Determinism!

[Awe]

For a while I have thought about humanity using scientific understanding and reason and I have come to the conclusion that all human beings are determined. Think about it, everything thing about us is caused by something else. Our genes, our environment all dictate who we are and will become. So where is there room for free will? What can you point to which will prove that we possess free will? Of course determinism has vast implications on the way view we our lives, I know from experience. One thing that drastically changes is our view on revenge. How can you blame someone for being exposed to certain beliefs and then acting based on his understanding or lack there of? Either way you look at it there's really no way you can logically justify revenge. For example, someone who harms your family does it because he lacks empathy, therefore understanding or has a chemical imbalance in his brain. But what about people who know that what they are doing is wrong and still do it? Can you hate them? This also doesn't logically indicate revenge since the person was just existing and how can you harm this person for just existing? Can you prove that we have free will? Either way comment below with your thoughts.

[Lucius E.E]

You should thoroughly research the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, as it also comes to the conclusion of determinism.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[zapatos]

"I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road."

 

-Stephen Hawking

[Lucius E.E]

"I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road."

 

-Stephen Hawking

 

Simply because reality may be predetermined is no reason to cross a road without looking, regardless of your stance on the matter.

 

Also there's a chance the Multiverse may not exist, below is a link to one theory that might disprove it.

There are many others.

 

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/

 

 

If the Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is proven to be wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the Copenhagen interpretation is the most likely explanation as to what is going on. The Copenhagen is non deterministic and is random, and relies on probability.

[hoola]

free will to me is a composite experience. The IBH I propose has all the information in it and your deterministic "entry" into a novel form of free will expression is a mathematical dictate that is ultimately sourced from there. That is not to say you didn't think of "it", only that we are also a sourced minor component of the IBH well of information, therefore free will is as real as the universe itself...which is to say not really "real" in the generally accepted definition of the term...but real enough to fit a functioning definition of free will. A standard definition to me of free will is from an "unsourced" non-existent theoretical...and perhaps a new entry in the informational universe..but can there be any in the existential condition within the IBH? At is roots is the endless string of PI that has been describing meanings at the fastest rate allowable, for perhaps trillions of years...

[Strange]

 

Simply because reality may be predetermined is no reason to cross a road without looking, regardless of your stance on the matter.

 

Why? If you are going to get knocked down, then it makes no difference if you look or not. And if you aren't, then ditto. [in a deterministic universe]

 

I have lived in a country where this was the predominant attitude. Nobody wore seatbelts (or bought insurance) because if it was your time, then it would happen anyway.

[Lucius E.E]

 

Why? If you are going to get knocked down, then it makes no difference if you look or not. And if you aren't, then ditto. [in a deterministic universe]

 

I have lived in a country where this was the predominant attitude. Nobody wore seatbelts (or bought insurance) because if it was your time, then it would happen anyway.

 

It does make a difference whether you look or not, because whether or not you look is also determined before you even decide to do it.

You might as well look as you would see an oncoming vehicle, your thoughts making you wish to look or not would also be determined.

It makes no difference whether one whom believes in determinism look or not, and those that understand it already know this.

 

Not looking you are more likely to be hit as even in a determined world there is a measurable probability of an event happening, so I can say again, simply because reality may be predetermined is no reason to cross a road without looking, regardless of your stance on the matter.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[zapatos]

 

Not looking you are more likely to be hit as even in a determined world there is a measurable probability of an event happening...

Can you explain that please? 'Deterministic' and 'probability of an event happening' seem to be at odds with each other.

[Strange]

 

You might as well look as you would see an oncoming vehicle

 

Better not to look then. If the outcome is determined, I'd rather not know.

 

 

Not looking you are more likely to be hit

 

If you can change the probability, then it isn't predetermined.

[kristalris]

Awe,

 

You might also consider an intermediate position in which you have a predetermined begin state at any point in time and a subsequent near infinite amount of probabilistic scenario's are possible that are played out all the time. Impossible scenarios are thus not played out for obvious reasons. Then we don't have a beginning or end of time but a cyclic affair.

 

Free will is then dependent upon the way you define it. If this is indeed reality we then observe Mother Nature shoot a bullet next too the bulls eye definition of free will most people use. I'd simply redefine it so as to portray where MN is seen to have shot.

 

You then get a more legal way of defining free will, namely in a way that all actions are assumed to have been done of free will and thus someone being seen then as a sociobot can be held accountable for actions that provide a scenario that is probably infringing on reaching any stated goal of other sociobots. In this way a pareto optimum is possible for all sociobots in getting a best scenario. The negative scenarios the punishment by law for instance subsequently make that the sociobot chooses a different line of action resulting in a better scenario for all other sociobots.

