Thoughts on determinism?

[opus10no2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

I came to this thought process myself, and just recently found the name for it, and that many others have also.

'antithetical to determinism of any kind are theories of the cosmos which assert that any outcome is ultimately unpredictable, the ludibrium of luck, chance, or chaos.'

I am presently reading up on the different branches, there is a specifically religious/theist branch which deals with destiny being set by god(s).

[opus10no2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

Sounds scary 

'That an attitude of inaction and passive acceptance, rather than striving, is appropriate. This version of fatalism is very similar to defeatism. '

This, of course is the first danger of getting into determinism. But seeking this knowledge should only be related to the nature of knowing why we do, and not in the search of what *to* do.

[Bob]

I think each type of philosophy has a point.

[opus10no2]

Well, each philosophy has a reason for being, but evidently some - namely the absurdities proclaimed by some organised religions, can be or have been proven to be untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism

Interesting scientific studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

This is very interesting also.

[pianistimo]

determinism rules out free will.  it is a known fact that people have free will.  otherwise democracy would not exist and people would not choose freedom.  they would just say ' i have no choice  but to allow others to determine my outcomes in life.'  basically, it is attempting to replace freedom with chains. 

God is free. we are free.  'inalienable rights' - means God made each of us free at birth.  free for moral and philosophical choices - because of the choice that adam and eve made.  they did not choose from the tree of life (accepting God's laws and living forever) - they chose from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  that meant that from then on people would choose for themselves what is good and evil and reap the consequences.  the consequences don't change.  so, as i see it - that is the only thing deterministic.  that there are consequences for laws broken.  they are written into nature itself somehow.  as a sort of dna for natural law.  if you murder - it is likely that you will be murdered.

[opus10no2]

I'm sorry, but that whole post defies logic and doesn't provide a single intelligently formed argument.

Determinism *does* rule out free will by the common definition, but some others (compatibilists) think they can both be true, by redefining 'free will'.

[pianistimo]

so you have no choice but to do what comes natural.  you truly believe you are an animal. that, to me - means that it doesn't mean you need a brain.  that brains are unnecessary and a result of very high evolutionary development.  well, why did we develop them if they are unnecessary?

[opus10no2]

Read the links.

[pianistimo]

i did. i don't think determinism , fatalism, all those 'isms' are anything but refusing to look in a mirror.  you are different from the animals.  and, yet, even animals have personality.  distinctions.  why in 'evolution' are there so many distinctions.  why do we have genes?  distinguishing us from others.  why are each of us unique?

as i see it - evolution would devolve us.  there would be no order to things anymore.  especially if we have survived millions of years  - or, as is now known - humans in the last 10,000  (actually 6,000).  look at textbooks from the 1960's.  compare them with today's.  the numbers are coming down.  how did humans evolve so fast?  and, why do we find complete remains of very very old mummies with everything that we have.  no chimp backs.

last question - do you know about mt dna?  it's the best proof that evolution can only work backwards.  we can turn to nothing - but something can't come from nothing.  also, genes get left out - not added - when you work it forward.  genetic mutations are actually defects and not improvements.  as i see it - environmental mutations are causing great difficulties for us nowdays.  these are forced by pollution and/or drugs.  like animals born with severe defects or crack babies that cannot breathe properly.

say you were in a time machine.  what do you think you would see at the beginning of creation?  i say all or nothing.  the fact that the universe has equal amounts of helium everywhere in it proves something!

[opus10no2]

Understand that what we are is a product of our nature and our nurture, the decisions we make are inevitable consequences of those.
The only argument I have seen against this is the argument that true randomness exists in our universe, but even if that does play a part, noone can deny the combination of social and biological determinism.

Is randomness 'spirit'? Is randomness free will and volition?


I do not encourage defeatism and I outlined that above.

