" events.  By Monte Hall, it is financially bad to be a determinist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

[Metric]

 

 

An emergent property isn't independant of whatever came before it, but a result of the interactions of the single parts that make up the new whole thing.

An emergent property isn't independent like it exists without it's component pieces, but it is absolutely independent in quality. Atoms don't have color, water molecules don't feel wet, particles don't smell or move of their own volition, pinky toes don't think or choose. But obviously, empirically these phenomena exist. 

To say that a thing is a way because it's component pieces are that way is the fallacy of composition.

(Lol, I posted this in the wrong thread before).

 

It may indeed be a fallacy of composition to assume a-priori that deterministic physics continues to be true when you begin to compose systems.  However, what is actually found to be the case when you study the behavior of the world is that composite systems do, in fact, continue to follow deterministic physics.  And so this observation has been encoded into the laws of physics as currently understood.  It could always turn out to be wrong (like the rest of science), but all available data suggests the opposite -- and we are not talking about something trivial here, we are talking about some of the most well-established laws of physics known.

Also, btw, emergent phenomena do not invalidate the fundamental rules from which they derive.  There is no fundamental rule that says "a water molecule is not wet" which is then "broken" when you get lots of water molecules together.  I know you didn't make this assertion in your post above, but I wanted to point this out anyway, since I've seen some people make this mistake before.  If the decision-making process in your brain is emergent from the type of deterministic physics we understand (and all evidence points to this being the case), then the entire process is deterministic.

 

[steve_]

The idea of free will not being real bummed me out a bit, but at the same time I think it's one of the least important discussions of all time, and I've found a video by an awesome guy called Dean which explains why: 

[JanC]

Ok, I'll take the chance of posting this here. I'm not sure if it will be allowed. 

It's the last post Stef made in the other thread about determinism, that was recently closed. 

 

Stefan: "Right, like if you lecture a rock that fell on your car, it might fall differently next time."

 

Stef, in the debate you had with Miles from New Zealand, you clearly stated that you think that it's at least possible that determinism is true. If that's the case, than you'll also concede that it's possible that what I'm typing here now was pre-determined. Still, the very fact of reading this post will (probably) make you accept the fact that I exist. Doesn't that mean I've already changed your mind, because you didn't know of my existence before?

 

Interaction (all kinds of interaction, including having a debate) changes people's minds. Even coming into contact with a rock: Aron Ralston got his right hand pinned against a canyon wall and eventually decided to amputate it himself to get free. I'm pretty sure that whole experience changed his mind in a significant way. It's just that the kind of ways an entity can be effected, is dependent upon it's characteristics. Now, do I still have to point out that rocks don't have brains, so lecturing them will not have any effect, but launching a 2nd bolder at it might actually change it's trajectory (if it rolled further down the hill towards another car)?

 

Regards,

Jan

[Kevin Beal]

And you're willing to break the forum rules to make this point, why? Why is i important to you? I can understand why people who accept free will would find it important (because of it's moral implications), but determinists? Are you aware of your own motivations?

[steve_]

Are you aware of your own motivations?

 

Truth for me I think. I've found the whole lack of free will thing pretty scary and disheartening, but I want to challenge myself by ignoring my emotions and ego while trying to unbiasly seek truth. I always admired one line from one of Stef's videos; I think it was one where he was infront of a lake and he said something along the lines of "I'm sorry if imaginary things get knocked over in my mad dash for truth" and I think we should all always put that into action. It seems to be one of the only things I disagree with Stef on, and I'm not really even sure if I do, but I do find his arguments to be flawed. I wish I were around a few years ago when the podcasts started so I could have been apart of the conversations back then as they were happening.

[Kevin Beal]

But that's not sufficient enough an explanation. You could have the score of the last Mets game incorrect and I'm not going to repeat over and over that actually they scored 7 runs and break the rules of the forum to do so. This point that determinists think they can change people's minds and still be consistent with determinism has been argued repeatedly and (to my knowledge) changed no one's minds, but has caused some noticeable frustration (in me at least, lol).

