According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[steve_bank]

When it is raining when a drop of rain hits a 1x1 inch area on the roof of your car can not be predicted.

That’s a slightly flawed premise. If there is no wind to speak of the position of drops prior to hitting the 1” square can be used predict that a particular drop will hit. The only question is how long before impact can it be predicted.
I’d posit that it crosses the boundary into unpredictability when the time between the prediction and its fulfillment is too short to communicate or act upon. So in a natural rainstorm it is as you describe, but “only” for all practical purposes, not for theoretical ones.

How would you know exac6ly when a raindrop forms, its exact position, and its exact size, and trajectory that lands it on a spot?

Causal but chaotic. Initial conditions cab not be quantified sufficient to make a deterministic

There is no way to predict exactly when a drop forms in the first place,

In a rain storm a spot on the ground has a probability of being hit at a given time. To us it looks random, we deal with it statistically.

Flip a coin. Can you predict when it is heads or tails better than an average of 50%?


My point was due to the limits of our perception and instrumentation a determi9nistic univrse can appear to have randomness to us.

An old question in QM, is quantum randomness a feature of nature or a measurement problem?

 

[steve_bank]

Hmm, liven it up?

Maybe pood can do standup or sing a song.

 

[pood]

An old question in QM, is quantum randomness a feature of nature or a measurement problem?

The evidence we have suggests is it a feature of nature.

 

[BSilvEsq]

When it is raining when a drop of rain hits a 1x1 inch area on the roof of your car can not be predicted.

That’s a slightly flawed premise. If there is no wind to speak of the position of drops prior to hitting the 1” square can be used predict that a particular drop will hit. The only question is how long before impact can it be predicted.
I’d posit that it crosses the boundary into unpredictability when the time between the prediction and its fulfillment is too short to communicate or act upon. So in a natural rainstorm it is as you describe, but “only” for all practical purposes, not for theoretical ones.

Yes.

If the use of the words "can not be predicted" means simply that we lack the facility to do so, then that is likely a correct statement of the state of human capabilities at this time.

On the other hand, if the statement was meant to assert that the referenced prediction is theoretically impossible with perfect knowledge and computational power, then the statement may be correct or may be flawed, and likely is flawed as there is likely a theoretical ability to model precisely where the rain drop will land when considering all factors that influence the sped and direction of the rain drop.

 

[BSilvEsq]

When it is raining when a drop of rain hits a 1x1 inch area on the roof of your car can not be predicted.

That’s a slightly flawed premise. If there is no wind to speak of the position of drops prior to hitting the 1” square can be used predict that a particular drop will hit. The only question is how long before impact can it be predicted.
I’d posit that it crosses the boundary into unpredictability when the time between the prediction and its fulfillment is too short to communicate or act upon. So in a natural rainstorm it is as you describe, but “only” for all practical purposes, not for theoretical ones.

How would you know exac6ly when a raindrop forms, its exact position, and its exact size, and trajectory that lands it on a spot?

Causal but chaotic. Initial conditions cab not be quantified sufficient to make a deterministic

There is no way to predict exactly when a drop forms in the first place,

In a rain storm a spot on the ground has a probability of being hit at a given time. To us it looks random, we deal with it statistically.

Flip a coin. Can you predict when it is heads or tails better than an average of 50%?


My point was due to the limits of our perception and instrumentation a determi9nistic univrse can appear to have randomness to us.

An old question in QM, is quantum randomness a feature of nature or a measurement problem?

But for your last sentence, it seems to me that you are focused on the ability of humans to make predictions, and not upon the reality that is the object of the predictive effort.

A young child likely is unable to predict the lunar cycle, but that does not make the cycle chaotic or non-deterministic.

When humans are unable to predict something with certainty, it means either that the act is inherently unpredictable or that humans simply lack the ability to detect the nature of the operation that yields the result that is sought to be predicted.

I believe your last sentence captures the quandary. Personally, I see the putative randomness of quantum theory to be the result of hidden variables and, more importantly, inherent limitations of humanity, which include, but are not limited to, the fact that we exist within a system that cannot be fully observed from within the system and possibly the additional fact that our own efforts at observation may impact what is being observed. I suspect that the gods are laughing at quantum physicists who insist upon true random behavior in the universe while they enjoy a cup of tea with Einstein.