 

Thus it is wise for a sociobot to look out for cars when crossing the street in order not to have a possible or even likely scenario of being run over by a car. Yet a scenario where you are transported as a sociobot within one second from New York to Amsterdam is absolutely impossible.

[Lucius E.E]

Can you explain that please? 'Deterministic' and 'probability of an event happening' seem to be at odds with each other.

 

 

 

Better not to look then. If the outcome is determined, I'd rather not know.

 

 

If you can change the probability, then it isn't predetermined.

 

 

1. Probability is the measure of the chance a given event shall occur, you can also use this information to quantify how often an event occurs.

 

2. In a Universe where all events are determined there is no reason you cannot figure out how often particular events take place.

In the United States 4,743 pedestrians were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2012. 4,743/12...approximately 395 pedestrians died each month in collisions with motor vehicles in 2012. Even if these deaths were already determined they're still countable and you could obtain a probability of death by comparing this 4,743 versus the total amount of people in the United States whom walk on a regular basis, with some room for deviation of course.

 

3. Since you can calculate the approximate probability even in a determined Universe, you can then factor in what effects the probability.... perhaps not looking while crossing, and not obeying walking signals. Which I would imagine has some impact on your likelihood of death, predetermined or not.

 

Now we can conclude you're more likely to die by way of motor vehicle collision while not looking even within determinism.

 

Whether or not you look isn't effecting the determinism of the Universe if it is predetermined as your choosing to look or not was already predetermined as well.

 

Since every action and thought is determined anyway, if self preservation is a concern, would you not rather be among the percentage of those whom look while crossing or those who do not? So I say again, you might as well join the percentage of those that look to check for vehicles, or perhaps maybe your genes were predetermined to be more impulsive and you would rather not look.

 

Personally I prefer to look while crossing the road.

 

I have no stance on determinism as well, depends on which of the interpretations of quantum mechanics ends up being the correct one.

 

 

 

Edit: While I do understand where zapatos and Strange are coming from in regards to probability in a deterministic Universe, it is simply the measure of chance. While there is no 'actual chance' in a deterministic Universe and everything that is going to happen is already determined; there is no logical reason you cannot measure how often an event occurs and why it occurs that often.

 

​However when it comes to predicting an event in a deterministic Universe; probability is the best tool we have to do it.

Unless you're secretly a psychic.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[Strange]

You are confusing the "chance" (more accurately, frequency) with which something happens in a deterministic universe, with the probability of a specific event happening. In a deterministic universe, the probability of a specific event, X, is either 0 or 1 (it either happens or it doesn't and nothing can change that) even if the "chance" (as you define it) of events like X happening is non-zero and dependent on other factors.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Strange

[Lucius E.E]

You are confusing the "chance" (more accurately, frequency) with which something happens in a deterministic universe, with the probability of a specific event happening. In a deterministic universe, the probability of a specific event, X, is either 0 or 1 (it either happens or it doesn't and nothing can change that) even if the "chance" (as you define it) of events like X happening is non-zero and dependent on other factors.

 

Did you actually read my entire post above before writing this?

 

 

 

 

"The probability of a specific event, X, is either 0 or 1 (it either happens or it doesn't and nothing can change that)"

 

This isn't true.

 

If it were all events would occur 50% of the time, and this isn't observed within our Universe; whether deterministic or not.

 

Please elaborate further, or re-read my post above.

 

 

 

 

 

"You are confusing the "chance" (more accurately, frequency)"

 

No I'm not.

 

Chance is the possibly of a particular event occurring; frequency is the number of said occurrences.

 

 

 

 

 

"chance" (as you define it)"

 

 

As Merriam Webster defines it, actually.

 

 

Chance - Noun:

 

The possibility that something will happen.

 

An amount of time or a situation in which something can be done.

 

The way that events happen when they are not planned or controlled by people.

 

 

 

 

Please Elaborate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Also if interested please check out this short read on probabilities in physics, and how they can be used to predict events.

Given this is a Bayesian interpretation of probability which is less about frequency and more about proposition and hypothesis; contrary to what we were discussing above but still applies.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0310073v2.pdf

Edited August 26, 2014 by Lucius E.E

[Strange]

 

Did you actually read my entire post above before writing this?

 

Yes. But you clearly didn't read what I wrote (as you misquote it). Bye.

[Lucius E.E]

 

Yes. But you clearly didn't read what I wrote (as you misquote it). Bye.

 

I'm sorry if my response came off as snarky, or if I had misquoted you.

That wasn't my intention.