So no, I don't think you can simply claim that your motivation is the truth, that's not enough if that makes any sense.

[steve_]

You could have the score of the last Mets game incorrect and I'm not going to repeat over and over

Well not if you didn't think they cared about who won, no. If they were getting antsy about me pointing out the truth then I'd stop and disengage with that person, but if the person repeatedly says they're all about truth then I'm going to take their word for it and try to convince them... with a tactic that isn't just repeating myself over and over

 

This point that determinists think they can change people's minds

I'm not sure why beliving in determinism means you can't change another person's mind, though. Whether or not free will is a thing I'm sure we've all changed someone's mind or have seen other people change their minds.

 

determinism has been argued repeatedly and (to my knowledge) changed no one's minds

I think it's safe to say everybody believed in free will at some point; I don't think determinism is the default position for many people.

[JanC]

And you're willing to break the forum rules to make this point, why?

Sorry, didn't know it was a forum rule, because I didn't read them. But I guess that's not an excuse, because I could/should've read them. So I'll apologize for that.

I did have a feeling it might not sit well, but then again I didn't know why the thread was closed. Nothing bad happened in it right? Everything was pretty friendly? So I thought it might be because there were two topics with roughly the same name. And besides, this is a topic about determinims, it's still open, so why not conitue the convo?

Why is i important to you?

That's easy, I find it an interesting topic and I can't understand why people cling to Stefs take ont he matter.

I can understand why people who accept free will would find it important (because of it's moral implications), but determinists?

Because you believe morals are out of the window when determinism is true. I agree we would have to reevaluate the meaning of the word morality, but it would still exists, pretty much in the same way it exists now.

Are you aware of your own motivations?

Yes, I think so, but why is that relevant for the discussion?

 

[JanC]

This point that determinists think they can change people's minds and
still be consistent with determinism has been argued repeatedly and (to
my knowledge) changed no one's minds.

Maybe not on this subject, but I already have changed your mind. You konw now that I exist. That is an example of a mind changing. You gained knowledge. Changing someone's mind in the sense that he will change his opinion an a subject, is just another example of a mind changing. I'm not saying these forms of changes are exactly the same, but I also don't see a fundamental difference between them.

...but has caused some noticeable frustration (in me at least, lol).

But your still laughing! :-)

Look, I get what you're saying. Debates can be frustrating, but is that a reason to stop the conversation? Not for me. And like I said, it was all still very friendly. So what's the big deal?

[JohnDJasper]

 

This point that determinists think they can change people's minds and
still be consistent with determinism has been argued repeatedly and (to
my knowledge) changed no one's minds.

Maybe not on this subject, but I already have changed your mind. You konw now that I exist. That is an example of a mind changing. You gained knowledge. Changing someone's mind in the sense that he will change his opinion an a subject, is just another example of a mind changing. I'm not saying these forms of changes are exactly the same, but I also don't see a fundamental difference between them.

 

JanC, I disagree that you have changed anyone's mind because they "now know that you exist."  For that to be a "change of mind", a person would have to have previously thought that you didn't exist and I suspect that before meeting you on this forum, none of us had an opinion either way about your existence.

[TheRobin]

I'm a bit curious what exactly you find intersting about this debate.Correct me if I'm wrong, but Determinism (the theory that people couldn't have made a different choice) is by definition not verifyfialbe or falsifiable, so it's not possible to ever prove or disprove it, making it in essence no different from any other myth that people want to believe in despite evidence.And in the absence of even the possibility of verification, I find it hard to see what is so intersting about debating it. We might as well debate the lore of Lord of the Rings, if you know what I mean.Which is also why the question of motivation comes up and why the psycholgical or emotional question is probably the most relevant one if you want to get anywhere with the question of why you (or people in general) tend towards determinism.I hope that makes some sense

[JanC]

Yes, you're right, there is a diference, but like I said, is it a fundamental difference? Is it relevant in the context of free will vs determinism (which is a false dicotomy, but let's forget that for now). Is putting a new file on a computer so much different then putting a modified file on there? What's so special about changing opinions? It's still the result of input plus processing.