 

[BSilvEsq]

At any rate, from my perspective the failures caused by Libertarians and Radical Fatalists both are simply this: in attributing freedom to randomness, people seeking to be free see a lack of random and paralyze themselves inappropriately, or they see a plethora of randomness and they say "that makes you responsible" and seek to inject randomness so as to get LESS reliable outcomes and neither of those conclusions are true.

No matter which way you flip the coin you get bad advice.

And the most troubling part is that in the short term, giving someone that trick coin gives you a leg up over them if they act in clear support of it and if you act in principle as a compatibilist despite your words to them.

Just telling people this inversion of the truth starts a grift from which you are the benefactor.

To someone who rejects grifting as unethical harm, it seems like a pretty big and widespread issue.

It also makes me wonder insofar as if this is a grift that naturally helps some ("people without dreams are easy to control"), then is this also an explicit gnostic grift for some? Are there compatibilists out there -- not just in action but in internal model as well -- preaching Radical Fatalism so as to hobble everyone but themselves? Or is there a zeitgeist more of people realizing this somewhere in a deep part of their mind, in a state machine they cannot reasonably access, where Radical Fatalism 'makes sense' only because talking about it benefitted them in an abstract way?

We do know that the failure to believe in one's own freedoms has been studied and that performance on a number of tasks goes down in that situation, so it could very well be something that we evolved to trick each other into believing for our own sakes.

This latest post quoted above assumes things about human nature that are not necessarily true, and which I know to be untrue as to myself.
While accepting that I do not know. and believing that nobody truly knows, I believe that Free Will is an illusion and that we are all meat puppets of the universe. I know you disagree, and may even claim to know better, and not just believe otherwise. If you truly have such certainty, you are limiting your horizons (or they have been limited for you), but it is what it is.

Despite my belief in the absence of Free Will, I am not confined to my bed, wandering around aimlessly, failing to seemingly make choices, or seemingly making bad choices based on a belief that making good choices does not matter. Nor am I the least bit less productive than I was when I believed in Free Will. In fact, I may be more productive, because my belief frees me of the psychological burden of regretting or resenting actions of the past (as explained more fully below). There are at least two reasons for this.

First, I lived more than 50 years of my life believing I did have Free Will, and my belief changed (or was changed for me) only in the past decade. If it is accurate that I do lack Free Will -- as I believe, but do not know, to be the case -- then I have never had Free Will despite my past belief that I did have Free Will, and nothing at all is different about my life other than the belief I now have that I lack Free Will. My past is unchanged, and the things I continue to do are (for now, at least) the same. I have not stopped acting “as if” I have Free Will — either because I do have Free Will (which I do not currently believe) or because that is the way I am caused to act by a universe that previously caused me to believe that my decisions were the result of Free Will and now causes me to believe that they are not decisions at all.

Second, my belief in the absence of Free Will has been spiritually and emotionally liberating, as it has removed all regret and resentment from my life. I think of a “regret” as a form of self-judgment about something I did in my past, and I think of a “resentment” as a form of judgment about something someone else did in the past. Consistent with my belief in the non-existence of Free Will, I no longer have any judgments about the past, because I believe that the past that has occurred is the only past that could have occurred, and that it makes no more sense judging any human action than it makes any sense judging the sun for rising or setting — which, itself, is an illusion caused by the spin of the earth. My belief in the absence of Free Will also has tamed my ego by removing all personal credit for what I used to think of as my accomplishments.

As best I can tell, Albert Einstein also believed that the existence of Free Will is an illusion. Pertinent to this point, an essay titled “Einstein’s Mystical Views” (appearing at https://sillysutras.com/einsteins-mystical-views-quotations-on-free-will-or-determinism/), quotes Einstein as having said that an “awareness of the lack of freedom of will” both (i) "reconcile me with the actions of others even if they are rather painful to me” and (ii) “preserves me from taking too seriously myself and my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals and from losing my temper.” The essay also quotes Einstein as having said that a belief in an absence of Free Will “mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralyzing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously; it conduces to a view of life in which humor, above all, has its due place.” I don't know if these quotes are accurate, but they do resonate with me.