[pianistimo]

but defeatism is saying 'i have no control over my life.  it was determined before i was born.'

nature and nuture...isn't there some of both?  we are born with a nature (personality) - but nurture talents.  even if you are born in siberia - you can be a world class scientist, pianist, whatever.  intellect defies the odds sometimes.

randomness - spirit?  i don't know.  the freest thing there is.  but, if the spirits were random, they would not fit any 'mold' that we know  and yet could be planned and programmed.  perhaps there are spirits of chaos and spirits of order?  God was not created - according to the bible - but the angels were.  therefore, they could be more 'servant' oriented in their creation since they were created to serve us.  some do not want to.  they see our potential to be above them.  yet. the bible mentions that at the beginning lucifer was beautiful and full of light.  he changed.  how could he change if he was preprogrammed?  perhaps randomness and chaos produce only more of the same.

judgement and law seem necessary to our survival.  'do you not know that the saints will judge the world.'  this is a quote from Icor 6:2.  it intimates that if we practice law now- we will practice it further in the kingdom.  also, it says 'do you not know that we shall judge angels.  how much more, matters of this life?  it's amazing that God relieves himself of jobs and passes them on.  but, He maintains order.

[opus10no2]

I said AND.

Nature AND nurture, and no evidence of any 3rd influence has ever been proven, and the only scientific theory for a 3rd is that of chaos and randomness.

Defeatism is more an excuse just to sit back and do nothing.

Determinism is about why we do things, not what we should do.

If I commit murder, I am the murderer by everyone's view, of course, but I am not the true cause of the murder.
However, this is not to say that I should not be held responsible in a practical real-world sense.

[pianistimo]

nature and nuture leave out consciousness.   what makes man conscious of himself?  i believe it is to understand a higher law.  to have a conscience.

[opus10no2]

No, they do not.

A human's consciousness is born from nature, and it is developed and nurtured through experience.

Consciousness itself is an interesting issue, as of course is life itself, but it doesn't in anyway defy the idea of determinism.

[pianistimo]

when is a human conscious of his/her surroundings?  having the 'breath of life' seems to indicate that oxygen and also 'life' - go together. but if there is a third element (non-oxygen) that imparts intellect to us - then we have a third element that is different than what the the animals are given (which happens to us at birth).  the animals are not given access to the Holy Spirit.  this would be a 4th element at our second birth.  spiritual birth.  we have 'consciousness' and then we have a spiritual 'consciousness.'

as i see it - if life is indeterminate and chaotic/random - there would be noone to give it order.  things would go from bad to worse.  noone would come up with any laws.  our society would not be a 'society.' the idea of kingship would have been non-existant.  marriage a really useless concept.

some say kingship comes from having a 'pecking order' - but the symbology and traditions of the 'crown' - are very 'unnatural' and ordered.  what i mean is that they are historic and show leanings that people once thought kings had 'divine right.'  they were allowed by God to be in positions of power.  why - so many years ago - was divine right even a concept?  the egyptians showed leanings towards the sungod - ra - as giving divine powers to their god/king.  the idea of god/king - seems to have been around a long time.  perhaps they stole it from God and adam - who was made ruler over everything on the earth at the time of creation?

[counterpoint]

Interesting discussion. Good points on both sides.

I think it's obvious that there isn't either a complete determinism nor a complete free will. But there are circumstances, which limit us in doing what we want to do in many cases. Sometimes we have the opportunity to do what we want. Then we are responsible for what we do.

I don't believe in the neuro scientists who tell us, that we don't have a free will and that our actions are only products of our reflexes and instincts. It often takes a long time to make a decision (weeks, months, years). Someone who says we have no free will, can't explain this.

And every action has its consequences. So we make a decision and we get profit or we suffer from the consequences.

Sometimes we're lucky just by accident, but most of the time, luck is the consequence of our behaviour.

