Determinism...free will....etc

thatsa spicy

Does anybody else wish they had never looked into this subject? The insights I have gained from reading and thinking about it have destroyed my motivation to do anything.
And while I acknowledge that this may sound like fatalism, its not. It's just that knowing that we all act and think as a result of physical laws which are casually deterministic seems to have taken away any motivation I previously had to do things!! Now I think, "aww..whats the point in trying to be good at doing this, after I've accomplished it I'll look back and think that I couldn't have done otherwise"!!

So anybody else find this area of philosophy particularly depressing!!?

del88

Hi
Maybe you are predetermined to have a depressing view of things knowing what you know and understand about free will and determinism. But who's to say you may also be predetermined to to feel more enlightened and positive in your newly found knowledge at a later date???
I kinda like determinism because it absolves personal responsibility for mistakes you made in the past....

WinstonSmith

Sounds like you believe in determinism. If you recognise the possibility of determinism, but also recognise the possibility of free will, you can think that you are predestined to do something and look back after the event and say,'well,, maybe i actively chose to do the opposite of what i was meant to'. If this makes sense...

extrinzic

You need a healthy dose of existentialism

Anyway, from the point of view of physics, we cannot assume that the causal phenomena we observe is as simple and predetermined as it might appear to the naked eye.

Joe1919

thatsa spicy wrote: »

Does anybody else wish they had never looked into this subject? The insights I have gained from reading and thinking about it have destroyed my motivation to do anything.
And while I acknowledge that this may sound like fatalism, its not. It's just that knowing that we all act and think as a result of physical laws which are casually deterministic seems to have taken away any motivation I previously had to do things!! Now I think, "aww..whats the point in trying to be good at doing this, after I've accomplished it I'll look back and think that I couldn't have done otherwise"!!

So anybody else find this area of philosophy particularly depressing!!?

We still have desires no matter what. We also have values and preferences. And importantly, we have choice. So, in the end, I often wonder what huge difference does it make whether we say a person has free will or is determined?

So I would appeal to you to be motivated. You have a character that maybe has been determined by past events. However, although you are not free to change the determined past, you do have a future and some choice over which direction to take. So I would say, 'be motivated', recognise that you are a being who can 'choose' and enjoy and live the life that you can.

Choose wisely.

seamus

thatsa spicy wrote: »

So anybody else find this area of philosophy particularly depressing!!?

The problem is that it's based somewhat on newtonian physics and such that every single movement of every atom in the universe has been destined to move in that course since the start of time.

Quantum physics though opens up new avenues in uncertainty and suggests that determinism does not necessarily exist. Although "classic" physics and quantum physics are two separate disciplines and often use different calculations for the same phenomenon to reflect the fact that they operate on different size scales (macro -v- micro), they are not mutually exclusive and do influence eachother.

raah!

extrinzic wrote: »

Anyway, from the point of view of physics, we cannot assume that the causal phenomena we observe is as simple and predetermined as it might appear to the naked eye.

I don't think it really makes a difference whether it is one event leading to another, or one event leading to a set of probable other events. Either way it is not you deciding what's happening.

Even if you knew nothing whatsoever of physics, just the recognition that one physical even leads to another (or even that things in the universe are governed by physical laws) and that people are are included in the physical universe is enough to do away with free will.

Existentialism would be one solution alright, You could go to war, or bump into a man on the street

Another solution, though probably less intellectually respectable would be the adoption of a religion (or just an idea) in which people are supposed to have some non-corporeal decision making faculty (like a soul). Being outside of the physical universe this could make decisions independently of causes and effects.

Valmont

Intellectual acknowledgement of that fact does not necessitate some form of resignation to nihilism! After all, I have a fantastic illusion of free will which allows me to take absolute responsibility for everything in my life. Now that is exciting!

I think you're taking the lazy way out if an age-old determinism argument is enough to make you lose your motivation. Regardless of the status of free will, taking responsibility for one's life is the only rational option available.

extrinzic

raah! wrote: »

I don't think it really makes a difference whether it is one event leading to another, or one event leading to a set of probable other events. Either way it is not you deciding what's happening.

Even if you knew nothing whatsoever of physics, just the recognition that one physical even leads to another (or even that things in the universe are governed by physical laws) and that people are are included in the physical universe is enough to do away with free will.

You are correct of course. If we are subject to physical laws, and such laws are mandatory, any conception of freedom that requires freedom beyond restraint, or negative freedom, is impossible. I don't mean to be sly and pull a post modern fast one, but such freedom from all constraint seems ill conceived. An existence free from physicality is no existence at all. Furthermore, such a conception of freedom is next to useless if we are to act as free individuals with others, for there is only room for one god (free agent) in such a negative conception of freedom.