[JohnDJasper]

 

oky. I understand the ideea about emergent properties. Like hydrogen burns, and we can breath oxygen. Yet water doesn't burn, and we can't breath it. So water would have completly different characteristics, but still has it's own laws that govern it.

 

So free will I understand might be an emergent property of matter beeing alive. Why would it be so special and different from everything else we know in the universe, that it wouldn't have rules of functioning. Because .. if free will has rules by what it functions, then would imply that is predictable. And if anyone can predict what decision person X will make then one cannot really say person X has free will.

 

Naddrin, I think that the first error here is to presume that free will has rules by which it functions.  The fact that most everything in our universe does have universal laws that must be obeyed does not in itself prove that the same applies to conscious decision making.   Dead or non-living objects rely on inertia for motion and they cannot just decide to stop or go in a different direction.  Most Living objects have the ability to choose to alter their course and/or speed and as such they cannot be depended on to play any set role in the great billiard game of the universe.  They cannot disobey the laws of physics but as long as they stay within the rules, they have the freedom to roam as they wish.  You, of course, have the freedom to think of this "free roaming" as predetermined action based on predictable stimuli.

If I'm standing at street corner X and I can go in one direction and buy a coffee at Brand A coffee shop or a second direction and buy coffee from Brand B shop, ad infinitum, I might choose Brand A today but just as easily choose a different Brand tomorrow or any day in the future.  The decision process might include any number of variables such as distance, available time, taste preference, availability of doughnuts, the direction of the wind, my mood, the possibility of meeting a friend, weather conditions, or just the desire for variety.  Given a device that could read all of these variables at once, it might be possible to predict the outcome but in the absence of such a device, reliable predictions could only come from observing my personal habits over a period of time and you wouldn't be able to distinguish between deterministic behaviour and personal choice based on free will.

If you tried to convince my dog that her behaviour is deterministic, she would give you a quizzical look and then choose one of her toys for you to play a game of catch with or just decide that she's not really interested and go back to sleep, unless of course she thinks it's getting close to mealtime.  My dog's pretty smart and she is probably hoping to be reincarnated as a human next time around as we get unlimited access to the refrigerator and never have to walk attached to a lead. I'd hate to disappoint her by telling her that we're just a higher-functioning deterministic animal with a huge superiority complex!!!

[JanC]

I'm a bit curious what exactly you find intersting about this debate.

I still don't see the relevance of talking about this, but if you like to know I'll try to answer your question (based on what you say further on).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Determinism (the theory that people couldn't have made a different choice)

Hard to respond to this, because there's already a lot in it.
First of all, what is a choice? And what does it mean to say that people couldn't have made a different choice? What happened, happened, right? So no, people couldn't have made a different choice, or they would've done it. When it comes to future events, I'd say that people do choose from multiple options. It's just that based on their configuration (DNA), experiences (past life, upbringing, etc.) and current information (everything possibly included), there can only be one result.
Do we call that a choice? I do.
What if we could rewind the timeline to a point where you made a dicision. All molecules, also in your brain, will be in the exact same spot. Do you believe you could have made a different dicision?

And afaik, the definition you gave of determinism is not correct. That no other choice can be made and that free will in the classical sense does not exist, is at best conclusion from determinism. And like I said in my last post, indeterminism won't make free will any more logical or possible (imho).

Short definition from wikipedia that seems ok by me for now:
"Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen."

…is by definition not verifyfialbe or falsifiable, so it's not possible to ever prove or disprove it, making it in essence no different from any other myth that people want to believe in despite evidence.

I don't know if that's true, maybe you can elaborate on this?