[pianistimo]

those are good points, too.  why do some decisions take a long time?  animals typically don't 'stew.'  but, humans?  we want to make sure it is either in our best interest or someone else's best interest. 

also, if evolution is at it's finest - why can't humans still hunt very efficiently?  i mean- i watched this one show where a guy followed a grizzly around and tried to do exactly what he did.  catch a deer.  it was hilarious.  he couldn't get close to a deer for a long time.  in other words - if he had to use evolutionary tactics - he'd have died of starvation.  humans came up with the idea of weapons to circumvent this.  that shows a degree of thought and consciousness at the dawn of civilization. 
also, why don't animals draw pictures of themselves?  is this unique to humans.  usually at age 2-3 - we get stick figures.  why the need to draw? 

and, why - by now - have we not grown hair everywhere on us.  it is typicaly a need if we didn't have clothing.  where did clothing come from in the first place.  who told us we needed clothing?  if the earth was a moderate temperature - why the consciousness of nakedness?  the animals are oblivious of nakedness.  nature alone didn't tell us that.

it seems that we have used our free -will for a lot of things.

do you ever wonder if God intended from the beginning that if peace ruled then everyone could be naked?  just an idea.  i mean - it all came down to sinning and then clothing. 

[opus10no2]

Sorry, but I don't find these to be got points at all.

Determinism is not about instinct, the ideas on determinism are extremely broad, and they cover the complexities of the brain and human interaction.

Whether decisions are made slowly or rapidly, whether they feel instinctual or intellectual, even spiritual, they are, by deterministic theory, all largely inevitable.

Pianistimo seems to think determinism only covers instinct, biological determinism, inborn elements.
No, it does not, social determinism plays a huge role too.
There are debates over which is more important, but noone can deny both play massive roles, and that there is no real 3rd element to contend with, unless you think randomness is a possible and important element in our brain function.

[danny elfboy]

Determinism is flawed.

In a way it is undirectly flawed because determinism is often associated with empericism and materalism. But the point is that determinism is a set of beliefs and a philosophy. Popper called it "ampliative logic"
That is creating a fixed biased paradigm about the whole of life and existence extrapolating biased theories, ampliative thoughts and conclusions from a set of incomplete data which by their nature can never be considered truths or unquestionable.

But the big flaws of determinism are in its logical foundation.
As Marjorie Grene has often said, determinism just logically invalidates itself.
It does it in many ways not easy to explain, let's just say that to keep the foundation required for determinism under your feet you must deny such foundation on the first place. That is, the ampliative logic and extrapolations of determinism depends on ignoring and violating its very same norms. One example is using a methaphysics foundation in order to deny metaphysics.

These problems are often overlooked though and we tend to use our technology advances to claim the empirical foundation of such a phylosophy.
But leaving aside the problems with modern sciences (which is something that students of "journalism of sciences" are more aware of researchers themselves) the filtered correct data are by their nature ephemeral, frail and neuter. They could never in any possible way support a phylosophy or a all-inclusive paradigm. And this is your mistake opus, you're failing to consider your paradigm and philosophy a biased interpretation of what is unknown and therefore a faith not differnet in degree from any other faith.
This is evident when you talk about "evidence" that would disprove your paradigm.
But your paradigm is your own interpretation and faith, it is not "a fact until proven otherwise" either you conclude that there might be a "3rd dimension" or either your conclude that there's none, it is metaphysics nonetheless.

Just like the link between spirituality and religion is not absolute (and that religion is not necessary to contemplate spirituality but sometimes religions try to claim that spiritual thoughts and self-questioning are a proof of their religious dogma) the link between biology, genetics, physics and determinism is even weaker (determinism is absolutely uncessary to contemplate and study those sciences and those sciences are often wrongly used as evidence for the determinist philosophies)

If you're really interested in these questions and don't want to shift from one dogma-thinking to another (religious - > scientism) you should not look at all the controversial genetics and biologic hypothesis but actually study epistemology and understand why the epistemologists never said "the last word has been said"

