Determinism

[The Sum of Awe]

What is your opinion on the whole concept of activities?

Are you a determinist or a compatibalist or a free-will-ist or do you have your own concept?

If you are not a determinist or compatibalist, why can we not do things just by will (such as force ourselves to love, control our heartbeat, or even fly)? If there's no determination, our actions must be determined by our will (and thus not actually determined), if not determined by will, what determines them that keeps the future unset and varied?

OR

If you are a determinist - what do you believe determines us? (God, everything in the universe, other actions, all of the above? etc.,)

 

[Willamena]

What is your opinion on the whole concept of activities?

Are you a determinist or a compatibalist or a free-will-ist or do you have your own concept?

Neither; all.

None of them touch on a whole truth, each are a singular picture of reality. Each as their own virtue.

If you are not a determinist or compatibalist, why can we not do things just by will (such as force ourselves to love, control our heartbeat, or even fly)? If there's no determination, our actions must be determined by our will (and thus not actually determined), if not determined by will, what determines them that keeps the future unset and varied?

OR

If you are a determinist - what do you believe determines us? (God, everything in the universe, other actions, all of the above? etc.,)

The things we do "by will," like control our heartbeat and control our emotions, attribute power to something that doesn't exist. Ego. The idea of a "me" distinct from the universe. Distinct from everything and anything else.

Attributing power to something else--god, or the omniverse--doesn't improve the picture.

Determination exists, but like everything it has its context that gives it distinction, and a perspective that gives it life. Determination/causation is cause following effect. Both "cause" and "effect" are observed. Determination is observation following observation (David Hume), which leads us back to an observer. A consciousness. There is no determination without consciousness.

Free will exists, but like everything it has its context that gives it distinction, and a perspective that gives it life. Free will is action free of an exterior causation, voluntary. Both "freedom" and "causation" are observed. They get attributed to "I" or "me," that's the only difference.

And still, it leads us back to an observer. None of these things happen without consciousness to observe them--oh, sure, we can say they do, but if we buy into that objectivity that allows for that, that's nothing more than extrapolation at best, and a flight of fancy at worst.

So these things are illusive, a picture of reality but not reality. Free will is illusion, but so is determinism (David Hume demonstrated that it is nothing more than inference.)

The middle way is that pictures of reality do exist, and that they are not objective or subjective. The middle way finds the observer not slave to a subjective view point, or at the mercy of an objective one--both are pictures. Things exist; and we cannot say "things exist" if we have no knowledge of them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Are you a determinist or a compatibalist or a free-will-ist or do you have your own concept?

"L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"

Rousseau and I mostly agree here, but not for the same reasons. He conceives of a far greater freedom which could be, and far, far less constraining chains than I do. As determinism has become almost completely abandoned as anything beyond an approximation in the sciences, and despite the optimism expressed over half a century ago we still have almost know idea how consciousness works (and how it seems that an emergent mind can be produced by the very physical system it governs), and as determinism was almost a side-effect (a product of increasingly successful predictions about the motions of bodies in some system), I don't see any good reason to continue to think classical determinism exists.

Scientists got pretty good at showing what forces acted upon what bodies in which ways, and creating equations (models) enabling increasingly more accurate predictions about planetary orbits and chemical reactions and so on. Stastical physics wasn't developed because of some belief in a world of possibilities but to deal with fully deterministic systems that were just too complex to deal with in a completely deterministic way. That said, just because we see a trend, from Newton to Einstein, of increasingly greater predictive power in our models of all kinds of systems is no reason to think determinism (a by-product more than anything else) remains a valid, empirically supported approach to understanding the way "minds" work.

If you are not a determinist or compatibalist, why can we not do things just by will (such as force ourselves to love, control our heartbeat, or even fly)?

For the same reason I can't fly around on a dragon. The opposite of determinism is indeterminism, not magic.

If there's no determination, our actions must be determined by our will (and thus not actually determined),

I'm going to assume you mean "if there's no determinism", so if I'm wrong and this reply makes no sense, that's why.