Look, I don't know for sure if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. Science seems to be based on the assumption that everything has a cause. That seems deterministic to me. But if we put quantum mechanics in the mix, it might be indeterministic at some level. I don't know, I'm not a physicist. Either way, I don't see how either worldview can give us free will in the classical sense.
Question: What is your definition of free will?

And in the absence of even the possibility of verification, I find it hard to see what is so interesting about debating it. We might as well debate the lore of Lord of the Rings, if you know what I mean.

Well, it is about the nature of reality. I just find that very interesting. Are people like Dan Dennett, Sam Harris all nuts for writing books about this? And Stef for that matter, because he's been talking about his for years, making numerous video's about it.

Which is also why the question of motivation comes up and why the psychological or emotional question is probably the most relevant one if you want to get anywhere with the question of why you (or people in general) tend towards determinism.

Well, I could understand it if I was being very dishonest in the way I was debating. If I came up with straw-man after straw-man, or if I ignored specific arguments. But otherwise I really don't see why it's relevant. You either are interested in the subject or not. It's interesting on some level I guess, but not much. At least not for me.
This is just one of those subjects that people disagree on, and I like disagreements to be resolved. Isn't that one of the reasons for the call-in show? Isn't that why we debate on this forum in the first place? Call me naive, but I really hope that we can come to some common ground on this subject.

One thing that does bother me is Stef's approach (especially the 'shouting at rocks'-metaphor).
In a deterministic universe people still influence each other and sometimes change each other's mind over time. Why is that controversial?
In the world as we know it, it happens all the time. So if it's true what you say that determinism can't be proven or disproven either way, then you concede that it's at least possible that the world as we know it is deterministic. And given that, you'll also have to concede that in a deterministic universe people can change each other's mind over time. Because it simply happens.

[JanC]

They cannot disobey the laws of physics but as long as they stay within
the rules, they have the freedom to roam as they wish.

What rules? I thought the laws of physics were the rules.

If I'm standing at street corner X and I can go in one direction and buy
a coffee at Brand A coffee shop or a second direction and buy coffee
from Brand B shop, ad infinitum, I might choose Brand A today but just
as easily choose a different Brand tomorrow or any day in the future.

Sure, because those two situations are not the same. The relevant question though is: What if you did choose Brand A and we would rewind the clock to that exact same moment, with all molecules back in place. Do you believe then that you could have made a different dicision? I just find that hard to believe. Based on what could it possible change?

The decision process might include any number of variables such as
distance, available time, taste preference, availability of doughnuts,
the direction of the wind, my mood, the possibility of meeting a friend,
weather conditions, or just the desire for variety.

But this is what determinists are saying. All these variables together determine your final decision and actions. What's not deterministic about this?

[JohnDJasper]

 

They cannot disobey the laws of physics but as long as they stay within
the rules, they have the freedom to roam as they wish.

What rules? I thought the laws of physics were the rules.

JanC, don't read too much into it.  The rules ARE the laws of physics. For simplicity I should have said "stay within the laws."

If I'm standing at street corner X and I can go in one direction and buy
a coffee at Brand A coffee shop or a second direction and buy coffee
from Brand B shop, ad infinitum, I might choose Brand A today but just
as easily choose a different Brand tomorrow or any day in the future.

Sure, because those two situations are not the same. The relevant
question though is: What if you did choose Brand A and we would rewind
the clock to that exact same moment, with all molecules back in place.
Do you believe then that you could have made a different
dicision?

Yes, I believe that a different decision could have been made at the precise moment but also that the same or a different decision
could have been made earlier or later as before the decision was made,
there was no requirement that it be made at that precise moment.

The decision process might include any number of variables such as
distance, available time, taste preference, availability of doughnuts,
the direction of the wind, my mood, the possibility of meeting a friend,
weather conditions, or just the desire for variety.

I just find that hard to believe. Based on what could it possible change?

But
this is what determinists are saying. All these variables together
determine your final decision and actions. What's not deterministic
about this?