Notwithstanding my belief in and acceptance of a lack of Free Will, I continue to live my life in the same manner as I lived it before adopting that belief — still seemingly making choices “as if” I had Free Will, and I suppose I will continue to do so unless and until I am caused to act otherwise. As the essay referenced above quotes Einstein as saying: “I am compelled to act as if free will existed, because if I wish to live in a civilized society I must act responsibly. . . I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime, but I prefer not to take tea with him.”

To me, this is one of the benefits of playing out the fatalistic assumption. It neither scares me to do so, nor impairs my life. Nor does rejecting the assumption. In the end, (i) if Free Will does exist, my belief that it does not exist is of no consequence so long as I am able to continue to act "as if" Free Will does exist, and (ii) if Free Will does not exist, the fact that I am caused to recognize that reality is of no moment, and it would not matter if it were a detrimental belief to have because I would lack the ability to believe otherwise and the consequences of my belief also would be outside of my illusory control.

 

[Elixir]

How would you know exac6ly when a raindrop forms, its exact position, and its exact size, and trajectory that lands it on a spot?

Obviously by brute force; one would have to observe and track millions if not billions of raindrops to predict with >99% certainty that a raindrop last observed at say 10 meters from the target was going to hit it. But at an inch above, you know where it’s going to land.
You can’t predict where a major league pitcher’s next pitch will go, but a catcher can, within milliseconds of the release. That’s dependent upon the huge amount of information and vast frame of reference that the catcher has, of course. But the fact of predictability persists. If raindrops follow Newtonian laws, their point of impact is predictable, our lack of processing power notwitwstanding.

 

[Elixir]

Despite my belief in the absence of Free Will, I am not confined to my bed, wandering around aimlessly, failing to seemingly make choices, or seemingly making bad choices based on a belief that making good choices does not matter.

You mean I’m not supposed to be doing that ??!

To me, this is one of the benefits of playing out the fatalistic assumption.

Nice post.
I am sorta struck by the equivalence of determinism and fatalism.
Why would a sufficiently complex deterministic universe be any more fatalistic than a non-deterministic one?
I would consider a non-deterministic universe disabling, as predictions are of uh… unpredictable value.
So let’s call our dualistic choice “fatalism vs debilitation” just to level the field.

 

[steve_bank]

When it is raining when a drop of rain hits a 1x1 inch area on the roof of your car can not be predicted.

That’s a slightly flawed premise. If there is no wind to speak of the position of drops prior to hitting the 1” square can be used predict that a particular drop will hit. The only question is how long before impact can it be predicted.
I’d posit that it crosses the boundary into unpredictability when the time between the prediction and its fulfillment is too short to communicate or act upon. So in a natural rainstorm it is as you describe, but “only” for all practical purposes, not for theoretical ones.

How would you know exac6ly when a raindrop forms, its exact position, and its exact size, and trajectory that lands it on a spot?

Causal but chaotic. Initial conditions cab not be quantified sufficient to make a deterministic

There is no way to predict exactly when a drop forms in the first place,

In a rain storm a spot on the ground has a probability of being hit at a given time. To us it looks random, we deal with it statistically.

Flip a coin. Can you predict when it is heads or tails better than an average of 50%?


My point was due to the limits of our perception and instrumentation a determi9nistic univrse can appear to have randomness to us.

An old question in QM, is quantum randomness a feature of nature or a measurement problem?

But for your last sentence, it seems to me that you are focused on the ability of humans to make predictions, and not upon the reality that is the object of the predictive effort.

A young child likely is unable to predict the lunar cycle, but that does not make the cycle chaotic or non-deterministic.

When humans are unable to predict something with certainty, it means either that the act is inherently unpredictable or that humans simply lack the ability to detect the nature of the operation that yields the result that is sought to be predicted.