I don't see how a religion can provide any more freedom than a choice between the morally acceptable life, and that of the immoral life. Immaterial souls seem to be just as determined if they are to be subjected to physical laws, and lets not forget that our souls are judged in a physical realm for all eternity.

So, do we abandon freedom, or look again at what we are talking about when we talk of freedom? Can a more realistic account of freedom provide man with a freedom that can respect the freedom of others? If I am to be free, I can only be free with others. I cannot be really free as a tyrant, as my circumstance dictate my behaviour to others, that of mistrust and domination. I can be free if freedom is the ability to choose, at any moment, my goal, my desires, my will. If such drives are my choice, if presented with a capacity to reflect, to re-evaluate, to change direction, or not, then I am free to choose. Then my tyranny is my choice, and I can stop at any time, or continue. Of course, there would be consequences, but this does not physically prevent me from choosing.

I believe existentialism offers practical choice because it accounts for man's physical circumstance, his individuality, and his will to become, to shape his future and change at any moment, even in chains. It is an account of freedom that can be shared in the world as it accounts for an individual freedom among free individuals. We are responsible by virtue of our freedom, and accountable to the judgement of ourselves and others. It is not necessarily confrontational, but then again, if one is to project ones will and become what one is not, one must apply force.

raah!

extrinzic wrote: »

An existence free from physicality is no existence at all.

Yes, I guess that is straying into the realm of sillyness a bit alright. But perhaps it's better to be silly than fatalistic

extrinzic wrote: »

I don't see how a religion can provide any more freedom than a choice between the morally acceptable life, and that of the immoral life. Immaterial souls seem to be just as determined if they are to be subjected to physical laws, and lets not forget that our souls are judged in a physical realm for all eternity.

Well the important part of that was that these "souls" were outside of the chain of cause and effect... the adoption of a religion is simply about finding some way to justify this idea of choice making incorporeal soul type thigns. The main point would be that you could actually 'choose' to follow whatever other rules this religion has set down.... but a religion is not necessary[/quote]

if presented with a capacity to reflect, to re-evaluate, to change direction, or not, then I am free to choose.

But doesn't determinism effectively remove your ability to choose? Perhaps I am missing something though, as everyone here is saying that you "still have an ability to choose". I know about compatibalism (or perhaps it's called something else, joe mentioned it once and I looked it up ) and all that... but it seems to be just a rephrasing of determinism... as we didn't "choose" to have these characteristics we have.

thatsa spicy

Interesting responses by all so far. Thanks!!

I still wish I never read into the subject though!

extrinzic

I think religion is around longer than Descartes, and it has always been about social control. Whilst I understand the concept of a soul existing outside cause and effect, I cannot take dualism seriously. An immaterial soul has yet to be scientifically verified, and would seem to be a logical fallacy.

Existentialists believe we are thrown into the world, but this does not release us of our responsibility. We didn’t choose to be here, like this, but we are responsible nevertheless. Our responsibility comes from the conviction that we are alone, abandoned, and forced to choose our beliefs.

One could argue that even our thoughts are determined, reducing all our actions to behavioural responses, the workings of a programmed biological machine. Perhaps one day the behaviourists may have some compelling evidence to justify their beliefs, but for now it’s theory. Whilst I can accept that our physical condition has important consequences for our ability to think and act, a healthy mind and body can make choices within the context of its world horizon. I think our capacity to understand distinguishes us from pre-programmed processing machines (zombies). Not only can we have a unique understanding, we can modify and share this understand with others. Ultimately, freedom is about choice, and so, I choose to be free. My conviction is to live my life freely through acceptance of my responsibility to choose.

thatsa spicy

extrinzic wrote: »

I think religion is around longer than Descartes, and it has always been about social control. Whilst I understand the concept of a soul existing outside cause and effect, I cannot take dualism seriously. An immaterial soul has yet to be scientifically verified, and would seem to be a logical fallacy.

A view I would also hold.

extrinzic wrote: »

One could argue that even our thoughts are determined, reducing all our actions to behavioural responses, the workings of a programmed biological machine. Perhaps one day the behaviourists may have some compelling evidence to justify their beliefs, but for now it’s theory. Whilst I can accept that our physical condition has important consequences for our ability to think and act, a healthy mind and body can make choices within the context of its world horizon. I think our capacity to understand distinguishes us from pre-programmed processing machines (zombies). Not only can we have a unique understanding, we can modify and share this understand with others. Ultimately, freedom is about choice, and so, I choose to be free. My conviction is to live my life freely through acceptance of my responsibility to choose.

The first sentence I have underlined there is a very succinct description of a belief I would have!

The second sentence underlined is something that I don't think I could be convinced about. I'd have to wonder at what point in our evolutionary past was the barrier between not possessing this "capacity to uderstand" and possessing it, breached. And if it occured in a gradual way, as many things in the universe often do, at what point along this gradient is the no free will/ free will switched pressed!

