Freedomain Radio

This thread is obviously not one in which I am inviting people to seriously debate in favor of Determinism, but I was hoping that someone could help me understand what has always seemed to me like an obvious objection to the argument I commonly hear against Determinism on FDR. As far as I understand the matter, it goes something like this:

Determinist: Humans are deterministic since they follow the same, ultimately predictable rules of physics as other kinds of matter, etc...

Free Willer: If so, then why are we bothering to argue this point? If human actions are deterministic, then there is no point in debating anything, since our opinions are already pre-decided.

Determinist: You are mixing scenarios. A more accurate way to pose your question is as follows. Predicate A is that human behavior is deterministic. Predicate B is that human behavior is not deterministic. Either A is true, or B is true, but at least one must be true, and both can't be true simultaneously since they are clearly contradictory. If B is true, then we have free will and our decision to argue this point is potentially worthwhile. If, instead, A is true, and we have no choice, then it is erroneous to ask about our motivations for debating, since the debating itself is pre-determined, we have no choice in the matter, and there is no possibility at all that we could have been doing something other than debating at this point in time. In essence, my version of "A is true" is better because your version fails to address the classic philosophical question of "compared to what"?

If this is an objection that has already been addressed, but I have somehow missed this in the many FDR podcasts and videos I've listened to on Determinsm, I would greatly appreciate a reference to a podcast # or video title so that I may check it out for myself, lest I frustrate others with an aspect of an old and tired debate that has already been covered.

Thanks!

Determinism is an infinite regress (and a vicious one).

In the deterministic scenario, it should be possible to logically predict human behavior. If the determinist position holds, then the determinist should be able to figure out whether I choose A, B or C when given the choice. Of course, they would have to be able to predict if I choose any combination of the three or possibly none of them.

They can't do that, which invalidates the hypothesis according to the scientific method. Any hypothesis that cannot be empirically validated is useless.

I've always thought of determinism as a cop-out from responsibility. A clever and complex one, but at its core it's still a cop-out; complex mind games and abuse of logic. I fail to see how the knowledge that humans are subject to the laws of physics and are composed of matter changes the human experience in any way.

A human being has control over his/her choices. We can control cause and effect in a limited fashion - choosing to act in a particular way. But of course, choice implies freedom, and freedom implies responsibility. If a determinist wants to be a robot, then it's not my problem.

...then it is erroneous to ask about our motivations for debating...

The determinist's response violates UPB *he demands we change our position, and simultaneous rejects our ability to do so*.

hkw:

Determinist: Humans are deterministic since they follow the same, ultimately predictable rules of physics as other kinds of matter, etc...

Free Willer: If so, then why are we bothering to argue this point? If human actions are deterministic, then there is no point in debating anything, since our opinions are already pre-decided.

This objection doesn't make sense at all. To the first part, the answer would be that we are determined to. For the second part, it is a non-sequitor. Determinism does not say anything like people's opinions can't be changed.

KS31:

In the deterministic scenario, it should be possible to logically predict human behavior. If the determinist position holds, then the determinist should be able to figure out whether I choose A, B or C when given the choice. Of course, they would have to be able to predict if I choose any combination of the three or possibly none of them.

They can't do that, which invalidates the hypothesis according to the scientific method.

 

Can you give reasoning for either of these statements? They seem to be pretty obviously incorrect to me.

MrCapitalism:

...then it is erroneous to ask about our motivations for debating...

The determinist's response violates UPB *he demands we change our position, and simultaneous rejects our ability to do so*.

 

This keeps coming up. I don't understand why people think that determinism prevents people from having a change in opinon on something. It doesn't.

ash:

KS31:

In the deterministic scenario, it should be possible to logically predict human behavior. If the determinist position holds, then the determinist should be able to figure out whether I choose A, B or C when given the choice. Of course, they would have to be able to predict if I choose any combination of the three or possibly none of them.

They can't do that, which invalidates the hypothesis according to the scientific method.