This is not a winner takes all game. I can no more control certain responses to e.g., noxious stimuli than I can control my cells. But I can choose not to put my hand upon a burning stove.

if not determined by will, what determines them that keeps the future unset and varied?

Lots of things. Probably more than we know at the moment, but currently the reigning model of particle physics is probabilistic, not deterministic. We don't use deterministic models for most systems (too complex), but for quantum systems it's because it appears there is an intrinsic uncertainty, a fundamental element of chance that governs the innermost layers of reality. God, contra Einstein, seems to be rather fond of dice.

 

[Straw Dog]

What is your opinion on the whole concept of activities?

Are you a determinist or a compatibalist or a free-will-ist or do you have your own concept?

I don't know. I'm probably a probabilitist.

 

[Quintessence]

Quint is a hard determinist that, like any non-ominscient organism, operates under the illusion of having free will. What determines? The entirety of the Weave.

 

[idav]

If you are not a determinist or compatibalist, why can we not do things just by will (such as force ourselves to love, control our heartbeat, or even fly)? If there's no determination, our actions must be determined by our will (and thus not actually determined), if not determined by will, what determines them that keeps the future unset and varied?

OR

If you are a determinist - what do you believe determines us? (God, everything in the universe, other actions, all of the above? etc.,)

The universal wave function is inherently non-deterministic until it interacts with the macro world. With that I speculate that the Universe starts with Everything being a possibility and Possibly all things already having happened through out time in multiple versions.

Things are deterministic at our level but there is room for variance at fundamental levels. I believe the mind can tap into these variances within the limitations of physical restrictions and options.

 

[Skwim]

Are you a determinist or a compatibalist or a free-will-ist or do you have your own concept?

Determinist

If you are a determinist - what do you believe determines us? (God, everything in the universe, other actions, all of the above? etc.,)

Prior causes/events.


BTW, page 72.

​

 

[Onkara]

If you are a determinist - what do you believe determines us? (God, everything in the universe, other actions, all of the above? etc.,)

I say all things are being determined as they unfold. It is not combatibalism for the reason that now doesn't hold more than choice and choice is made based on conditions. So choice is determined action.

I am with the Hindus (and Sikhs to a degree) in that it is all down to the Gunas and karma.

 

[Me Myself]

If you are a determinist - what do you believe determines us? (God, everything in the universe, other actions, all of the above? etc.,)

Everything, which includes other actions and all of them are God anyways.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Determinism; our past actions, as well as the whole of the universe, or, this is pretty close.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I really have no idea. Determinism makes the most sense, but doesn't jibe with day-to-day experience. Whether "free-will" is an illusion or not, as long as the illusion is consistent and maintainable, I suppose that's all that matters.

 

[Onkara]

I really have no idea. Determinism makes the most sense, but doesn't jibe with day-to-day experience. Whether "free-will" is an illusion or not, as long as the illusion is consistent and maintainable, I suppose that's all that matters.

What if we could somehow break out of the illusion? I think that is a question to play with

 

[Skwim]

What if we could somehow break out of the illusion? I think that is a question to play with

What do you think having broken out of the illusion would consist of? Would it be a constant awareness of cause and effect operating around us? I am doing such and such because . . . . . . . .?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Adequate determinism, determined by whatever sets the spin of particles.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I really have no idea. Determinism makes the most sense, but doesn't jibe with day-to-day experience.

This is key, and I completely agree with the day-to-day experience part. The question is, why does determinism "make the most sense"? I would argue that it does for two reasons:
1) It does jibe with our every day experience, just another part of it. Whenever we observe things happen, change, appeart, etc., , from someone knocking over a chair to the appearance of a long and insufferably boring post I wrote on RF, we think causally. We're hardwired that way to some extent, and everything from our languages to the way our perceptual systems work shows how much the idea about cause and effect is deeply ingrained in our understanding. If you've read threads here about the big bang, time, and usually god too, then you've come across individuals trying to talk about an environment where time doesn't exist. But the moment we even begin, with something like "before the big bang and before time, God..." we've already conceived of a "before" where there can be no before.