[Eise]

Well, Awe, there are many possible reactions to your ideas:

 

- if everything is determined, so are our reactions to blame somebody for his actions

- in line with the quote of Hakwking: our intentions and believes are part of the causal chain that leads to our actions, so what we intent or believe does matter

- if you think we cannot blame somebody because his actions are determined, then you are doing a moral claim. And the moral claim does matter: the outcome of our considerations make a difference. But assuming we have this capability, we might expect the same capability of the person we consider to blame for his action. And therefore we can blame him for his action. Not doing this is a performative self-contradiction (Karl-Otto Apel).

[Skeptic134]

Even before reading Sam Harris’s book, Free Will I leaned determinist, I still do, but I get why compatibilist dont want to completely dismiss the concept of free will.

 

Completely rejecting accountability and responsibility could be detrimental to society and progress since the environment portion of the equation is a feedback loop and thus the society we build does factor into what eventually comes to fruition.

 

I do find it interesting that while determinist and compatibilist disagree on whether free will exists they both agree that what people think free will means isn’t the reality. To me it seems a little bit like compatibilist “want” there to be free will because it makes things less messy thus the difference in how they define free will compared to what the average person means when they say they “have free will”. Even though 60% of philosophers consider themsevles compatibilist they still agree with “that you don’t know what you are going to do before you do it” but they say “So”.

 

Anyway, this is a rebuttal by Daniel Dennet on Sam Harri’s Free Will, long but interesting.

 

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/reflections-on-free-will

 

<additional thoughts>

 

What are the requirements for free will to exist? If humans do have free will, do other species? Do chimpanzees have free will, what about dolphins? What about dogs, cats, or birds? How far down the ladder in neurological complexity can we go before we stop considering that the creature exhibits free will?

 

What about ants, do they exhibit free will or are they merely a biological finite-state machine? What are the criteria that make us draw the line and say no, that specimen doesn’t exhibit free will but this specimen does?

 

What is different about the decision made in an FSM and a choice made by an agent with free will? If it is only complexity that differentiates “if X and Y or Z then Q” from “No mayonnaise” how is one fundamentally an example of free will and the other isn’t?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Skeptic134

[Dekan]

What are the requirements for free will to exist? If humans do have free will, do other species? Do chimpanzees have free will, what about dolphins? What about dogs, cats, or birds? How far down the ladder in neurological complexity can we go before we stop considering that the creature exhibits free will?

 

What about ants, do they exhibit free will or are they merely a biological finite-state machine? What are the criteria that make us draw the line and say no, that specimen doesn’t exhibit free will but this specimen does?

 

What is different about the decision made in an FSM and a choice made by an agent with free will?

 

Perhaps your questions already imply the answers, which may be these:

 

1. Other species such as chimpanzees, dolphins, dogs, cats and birds don't have free-will. Because the species are governed by instinct. Which is a kind of biological programming of their brains. Similar to when a computer is programmed to execute an instruction. Like: "IF N=0 THEN LET N= N+1". That's the kind of instruction that canine brains are programmed to obey. So, suppose a dog is hungry, and its eyes spot a sausage. Clearly its brain says: "IF BELLY = EMPTY THEN LET BELLY = BELLY PLUS SAUSAGE".

 

And so the dog proceeds to execute its programming, by eating the sausage. It can do no other. Moral considerations play no part. The dog's brain is programmed, and isn't capable of breaking its programming.

 

2. Whereas, humans are different. We can break our programming. By for example, deliberately choosing, despite the hunger in our belly, NOT to eat the sausage. And give it instead to another starving human being who, we feel, needs it more. We do that from empathy, pity, or a sense of morality - who knows? Whatever the reason, it shows we have free-will.

 

3. This free-will probably comes from our having bigger brains than dogs, and indeed all other animals. (Except whales - but their huge bodies use up all their brains' resources). When the human brain reached a certain size, it attained a "critical mass". It burst into unprecedented new power. Like when U-235 attains enough mass to create a nuclear explosion.

 

This is simplistic perhaps, but isn't truth ultimately simple?

[Skeptic134]

 

1. Other species such as chimpanzees, dolphins, dogs, cats and birds don't have free-will. Because the species are governed by instinct. Which is a kind of biological programming of their brains. Similar to when a computer is programmed to execute an instruction. Like: "IF N=0 THEN LET N= N+1". That's the kind of instruction that canine brains are programmed to obey. So, suppose a dog is hungry, and its eyes spot a sausage. Clearly its brain says: "IF BELLY = EMPTY THEN LET BELLY = BELLY PLUS SAUSAGE".