 

Can you give reasoning for either of these statements? They seem to be pretty obviously incorrect to me.

The way I figure it is this:

Determinism isn't about causality - it's about human behavior.

If determinists are making universal statements about human behavior, then their claims about it must be backed with proof. And the only place you get evidence about human behavior is from humans.

If they say that human beings are incapable of free choice, then we simply apply a scenario where people can choose from a number of different things (and I think two is quite sufficient to prove the existence of the phenomenon).

Every individual makes a choice in the moment, and despite the situation being "caused" and that the number of choices is not under their control, the choice itself is made by the individual and no other. This, in my mind, is evidence for the property of the human brain that we call free will - the ability to evaluate and (limitedly) affect causal relations.

If the evidence does not support the hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be rejected.

I'm an argumentation newbie, so help me figure out where I make a mistake, please.

KS31:

 Determinism isn't about causality - it's about human behavior.

Actually dereminism is about causality. It makes no predictions about behaviour.

KS31:

If determinists are making universal statements about human behavior, then their claims about it must be backed with proof. And the only place you get evidence about human behavior is from humans.

Again, I think this is where you are confused. Determinism makes a universal statement about causality.

KS31:

If they say that human beings are incapable of free choice, then we simply apply a scenario where people can choose from a number of different things (and I think two is quite sufficient to prove the existence of the phenomenon).

Having theoretical options is different from actually being able to choose either of those options freely, which is what the debate is about. The only way a simple scenario like this would be able to disprove determinism is if someone chose two mutually exclusive options, which is of course impossible.

KS31:

Every individual makes a choice in the moment, and despite the situation being "caused" and that the number of choices is not under their control, the choice itself is made by the individual and no other. This, in my mind, is evidence for the property of the human brain that we call free will - the ability to evaluate and (limitedly) affect causal relations.

 

This is assuming free will then using that assumption to argue free will, this argument is circular.

I should point out also that I am a believer in free will (a libertarian as it is called) but I find these types of arguments against determinism to be quite strange.

OK, thanks, I see where my mistake was.

I guess I need definitions for both positions to make a good contribution to the debate. As I said, I'm new to this.

I don't see how the concept of free will is negated by the determinist position. A false dilemma, perhaps? Free will can operate within a causal, material universe. The idea of determinism irritates me, but I can't quite put my finger on why.

... people think that determinism prevents people from having a change in opinon on something. It doesn't.

This passage confuses me and maybe some clarification would help.

As I understand it, determinism states that all human actions and ideas (hereby referenced to as 'states' for simplicity) are a direct result of past occurances (processed by humans, via the senses, into 'ideas'). The logical implication is that,

1.All current states are directly determined by past states.

2.For any set of past states, there can be only one current state (if there are multiple current states possible, then the current state doesn't have anything to do with the past, and is therefore not 'deterministic').

3.Therefore; If none of the past states have changed, then the current state can't change.

Do I understand determinism correctly?

I've never understood how determinism is supposed to contradict the existence of choice. Maybe somebody here could explain what this understanding of "choice" is that is incompatible with determinism? I honestly have no idea.

The argument that "if we lived in a deterministic universe then it would be impossible to ever change someone's mind" is completely baffling to me. I think we all agree that doors don't have free will, yet clearly it's still possible to open a closed door or close an open door. It seems to me that by the logic of this argument the only deterministic universe would be one in which absolutely nothing ever happens. Maybe I'm completely dense around this issue, because I honestly can't even begin to understand where that perspective may come from. I haven't given it very much thought, though, because I don't see how these questions are relevant to anything - like, what would be different if a kind of free-will that's incompatible with determinism did (or did not) exist? I have no idea.

If somebody could help clear any of this up for me I'd really appreciate it, because I do find it pretty confusing. I'm not emotionally invested in this at all (as far as I'm aware of), but I understand that many other people are, and I'd really like to understand what's going on for them. I certainly understand that it would really suck to have to disbelieve in things like choice and responsibilty and the legitimacy of pride, but I don't understand what determinism has to do with that. I don't perceive it as a threat to any of those things, and I don't understand why other people do perceive it that way.