I believe your last sentence captures the quandary. Personally, I see the putative randomness of quantum theory to be the result of hidden variables and, more importantly, inherent limitations of humanity, which include, but are not limited to, the fact that we exist within a system that cannot be fully observed from within the system and possibly the additional fact that our own efforts at observation may impact what is being observed. I suspect that the gods are laughing at quantum physicists who insist upon true random behavior in the universe while they enjoy a cup of tea with Einstein.

The difference between measuring and and testing, and subjective philosophical speculation and conclusions.

'I know it is not true because it is not me'. A subjective conclusion.

'I know god exists and has a plan for me'

I am sure believing in determinism can be a relief. It can mean you have no sensibility;ty?

I take Buddhism to be the opposite of determinism. You affect your future.

One goal of Buddhist practice is seeing trough the mental facade of thought forms and seeing reality as it is.

Ending the wandering through samsara and breakng the kamic thought cycles that entangle you.


It as been over 50 years since I went terrarium it so I'll use an AI summary.

In Buddhism, the "facade of reality" is the idea that what we perceive is an illusion, a temporary and constructed view of the world that is based on our perceptions and clinging to a fixed self
. This illusion is maintained by our own minds and the "three poisons" of delusion, greed, and hatred, but is ultimately based on the reality of impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Through spiritual cultivation and practice, one can see through this facade to achieve liberation from suffering.

Determinism and free will are human abstractions not reality.

Endless debate is being ensnared.

An old saying. Before enlightenment get up and go to work. After enlightenment get up and go to work.

So.

I believe in determinism, get up and go to work.

I believe in free will, get up and go to work.

I believe in Jesus, get up and go to work.

 

[DBT]

I work with the definition given by compatibilists

No, you seem to not, because every few days you come back spouting "no alternative actions" in a stunning flurry of syntax error.

What you fail to grasp is that the given definition of determinism does not permit alternate action.

Take your own definition:

Jarhyn - ''A deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system.''

Are you unable or unwilling to grasp the implications of ''a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system?

Given that there can be no randomness, how are alternate actions possible?

When there is ''no randomness involved,'' there are no deviations. There is no choosing an action that goes contrary to how the system evolves.

This is according to your own definition of determinism.

That I have to explain the implications of your own definition indicates that you have a poor understanding of the subject matter.

Given this, I couldn't be bothered with the rest of your post, which shows the same lack of understanding of determinism.

Again, determinism as it is defined, and its implications;


What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

 

[Elixir]

The difference between measuring and and testing, and subjective philosophical speculation and conclusions.

You’re talking engineering. I’m saying that our engineering capability or lack thereof has nothing to do with the predictability of the behavior of raindrops once they form. Their formation is dependent upon the presence of particulate nucleii and a shitload of other known variables, so that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
Of course we will never be able to itemize the raindrops in a storm before they form.
But that’s because it’s useless information that would require stupid amounts of resources and would likely require a lot of new technology, rather than because it’s inaccessible in theory. There’s a difference between impractical and impossible.

 

[BSilvEsq]

Despite my belief in the absence of Free Will, I am not confined to my bed, wandering around aimlessly, failing to seemingly make choices, or seemingly making bad choices based on a belief that making good choices does not matter.

You mean I’m not supposed to be doing that ??!

To me, this is one of the benefits of playing out the fatalistic assumption.

Nice post.
I am sorta struck by the equivalence of determinism and fatalism.
Why would a sufficiently complex deterministic universe be any more fatalistic than a non-deterministic one?
I would consider a non-deterministic universe disabling, as predictions are of uh… unpredictable value.
So let’s call our dualistic choice “fatalism vs debilitation” just to level the field.

To begin, I reject the notion (by others) that quantum indeterminism is incompatible with fatalism -- for reasons I am going to avoid getting into at this moment.

Turning to your statement that you are "sorta struck by the equivalence of determinism and fatalism," I offer the following explanation:

Karl Popper, who is one of the father's of the philosophy of science explained Determinism as follows:

“The metaphysical doctrine of determinism simply asserts that all events in this world are fixed, or unalterable, or predetermined. It does not assert that they are known to anybody, or predictable by scientific means. But it asserts that the future is as little changeable as is the past. Everybody knows what we mean when we say that the past cannot be changed. It is in precisely the same sense that the future cannot be changed, according to metaphysical determinism.”

Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, a French scholar whose work was important to the development of mathematics, statistics, physics and astronomy, similarly wrote:

“We ought to regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its antecedent state and as the cause of the state that is to follow. An intelligence knowing all the forces acting in nature at a given instant, as well as the momentary positions of all things in the universe, would be able to comprehend in one single formula the motions of the largest bodies as well as the lightest atoms in the world, provided that its intellect were sufficiently powerful to subject all data to analysis; to it nothing would be uncertain, the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes.”

Although neither Popper nor Laplace expressly used the terms fatalism, destined, pre-determined, or pre-destined, I take their statement that "the future cannot be changed" and "the future as well as the past would be present to its eyes" to suggest those other terms.

Accepting the above-quoted explanations of Determinism offered by Popper and Laplace leads me to believe that the philosophical paradigm of Determinism (as contrasted with Newtonian Determinism, which may or may not be the same) logically leads to the conclusion of fatalism (but not one in which the inexorable future is determined by the gods or some other conscious, deliberate and/or purposeful entity).

As I have written elsewhere and herein before:

As I understand it, [] Determinism is a metaphysical paradigm that posits that all activity in the universe is both (i) the effect of [all] antecedent activity, and (ii) the only activity that can occur given the antecedent activity. That is what is meant by saying that everything is “determined” — it is the inexorable consequence of activity that preceded it. This determined (or predetermined) activity of the universe necessarily includes all human action, including all human cognition.

A great number of discussions of [] Determinism explicitly or implicitly assume that a combination of perfect information about the past and perfect information about the present instant would, necessarily, permit a perfect prediction of the future if the universe is truly and entirely deterministic. Personally, I reject that predictability is an aspect of [] Determinism. As I understand it, [] Determinism posits only that everything has a cause and cannot occur in any manner other than how it does occur — without regard to the ability to predict or replicate that activity. [] Determinism does not posit that the factors that have caused, are causing, or will cause any particular activity can be known or understood, or that any specific future activity can be predicted with any degree of certainty.

Let's use your raindrop example to show where fatalism comes into play. Let's assume that perfect knowledge and unlimited computational power would always permit a perfect prediction of precisely where and when a raindrop will fall -- and not simply a prediction that is probably correct. [Note: it may be that this assumption is factually flawed, but let's use it as a foundational premise of this thought experiment, because it is the foundational assumption of Determinism as explained by Popper and Laplace]. If we accept that assumption, it seems reasonable to similarly assume that we could predict the time and location of the raindrop's formation, the activity that gave rise to the raindrop's formation, and all other activity of the universe -- all in advance of any of it occurring. In theory, we also ought to be able to perfectly plot out a chain of events that precedes the rain drop hitting its mark well in advance of the occurrence of any of those events. In other words, if our predictive ability is sufficiently robust, and the universe operates as assumed, the raindrop would be destined to hit its mark well before it materialized and commenced its descent. In theory, one could go back to the beginning of time (if there is such a thing) and map out the future through its end or eternity. If one assumes that this mapping could theoretically occur, then the entire future, including the raindrop in question, could be said to be destined from the start.

One of the best, and most poetic, statements of this fatalistic nature of Determinism can be found in the Rubā‘iyyāt of Omar Khayyám (written in the 12th Century), which contain the following verse:

With Earth’s first Clay They did the Last Man knead,
And there of the Last Harvest sow'd the Seed:
And the first Morning of Creation wrote
What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read.

Now, I know that others on this board insist that there is a modal fallacy in my logic. They also reject my thinking as counterproductive, silly, and nonsensical. If the explanations they offer for these assertions was compelling, I would be the first to admit my error. I have, however, yet to read an explanation that is based on anything other than feelings, concerns, or an unfounded assertion that the math and science they claim to rely upon is necessarily representative of reality and trumps (no pun intended) any other cohesive paradigm.

Lastly, and as alluded to above, it may well be that this entire paradigm falls apart because the future is not inexorably locked into place in a fixed deterministic chain of events -- in which case perfect knowledge of the past or the present combined with unlimited computational power could not guarantee a perfect prediction of the future. The best that could ever be predicted would be a probable future, which has a remote chance of being wildly different than predicted. In that form of indeterministic universe, a lack of predictability would be the result of an actual lack of a perfect cause and effect nature of the universe, and not simply because of a lack of human ability to make accurate predictions.