 

And so the dog proceeds to execute its programming, by eating the sausage. It can do no other. Moral considerations play no part. The dog's brain is programmed, and isn't capable of breaking its programming.

 

2. Whereas, humans are different. We can break our programming. By for example, deliberately choosing, despite the hunger in our belly, NOT to eat the sausage. And give it instead to another starving human being who, we feel, needs it more. We do that from empathy, pity, or a sense of morality - who knows? Whatever the reason, it shows we have free-will.

 

3. This free-will probably comes from our having bigger brains than dogs, and indeed all other animals. (Except whales - but their huge bodies use up all their brains' resources). When the human brain reached a certain size, it attained a "critical mass". It burst into unprecedented new power. Like when U-235 attains enough mass to create a nuclear explosion.

 

 

Humans have instinct as well (suckling for one), what evidence do you have or can you cite which shows a fundamental difference between the neurology, instinctual behaviour and decision making process that other species exhibit versus humans?

 

To say “other animals don’t have free will because it is merely biological programming” when humans have similar “biological programming” and not point to any study or any evidence just isn’t compelling.

 

Your example isn’t convincing either. A dog is merely executing programming to eat discovered food whereas a young child that similarly sees cookie, grabs cookie and eats cookie is exhibiting free will?

 

IMO merely citing higher complexity as why homo sapien exhibit free will but canine don’t is not sufficient. After all, complexity is merely a lack of complete understanding.

[Dekan]

Skeptic, there's a cosmic difference between humans and dogs. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We'd just be enjoying sniffing each other's bottoms.

[Skeptic134]

Skeptic, there's a cosmic difference between humans and dogs. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. We'd just be enjoying sniffing each other's bottoms.

 

How does presenting the vague idea “humans and dogs are very different” answer the question about what the fundamental differences are between the way our brains work, consciousness unfolds, and how to differentiate between instinct and free will?

 

You asserted that species outside of humans are merely driven by instinct or biological programming whereas somehow humans are special and have free will, never mind that humans also exhibit similar instinctual behaviours. What are your criteria for determining when a behavior should be classified as instinct or when it is a choice made via free will?

 

You are saying “humans are special” when it comes to the concept of free will but you don’t provide anything that clearly differentiates human cognition from animal cognition that would support that all other animal behaviours are simply "programming" but we have free will.

[Dekan]

Skeptic, aren't you being wilfully obtuse?

 

We have free will, for this blatantly obvious reason - because we can freely choose to study, in a laboratory, the behaviour of all other animals, such as rats.

But the rats cannot freely choose to study, in a laboratory, the behaviour of us humans.

 

That surely shows our human superiority.

 

(42 mice might be an exception - if they're pan-dimensional beings)

[physica]

Skeptic, aren't you being wilfully obtuse?

 

We have free will, for this blatantly obvious reason - because we can freely choose to study, in a laboratory, the behaviour of all other animals, such as rats.

But the rats cannot freely choose to study, in a laboratory, the behaviour of us humans.

 

That surely shows our human superiority.

 

(42 mice might be an exception - if they're pan-dimensional beings)

This is more a question of power and intellect as opposed to free will.

[Skeptic134]

We have free will, for this blatantly obvious reason - because we can freely choose to study, in a laboratory, the behaviour of all other animals, such as rats.

But the rats cannot freely choose to study, in a laboratory, the behaviour of us humans.

 

That surely shows our human superiority.

 

 

You are still just defining human behavior as somehow fundamentally different without reasons as to why it is different.

 

We “freely choose”, how do you know? How do you know that we aren’t just biologically programmed to be curious about our world the same way that dogs are programmed to eat food they find?

 

What does perceived human superiority have to do with free will?

 

Are chimpanzee not equally superior to ants, and yet you claim that both are merely acting according to preprogrammed instinct? At what level of superior cognition did you decide to draw the “free will arises” line and what were the parameters that allowed you to pin point where the line should be?

 

Responding with the likes of “of course we have free will and animals don’t, penquins don't even go to college” just doesn’t cut it.

[Dekan]

 

At what level of superior cognition did you decide to draw the “free will arises” line and what were the parameters that allowed you to pin point where the line should be?

 

 

 

That's a good question. I'd say it was when we invented hospitals. Because they benefit the sick people, but expose the nurses and doctors to dangerous diseases. Only humans would run such a risk of their own free will. The recent ebola outbreaks have show the superiority of humans to animals. The animals would just die, or run away. They wouldn't care for each other, as humans do.

 

I do wish you'd stop denigrating humans. I suppose your're doing it for fashionable PC or Green considerations. But please show some pride in your own species!