All I've ever read on the topic of free will is the first 200 or so pages of Dan Dennett's book "Freedom Evolves", which defends the compatibilist position. I found it really interesting and enjoyable and as far as I can remember I found myself in agreement with everything Dennett said.

On a different note: Isn't this a banned topic? I've noticed a few times now that this ban doesn't seem to be respected or enforced in this forum. Now, I'm interested in discussing this, but I absolutely don't insist on doing that in this forum, and since I'm pretty sure I remember that the guidelines said this topic was banned, I will immediately delete this post if I'm asked to do so.

MrCapitalism, I think that's right, but again, I honestly don't understand what this has to do with whether or not people can have a change in opinion. Do I miss a specific cognitive faculty that most people share?...

I dont get how the argument of morality or upb changes if determinism is true or false. Maybe somebody can explain it to me?

For instance if determinism is true we dont have morality. So we dont have a choice but that doesnt mean your justified to reject the scientific method and be in sense stubborn to reality.

erofact:

I dont get how the argument of morality or upb changes if determinism is true or false. Maybe somebody can explain it to me?

For instance if determinism is true we dont have morality. So we dont have a choice but that doesnt mean your justified to reject the scientific method and be in sense stubborn to reality.

But it was determined that way, so justification and stubbornness are irrelevant – they're free-will terms...

A banned topic? OMG!

I would like a clear definition for the determinist position, because it just drives me crazy when people use causality as an excuse. If this irritation is due to a strawman argument, I'd be mucho relieved.

hkw,

determinist:

In essence, my version of "A is true" is better…

What is implied is that we should believe “A is true”. If A was really true, then the determinist can’t fault us for not believing it as we don’t have free will to do so. Punishing someone for something they have no choice in is a self-contradicting and is immoral. A determinist who tries to convince people is not acting in accordance with the principles that he claim he has. Without choice there is no morality and therefore nothing that we should believe. This is why determinism self-destructs.

I hope this helps.

MrCapitalism:

... people think that determinism prevents people from having a change in opinon on something. It doesn't.

This passage confuses me and maybe some clarification would help.

As I understand it, determinism states that all human actions and ideas (hereby referenced to as 'states' for simplicity) are a direct result of past occurances (processed by humans, via the senses, into 'ideas'). The logical implication is that,

1.All current states are directly determined by past states.

2.For any set of past states, there can be only one current state (if there are multiple current states possible, then the current state doesn't have anything to do with the past, and is therefore not 'deterministic').

3.Therefore; If none of the past states have changed, then the current state can't change.

 

Do I understand determinism correctly?

If you change your mind about something, that would not be the same 'current' state as before. It would make your previous opinion a past state. The debate/revlation etc would lead to the current state.

Mozz:

I've never understood how determinism is supposed to contradict the existence of choice. Maybe somebody here could explain what this understanding of "choice" is that is incompatible with determinism? I honestly have no idea.

All I've ever read on the topic of free will is the first 200 or so pages of Dan Dennett's book "Freedom Evolves", which defends the compatibilist position. I found it really interesting and enjoyable and as far as I can remember I found myself in agreement with everything Dennett said.

Compatibalism is basically when someone defines free will as so that it does not logically contradict with determinism. There are many varieties of compatibalism including some that have been put forward on FDR. I personally dislike the compatibalist position because it argues for a different definition of free will, and thus does not add much to the original question. The main burden on the compatibalist is to establish a basis for moral responsibility in a determined universe. Some try to circumvent that by using the associations of libertarian free will with morality. What was Dennett's definition of free will? They can be interesting in my opinion, but unless there is a strong argument for moral responsibility too they seem to be pointless. Moral responsibility is, after all, the reason that such emotional vigour is brought out by this topic.