 

What
you are ignoring is all of the choices made leading up to the event. To
rewind to the point of decision multiple times might result in exactly
the same decision being made but it also might not. What would be
telling would be to rewind a day or week earlier and see if you got back
to exactly the same decision point and if the complete course of life
continued exactly as before.  If it did, then we are just automatons
following our programming and therefore are as pointless as we perceive
mosquitos to be.  Hence there is no reason whatsoever to do anything
other than live our short lives to the fullest enjoyment and die leaving
the world a shithole for those who have the misfortune of following
behind us.

So, as it has already been stated before, what is your
motivation for discussing determinism? Are you feeling guilty about
something?

[TheRobin]

Using your definition ("Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position stating that for
everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those
conditions, nothing else could happen.") here's why I don't see how it could be proven.

It's the "nothing else COULD happen"-part. You can't run an experiment on what could've happened (or you can't turn back time to prove or disprove that). So by definition there can't ever be a proof or disproof for that hypothesis.
So we have a theory about reality that can't be verified ever.
Essentially identical and practically similar to the "reality is all a dream" or "brain in a jar"-theories, which also can't be proven and serve equally no purpose. And I'd also had to "concede" that these theories are possible (including with literally every other theory that is hypothetically possible but can't be proven). Which is why whenever someone advances a theory that is counterintutive that he or she's the one who has to present the evidence for it.

Usually disagreements are solved by evidence (i.e. reality), but since this isn't possible here, there can't be a solving of disagreements basically. So, what is the point in advancing such a theory?

I don't think it's the "changing people's minds"-part that's the problem it's more the why bother, if it's already determined? The only answer determinism can give is: I can't chose to act differently because it's all determined. Which is just another why of saying that one can't and shouldn't be blamed for his or her actions, because they don't have the power to change them. But if that's the basis of the interaction then it's equally true for whoever's mind you want to change with the interaction, so you shouldn't expect other people to change their behaviour either.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

why is this discussion important ?

- Because there's a chance that the other side is right, and no rational beeing should prefer to be incorrect, just because is more confortable. (look at religion).

- Because it has dire implications on how we perceive things, and come out with a conclusion about what to do next. Example: A deterministic view on things would mean that Stefans's mother abuse would be a determining factor on who Stefan is today and how his brain works, therefore transforming an abuser into a decisive factor on how his psyche works. While a free will approach would push us towards the, it doesn't matter what is really happening around you, since if you have free will you still can be a good/bad person regardless.

why have a discussion about it ? don't know, I think that everyone here feels that there's something wrong with the way humanity goes, and it needs correction, and determinism true/false can shape what the next steps should be.

 

but without advocating any side on the forums, if anyone wants to explain to me how free will works, and would be willing to hear my counterarguments, I'd be more then happy to try and figure out in a personal message, or mail.

[JanC]

JanC, don't read too much into it.  The rules ARE the laws of physics. For simplicity I should have said "stay within the laws."

Ok, it's just that if everything moves according to the laws of physics (the rules), I don't see how they can have any freedom to 'roam'.

Yes, I believe that a different decision could have been made at the precise moment but also that the same or a different decision could have been made earlier or later as before the decision was made, there was no requirement that it be made at that precise moment.

But there is, this is crucial. Because if we move to a later moment, the conditions would have (slightly) changed, and those conditions would've become part of the decision-making process. I've said over and over that states of minds change over time. No determinist will claim that people will always make the same decision over multiple periods of time. That's really not where the disagreement lies.
We are talking about a specific moment in time when a decision was made, and what would happen if we could go back to that exact same moment with everything back in it's place.

What you are ignoring is all of the choices made leading up to the event.

No I'm not. You yourself listed a variety of variables leading up to the moment of decision. I acknowledged this and summarized it by saying: 'ALL these variables together determine your final decision and actions'.
ALL variables includes all of the choices made leading up to the event.

What would be telling would be to rewind a day or week earlier and see if you got back to exactly the same decision point and if the complete course of life continued exactly as before.