This is about determinism as a more general phylosophy.
There's another phylosophy which is "biological determinism" which you seem to accept as a solid paradigm. Biological determism is even more than flawed, it is plain wrong.
Biologic determinism is easily refuted in many fields and by many counterevidences, besides it lacks any sort of evidence whatsoever.
Richard Lewontin is a famous genetist and a strong opponent of biological determinism.
In many studies he demonstrated how there isn't the slightest evidence that what biological determinists "believe" about genes is even remotely true.
What is very ironic is that often supporters of biological determinism are not genetists at all and have a rudimental understanding of genes or what is true and what is just speculaton or disproved theories, while at the same time most genetists know there are no evidences supporting it and don't support it. Even more interesting is how most biological determinists are actually graduated of political, economical and law sciences and are clearly trying to take advantage of biodeterminism to keep the status-quo strong and unchanged. The discussion over biased peer-reviewing, manipulation of results (see the recent cases of faked data on psychiatric studies about twins and the homicide of amazonian natives in order to fake certain biodeterminist theories) bias in the interpretation, problems with fundings, prejudices against hypothesis, government agenda has been grown strong in epistemology. John Horgan has been pointing out how the majority of peer-reviewed and published studies don't fulfill the hard-core norms and criteria of demarcation especially falsifiability and repeatibility (this is mostly a problems of modern biology, humanities and medicine)
Recently it has been pointed out the majority of researchers, science writers and reviewers are plain epistemological incompetent.
I'm forgetting his name but recently the most famous british roboticist (whose goal in the 70's was to create a robot child that would have a self and would learn and feel sensations) recently said to forget artificial intelligence. He thinks we have already exceed the boundary by which an artificial intelligence can be considered superior (especially in its amount of data processing per minute) to any human mind and yet there's no evidence that robotos will ever have a consciousness. He has been researching into theories and studies dealing with complexity and global system and doesn't believe that the last word of what consciousness is has been said.
In fact only dishonest fundamentalists will claim that we know consciousness, that we can rule out a consciousness that is nothing but a figment of the brain and the neural impulses. In fact honest neuro scientists agree that none of their theories and studies can be considered a substantiate proof that consciousness and the self are emergent property of the brain and the body. It's still a matter of believing and the concept of using consciousness to theorize about consciousness will never be solved nor will be the problem of needing consciousness in order to consciously explain consciousness as nothing but a property of the brain. This has been explained properly by David Lack.
He call it the "doubt" but it's actually a logical flaw.
Anthony Flew is an example of a phylosophical determinist who abandoned its position after realizing the unreconbiliable contrasts between the many flawed hypothesis, ontological unexplanaible questions, emerging complexity and holitic paradigms that explain certain aspects of reality better than the reductionist approach.

This just to show that there's no logical link or dependence between determinism and natural sciences.

Bottom line: the last word has not been said and will probably never be said.

[prometheus]

God rules out free will.

Quantum mechanics rules out determinism (at least in the classical sense).


Our will isn't free. Will is an aspect of our mind. Our mind is a product of our brains. And our brains only give rise to one specific mind with one specific will. And that will is determined by our brain. Our consciousness is also an aspect of our mind, the product of our brain. Our consciousness is not the entity that 'drives' the machine called 'the brain'.

[opus10no2]

Quantum mechanics rules out determinism (at least in the classical sense).

The determinism most people are interested in is how it relates to humanity.

Noone can deny that causality plays a larger role than randomness in our lives.

[pianistimo]

how can causality fit determinism.  if something is caused - then we'd have the root.  determinism would have no root excepting everything built in block formation (including the cosmos).  but, do we really know what happens out there from day to day.  we might have a satellite pointed here and there - but what happens out there isn't exactly the most important thing on God's mind.  i think what happens here is much more precise.  the exact ratios of one thing to another - to sustain life.  other planets have no life.  they can be more random and chaotic.

[counterpoint]

I'm a bit confused.

opus10-2, didn't you say some time ago, you would like to be unpredictable?
In determinism all is predictable. Do you have changed your mind, or what did happen since these great times, when all was possible and nothing was impossible... 

[opus10no2]

I'm a bit confused.

opus10-2, didn't you say some time ago, you would like to be unpredictable?
In determinism all is predictable. Do you have changed your mind, or what did happen since these great times, when all was possible and nothing was impossible... 