The Volt

In 'Existentialism is a Humanism', Sartre IMHO manages to dismiss any notion of determinism existing but I guess it depends on how religious you are. I suggest you look at Heidigger and Sartre's thoughts on 'abandonment'. Man is simply a product of himself. I am particularly fond of how Sartre dismisses the idea of determinism. He and Heidegger speak of ‘abandonment’ as the idea that God does not exist. From this viewpoint, some may consider existentialism to be a philosophy of despair but to me, there is nothing more positive than the notion than my life is my own to create.

Joycey

Voltwad wrote: »

In 'Existentialism is a Humanism', Sartre IMHO manages to dismiss any notion of determinism existing but I guess it depends on how religious you are. I suggest you look at Heidigger and Sartre's thoughts on 'abandonment'.

That would be "thrownness" in Heidegger though, right?

The Volt

Joycey wrote: »

That would be "thrownness" in Heidegger though, right?

Effectively, go with the flow to a certain extent. We are thrown into situations all the time but even not acting is still a choice. You could do nothing but you are choosing to do nothing.

Joycey

Voltwad wrote: »

Effectively, go with the flow to a certain extent. We are thrown into situations all the time but even not acting is still a choice. You could do nothing but you are choosing to do nothing.

Well I think you are savaging the term's technical meaning in Heidegger along Sartrean terms, but fair enough .

Our thrownness in Heidegger is the fact that to the extent that we are, we are in the world. That is to say that Dasein's (the being that questions Being, or human basically) questioning of being is equiprimordial with the world (they arise at the same time as eachother), or in other words, Dasein's Being is Being-in-the-world.

Da-sein means being-there or to-be-there (i think, i really hope im right, im avoiding writing an essay on Heidegger as i speak), where the 'there' means the world, basically.

There isnt really any talk of 'choice' or 'freedom' in any of the Heidegger ive come across yet. Im not sure it was as big an issue for him as it was for Sartre. And i understand that Sartre's main thesis in Being and Nothingness is based on an essential misreading of Heidegger, though not having read Being and Nothingness and having no further information, I cant tell you what that misreading may have been

raah!

extrinzic wrote: »

If we are subject to physical laws, and such laws are mandatory, any conception of freedom that requires freedom beyond restraint, or negative freedom, is impossible.

Isn't it true though,following from this, that any conception of freedom that requires freedom to choose, is impossible?

Any kind of decision making faculty independent of these laws (which a decision making faculty would have to be) is just as ridiculous as the idea of a soul, and just as scientifically spurious.

For me it does not make sense to reject mind/body dualism and then talk about choice.

Now I haven't read much existentialism... and while it is an attractive philosophy for dealing with things like nihilism etc. I don't think it deals with determinism very well. It "reacts" to it. But then it seems just to ignore it.

Even if determinism removes "responsibilty" it wouldn't really matter because words like that don't really make sense when viewed in a deterministic light. Saying things like "oh how will we have morality" doesn't matter, because things like that require choices. And we can't make choices.

So in my opinion, the only way to be free from determinism is to have some decision making faculty. And the only way to have that is to have something independent of the universe. As thatsa spicey said, there would have to have been some point in our evolution where we were suddenly given this ability to choose... which really is a bit ridiculous, how could physically governed things give rise to things that aren't? An idea like that is really outside of anything scientific. Though certainly it's true that as things become more complicated they become harder to predict (I suppose quantum mechanics and uncertainty and all that would fall under that loosely), but that does not make them less determined

To talk about anything that can do anything without being completely governed by physical laws (and that is the same as talking about choice) is no different than talking about souls or ghosts.

thatsa spicy

raah! wrote: »

Isn't it true though,following from this, that any conception of freedom that requires freedom to choose, is impossible?

Any kind of decision making faculty independent of these laws (which a decision making faculty would have to be) is just as ridiculous as the idea of a soul, and just as scientifically spurious.

For me it does not make sense to reject mind/body dualism and then talk about choice.

Now I haven't read much existentialism... and while it is an attractive philosophy for dealing with things like nihilism etc. I don't think it deals with determinism very well. It "reacts" to it. But then it seems just to ignore it.

Even if determinism removes "responsibilty" it wouldn't really matter because words like that don't really make sense when viewed in a deterministic light. Saying things like "oh how will we have morality" doesn't matter, because things like that require choices. And we can't make choices.

So in my opinion, the only way to be free from determinism is to have some decision making faculty. And the only way to have that is to have something independent of the universe. As thatsa spicey said, there would have to have been some point in our evolution where we were suddenly given this ability to choose... which really is a bit ridiculous, how could physically governed things give rise to things that aren't? An idea like that is really outside of anything scientific. Though certainly it's true that as things become more complicated they become harder to predict (I suppose quantum mechanics and uncertainty and all that would fall under that loosely), but that does not make them less determined

To talk about anything that can do anything without being completely governed by physical laws (and that is the same as talking about choice) is no different than talking about souls or ghosts.