2) Although it isn't part of most people's day-to-day experiences (most people don't do research), the core concepts of Science (reductionism, determinism, prediction) are somewhat understood by teenagers even if they don't know these words. Part of the upbringing and culture in any country where education is fairly universal is a basic familiarity what Science entails: understanding how things work by understanding how their parts work. Long before college kids in countries all over the world learn about how the heart is a part of the circulatory system, how it pumps blood made up of cells through the body, how the cells are composed of molecules, how these are composed of atoms, and so on. They're even introduced to a pretty radically incorrrect understanding of The Scientific Method where all of science is coming up with a hypothesis, testing it, and finding out whether it becomes theory.

Combine the day-to-day perception of cause/effect with how science is explained and taught long before college, and is it any wonder that determinism seems "to make the most sense?"

 

[Onkara]

What do you think having broken out of the illusion would consist of? Would it be a constant awareness of cause and effect operating around us? I am doing such and such because . . . . . . . .?

Hi Skwim
I would be equally interested in how you would reply to that question?

My answer would be that that there is both a perception of doing and acting in what could be considered a spontaneous state of free will based on choice ("I am doing such and such because...") but also a perception of constant cause and effect (as you example above). The sense of free will or doing comes from a deep belief of being separate from "choice". It is as choice has a tangible independent existence whereas it does not.

What is unnerving is that if there is no choice then ethics of right and wrong become doubtful at first glance. I hasten to add that it doesn't imply that we will act in evil or harm others because the view is beyond that initial illusion that we must act in our own interest.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Skwim]

Hi Skwim
I would be equally interested in how you would reply to that question?

I really don't know.

My answer would be that that there is both a perception of doing and acting in what could be considered a spontaneous state of free will based on choice ("I am doing such and such because...") but also a perception of constant cause and effect (as you example above). The sense of free will or doing comes from a deep belief of being separate from "choice". It is as choice has a tangible independent existence whereas it does not.

What is unnerving is that if there is no choice then ethics of right and wrong become doubtful at first glance. I hasten to add that it doesn't imply that we will act in evil or harm others because the view is beyond that initial illusion that we must act in our own interest.

Just some thoughts.

It does mean that at its very roots ethics are meaningless. We don't assign culpability to machines, because they have no freedom to do other than what they must, and this should also be true of humans. However, for whatever the reasons, we remain blind to the fact, and go through life under the illusion that ethics are rational and that we have freewill. I go through life under the impression that what I do I do freely; it's just something I can't help---I can do no differently.

 

[Onkara]

I really don't know.

It does mean that at its very roots ethics are meaningless. We don't assign culpability to machines, because they have no freedom to do other than what they must, and this should also be true of humans. However, for whatever the reasons, we remain blind to the fact, and go through life under the illusion that ethics are rational and that we have freewill. I go through life under the impression that what I do I do freely; it's just something I can't help---I can do no differently.

Hi Skwim
I agree it does mean that at its roots ethics are meaningless. Which could be why people still do evil things despite being told by certain scripture not to do them. It is meaningless because their actions are pre-determined so it then renders "good and bad" without meaning.

I feel that evil is always intentional and based on our wants i.e. selfish. So could the way beyond good and bad be to accept determinism and transcend the feeling that we should act in our own self-interest because we must due to free-will? Instead we just take the path of least resistance without regard for our own selfishness and consequently not commit intentional evil, I wonder?

 

[Sir Doom]

I see only clay
I can mold it to my will
My reality

:namaste

Basically (pretentious as it is) I am convinced that my will is effective. I witness it happening. I have nothing but philosophical arguments to the contrary. This is not enough to defeat my observations. I can't say the same for the rest of you, though.

 

[Onkara]

I see only clay
I can mold it to my will
My reality

:namaste

Basically (pretentious as it is) I am convinced that my will is effective. I witness it happening. I have nothing but philosophical arguments to the contrary. This is not enough to defeat my observations. I can't say the same for the rest of you, though.

The 'issue' I came up against was that will appears to be influenced and hence determined, although it is efficient at getting things done.