Determinism relies upon the universe having laws, which in many ways it does appear to have!

IF those laws were all known, and all knowledge about our universe and the mechanism of life was known, then everything in theory would be predictable.

But the fact that those things simply aren't known, and we don't know if they ever will be, means that we still percieve unpredictability.

Things are called unpredictable by us because , with our present knowledge and capabilities, they weren't predictable, but this does not negate(in deterministic theory) their inherent inevitability.

[pianistimo]

the only thing fairly indestructably inherent is that we can choose good or evil every moment of our lives.  for instance, right now i could choose to drink three bottles of beer.  it even sounds tempting because i happen to like it when it's hot.  but i have learned that perhaps it will not be in my best interest or those around me if i overindulge.  and, the bible says to be moderate in all things.  so being moderate for me isn't three.  for my husband - two would barely wet his whistle.  but, he usually doesn't drink anything but water or soda.  we choose this because it seems to keep our wits about us.  say - we have to drive somewhere unexpectedly.  we wouldn't cause harm to someone else from driving while drunk.

on the other hand - imperfections of our natural selves - automatically make us sin.  whether we have pride or envy or just get lazy.  so then, we have to do this thing every day - of saying - God - whatever it is you want me to be - make me into it.  mold  me.  this is sort of like a potter with clay.  you can be stiff (without water or Holy Spirit) and nothing can be made out of you.

this doesn't mean that God has determined every choice in your life. it just means that He will guide your choices.  some of them might even be things that you hadn't thought of - whereas on your own - you're going through a huge maze.  like a corn maze.  you don't know which direction is the best.  God can see from above.  this isn't determinism - to me.  it's just accepting that we are weaker and cannot always see through the spiritual lens that God does.  it's merely asking for directions.

[opus10no2]

You don't understand the theory of determinism, convince me you have the capability to comprehend the philosophy with logical terms.

[pianistimo]

determinisim implies that everything is predetermined.  therefore - it does not matter WHAT WE DO.  sorry (i'm not yelling).  just explaining that i do understand.

believe it or not - there is a christian dillemma of 'predestination' that also goes under the umbrella of determinism.  i once asked a minister about this and never got an answer.  of course, some ministers see God (or did see Him) as a huge Ape going about doing whatever He wants.  but, if God were apish - he would not have had compassion for lazarus when he died and ressurrected him to life again (in front of his friends).  if He has this much power- why should we not want to join the 'force.'  when someone says 'may the force be with you' - which one are they talking about?

i believe there is another force that believes determinism severely.  take the chinese calendar.  even the months or years are named for animals. something is said to happen each day according to the horiscopes in papers.  people who believe the occult actually think they can determine what happens to themselves or other people by doing rituals.  this, to me, is determinism - but it doesn't work.  determinism is false pretenses.  what 'looks like' - but isn't actually.

sometimes a great deal of detective work goes into pretense.  take everything that happens in las vegas.  that is determinism at it's best.  do you think they are unaware of who is going to hit it big.  they check your id the moment you check in the hotel - and figure where you'll be going, what you'll spend, and how to rip you off.

[thalbergmad]

of course, some ministers see God (or did see Him) as a huge Ape going about doing whatever He wants.  but, if God were apish - he would not have had compassion for lazarus when he died and ressurrected him to life again (in front of his friends)..

Your reasoning is indestructable

[pianistimo]

thank you.

[opus10no2]

therefore - it does not matter WHAT WE DO.  sorry (i'm not yelling). 

No, it says that what we do is not part of independant volition.

What we do can matter or not, depending on opinion, but determinism simply proposes that it is inevitable.

If you can't understand this, you need to think more outside your own box.

[prometheus]

The determinism most people are interested in is how it relates to humanity.

Noone can deny that causality plays a larger role than randomness in our lives.

This universe is ruled by randomness. At the basis of everything is uncertaincy. There is causality, but the details are uncertain.