You've captured alot of my thoughts in this post, in particular the underlined parts!

The Volt

Hmmm... can anyone use the quantum physics argument in a simplified manner that counters determinism?

extrinzic

raah! wrote: »

Isn't it true though,following from this, that any conception of freedom that requires freedom to choose, is impossible?

Any kind of decision making faculty independent of these laws (which a decision making faculty would have to be) is just as ridiculous as the idea of a soul, and just as scientifically spurious.

For me it does not make sense to reject mind/body dualism and then talk about choice.

Now I haven't read much existentialism... and while it is an attractive philosophy for dealing with things like nihilism etc. I don't think it deals with determinism very well. It "reacts" to it. But then it seems just to ignore it.

Even if determinism removes "responsibilty" it wouldn't really matter because words like that don't really make sense when viewed in a deterministic light. Saying things like "oh how will we have morality" doesn't matter, because things like that require choices. And we can't make choices.

So in my opinion, the only way to be free from determinism is to have some decision making faculty. And the only way to have that is to have something independent of the universe. As thatsa spicey said, there would have to have been some point in our evolution where we were suddenly given this ability to choose... which really is a bit ridiculous, how could physically governed things give rise to things that aren't? An idea like that is really outside of anything scientific. Though certainly it's true that as things become more complicated they become harder to predict (I suppose quantum mechanics and uncertainty and all that would fall under that loosely), but that does not make them less determined

To talk about anything that can do anything without being completely governed by physical laws (and that is the same as talking about choice) is no different than talking about souls or ghosts.

I think what you are overlooking is the mystery of it all. I mean, even to refer to what we understand as cause and effect with the use of terms such as "physical laws" betrays the human tendency to assume our knowledge of reality is somehow the same as what is known. Laws are a distinctly human conception, and always consist of a clause that can be circumvented in exceptional circumstance .

Given our current scientific understanding of evolutionary biology, we cannot understand how simple organism can develop over millions of years into more complex organisms, for entirely different environments. We can assume that it is due to changes in the environment, but why some creatures successfully adapt, and other don't remains a mystery. Why do some remain largely unchanged for millions of years, and others change completely? We understand complex life, such as mammals, to have origins that can be traced back to single celled organisms living next to volcanic vents under prehistoric oceans, surrounded by poisons atmospheres, but we don't know how it happened, or why. All we know is that evidence suggest it did happen, everything else is speculation. Where did the first life come from?

The emergence of life on earth can be found in fossils, and its emerging is abrupt and unprecedented. With such an enormous discrepancy in our understanding of how life emerged, how can we say with any certainty that dramatic changes in the capacity of life to choose is imposable due to our understanding of evolution?

What I am attempting to undermine here is not your belief in science, but the assumption that all we understand is all there is! We do not understand human conciousness, and to assume we are determined by physics (as we understand it) is to make an unfounded and narrow minded assumption in my view. Such a view has been devastating to the conciousness of Western society, and has given rise to fanatic believers in the process of history which have crush millions in the name of a totalitarian illusion.

tech77

Can someone tell me:
How do quantum theory and chaos relate to determnism.

OK, chaos is unpredictability because a large difference in outcome can arise from small differences in initial conditions interacting in a complex way (or something :P ).
Because you can't absolutely measure the input, you can't control the small differences in initial conditions so there's no hope in controlling the large difference in outcome.
But the unpredictability here is down to a "limitation on human measurement" thing- it's nothing to do with determinism really, is that right?

As for quantum theory, again i'm a bit clueless but is that closer to the idea of true unpredictability/indeterminism?
In other words, there are multiple possible outcomes (expressed as a probability) for a given set of (known) initial conditions.
Stuff like- even if you can measure the position of a particle absolutely, you still can only know the probability of its velocity and vice versa.

^OK, i dunno what i'm talking about :P but seriously have either chaos or Quantum Mechanics got anything to do with determinism?

extrinzic

Wouldn't be an expert on Quantum Mechanics myself, but if sub atomic particles behave if a completely random way, it would suggest that we have no choice also. How could we choose if everything was completely random?

David Hume thought that we need order in the world in order for our actions to have concrete consequences. I.e., that we could wilfully choose to do something, and such a choice would have an impact in our world. Of course, things don't always work out as we intended, so perhaps there is room for chaos in our perception of reality. Either way, determinism would make no significant impact in our life experience. We still are faced with the choices presented to us in life. We still have to choose what course of action we are going to take. We can reason as to why we should make some choice or other, but, ultimately, we are not required to make any specific choices, only that we make some choice. Whatever our predicament, there is nothing, no code of ethics, that will tell us what the best choice is absolutely. There will be benefits and drawbacks that we can foresee in any choice, and we must choose with this in mind, and hope for the best.