Like I said to TheRobin, I'm not sure about determinism. Maybe there's indeterminism at some level. Maybe quantum fluctuations would result in a different outcome, but that's irrelevant to the question at hand. How you end up in a decision-making situation doesn't matter. With all molecules back in place, could you have made a different decision?
And maybe you'll say that a quantum fluctuation might have influenced the decision at that moment. Maybe, but would it then be any more YOUR decision?

If it did, then we are just automatons following our programming...

Yes, automatons following programming, combined with past experiences and current input (all the variables you listed). Because we are complex information-processing automatons. Like mosquitos in a way, but way more complex.

...and therefore are as pointless as we perceive mosquitos to be.

In light of eternity and the fact we only live a couple of decades, we pretty much are as insignificant as mosquitos.

Hence there is no reason whatsoever to do anything other than live our short lives to the fullest enjoyment and die leaving the world a shithole for those who have the misfortune of following behind us.

Apart from leaving behind a shithole (why would we?), aren't we all doing this anyway?

So, as it has already been stated before, what is your motivation for discussing determinism? Are you feeling guilty about something?

I could ask you the same question, but what's the relevance?
Even if I was feeling guilty about something, that doesn't invalidate my arguments.
Anyway, I have answered your question to some extent (see my reply to TheRobin). I'm willing to elaborate on it some more if you want me to, but it simply is another topic, and it has no bearing on the validity of my arguments in this topic.

[JanC]

It's the "nothing else COULD happen"-part. You can't run an experiment on what could've happened (or you can't turn back time to prove or disprove that). So by definition there can't ever be a proof or disproof for that hypothesis.
So we have a theory about reality that can't be verified ever.

Maybe, but the same goes for indeterminism, right? Still, determinism get's a bad rep, especially on this forum.

Which is why whenever someone advances a theory that is counterintutive that he or she's the one who has to present the evidence for it.

I don't find determinism counterintutive at all. Apart from quantum fluctuation on a subatomic level (correct me if I'm wrong), everything does seem to be operating in a deterministic fashion. Astronomers and chemists never bicker about these things. They simply assume all matter behaves according to the laws of physics in a potentially predictable way. The weather is hard to predict, but we can make pretty good estimations for a few days ahead. We can only do that because of cause and effect. And the only reason why it stops there is because we lack information. What's the point of predicting the whether if it will be random chance anyway if tomorrow the sun will shine or not?

But like I said, I don't know for sure determinism is true. Maybe the universe really is indeterministic (because of quantum fluctuations). But that's actually not the issue here. This isn't about determinism, it's about free will. And the dichotomy between determinism and free will is a false one. A true dichotomy would be determinism vs indeterminism.
And I agree, this may not even be an interesting question, because either worldview is quite problematic for free will. Whether your brain is deterministic, indeterministic or a combination of both, it still operates according to the laws of physics. And afaik, science has shown that the conscious realization of making a decision comes after the actual moment that your brain has made the decision.

I don't think it's the "changing people's minds"-part that's the problem it's more the why bother, if it's already determined?

But it's not like it all happened already and we're just watching a film from a third person perspective. We are agents in the present that make the future (Dennett once used the term 'probabilifiers'). At least we become conscious about the thing our mind decides.

The only answer determinism can give is: I can't chose to act differently because it's all determined.

With respect to the past: No, we can't.With respect to the future it's nonsensicle, because the future hasn't happened yet.

Which is just another why of saying that one can't and shouldn't be blamed for his or her actions, because they don't have the power to change them.

No no no! You're combining past and present again. People can be confronted with their (determinist) actions, which might change their mind with respec to future events.

Last thing:
Can you explain to me why Stef keeps saying that
determinists are debating the weather or shouting at rocks to go left or
right? Do you think this is a fair and valid reaction to the
determinist position? Would it be any more sensible to try to debate
people if indeterminism were true? What's the point of having a debate,
if convincing someone will be determined by random chance? It's
especially this last part that bothers me, and I'd like to get it out of
the way.