If the electrons in our brain act in a random fashion, to a depth that even a god, if one were to exist, would not know the outcome because it would be truly random, then human behavior just isn't determined either.

Doesn't mean we have 'free will' whatever that is supposed to mean. Our will isn't free from our brain.

[opus10no2]

I agree with alot of that.

But it does go against what we view, the world we live in is so beautiful and it is difficult to imagine it as random.
Now, to imagine that the universe is all random, and in infinite randomness would be the possibility to randomly have one place which appears as consonant as our planet.

I need to read up on the scientific aspects more.

[teresa_b]

I rarely venture into the "Anything but piano" forum, but I've thought about this a bit. 

I tend to agree with you, Op 10 no 1.  I don't even see why the universe could not be entirely random (although it appears there is much that is non-random) and STILL be deterministic.  If there is a probability that one random electron will interact with another, then that may be our perception of reality--but couldn't all probabilistic systems actually be determined by hidden causes? 

We may never be able to determine (no pun intended  ) whether Free Will exists.  But I do think that if indeed God exists, and God is omniscient, then God would HAVE to know everything that ever did or will happen.  Thus He must know I will type the word "determinism" now, even though I FELT I chose to do so of my own free will. 

Indeed we may still choose our actions and they will have consequences (thus refuting the argument about people taking no responsibility for their actions)--but unknown to us, these actions were already known by God, and thus predetermined.

Even in the face of total determinism, there is no reason we should behave as though we do not choose out of free will.

Teresa

 

[opus10no2]

Yes, Teresa.

Hopefully your wording will succesfully get through to pianistimo.

[pianistimo]

perhaps i am confused - but wouldn't determinism undermine the very underpinnings of creation.  does God plan where the ants go?  no.  but, they are pre-programmed to build ant hills.  if God knew where each ant was going and at what time - what is the purpose of creating a separate identity (in this case - an ant).  He'd just go to that place himself and be done with it.  i think God likes to look at clockwork in motion.  He set things up to 'take care of themselves' and yet He oversees it all.  why would he bother wanting to know if we typed the word 'determinism?'  i think He is concerned with our spiritual well being.  i think He hopes we type the word Jesus Christ.  (sorry zheer, if i am overloading you).  in fact, i think he looks for that name amongst what we type and sort of zooms over the rest.

*i could be wrong.

[thalbergmad]

*i could be wrong.

Cut & paste

[counterpoint]

Perhaps the theory of determinism was invented before people knew about the theory of propabilities?

Some things are predictable - others are not.

Some humans are predictable - others are not.

There is no universal law about this fact.

[teresa_b]

perhaps i am confused - but wouldn't determinism undermine the very underpinnings of creation.  does God plan where the ants go?  no.  but, they are pre-programmed to build ant hills.  if God knew where each ant was going and at what time - what is the purpose of creating a separate identity (in this case - an ant).  He'd just go to that place himself and be done with it.  i think God likes to look at clockwork in motion.  He set things up to 'take care of themselves' and yet He oversees it all.  why would he bother wanting to know if we typed the word 'determinism?'  i think He is concerned with our spiritual well being.  i think He hopes we type the word Jesus Christ.  (sorry zheer, if i am overloading you).  in fact, i think he looks for that name amongst what we type and sort of zooms over the rest.

*i could be wrong.

The God you describe is not omniscient.  He just sets things in action and then does NOT necessarily know everything.  In other words, He's more like a human, with human thoughts, wants, etc.   If that is how you view Him, then determinism is not the only possible way for the universe to be. 

If God is like your description I would argue that there a great many people on Earth who may think he looks for us to type the names "Allah", "Yahweh," or "Muhammed" rather than "Jesus".   

The case remains that IF God is omniscient, He must know everything, even the path of the tiniest antlike creature on the planet Zork in the Delta Quadrant.  In that case the Universe must be deterministic.

Teresa

P.S.  Oops, sorry op 10 no 2--I got your name wrong