I am sure others will now begin the merciless onslaught of the criticisms I already have acknowledged. Perhaps they will say something new and different that will cause me to change my view. More likely, however, they will, predictably, repeat themselves, as they have been doing for many years now.

 

[BSilvEsq]

When it is raining when a drop of rain hits a 1x1 inch area on the roof of your car can not be predicted.

That’s a slightly flawed premise. If there is no wind to speak of the position of drops prior to hitting the 1” square can be used predict that a particular drop will hit. The only question is how long before impact can it be predicted.
I’d posit that it crosses the boundary into unpredictability when the time between the prediction and its fulfillment is too short to communicate or act upon. So in a natural rainstorm it is as you describe, but “only” for all practical purposes, not for theoretical ones.

How would you know exac6ly when a raindrop forms, its exact position, and its exact size, and trajectory that lands it on a spot?

Causal but chaotic. Initial conditions cab not be quantified sufficient to make a deterministic

There is no way to predict exactly when a drop forms in the first place,

In a rain storm a spot on the ground has a probability of being hit at a given time. To us it looks random, we deal with it statistically.

Flip a coin. Can you predict when it is heads or tails better than an average of 50%?


My point was due to the limits of our perception and instrumentation a determi9nistic univrse can appear to have randomness to us.

An old question in QM, is quantum randomness a feature of nature or a measurement problem?

But for your last sentence, it seems to me that you are focused on the ability of humans to make predictions, and not upon the reality that is the object of the predictive effort.

A young child likely is unable to predict the lunar cycle, but that does not make the cycle chaotic or non-deterministic.

When humans are unable to predict something with certainty, it means either that the act is inherently unpredictable or that humans simply lack the ability to detect the nature of the operation that yields the result that is sought to be predicted.

I believe your last sentence captures the quandary. Personally, I see the putative randomness of quantum theory to be the result of hidden variables and, more importantly, inherent limitations of humanity, which include, but are not limited to, the fact that we exist within a system that cannot be fully observed from within the system and possibly the additional fact that our own efforts at observation may impact what is being observed. I suspect that the gods are laughing at quantum physicists who insist upon true random behavior in the universe while they enjoy a cup of tea with Einstein.

The difference between measuring and and testing, and subjective philosophical speculation and conclusions.

'I know it is not true because it is not me'. A subjective conclusion.

'I know god exists and has a plan for me'

I am sure believing in determinism can be a relief. It can mean you have no sensibility;ty?

I take Buddhism to be the opposite of determinism. You affect your future.

One goal of Buddhist practice is seeing trough the mental facade of thought forms and seeing reality as it is.

Ending the wandering through samsara and breakng the kamic thought cycles that entangle you.


It as been over 50 years since I went terrarium it so I'll use an AI summary.

In Buddhism, the "facade of reality" is the idea that what we perceive is an illusion, a temporary and constructed view of the world that is based on our perceptions and clinging to a fixed self
. This illusion is maintained by our own minds and the "three poisons" of delusion, greed, and hatred, but is ultimately based on the reality of impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Through spiritual cultivation and practice, one can see through this facade to achieve liberation from suffering.

Determinism and free will are human abstractions not reality.

Endless debate is being ensnared.

An old saying. Before enlightenment get up and go to work. After enlightenment get up and go to work.

So.

I believe in determinism, get up and go to work.

I believe in free will, get up and go to work.

I believe in Jesus, get up and go to work.

I agree with much of what you have written. I also understand the aspect of Buddhism that seems to suggest that we have Free Will and improve our future by exercising our Free Will in a beneficial manner. There are, however, Buddhist scholars who reject that notion and say that Buddhism is perfectly deterministic.

Here is my explanation of that conclusion:

I begin by saying that I have studied Buddhism from an academic standpoint, I have an affinity to the the teachings of Buddhism as I understand them, and I have a spiritual practice that incorporates aspects of Buddhism along with aspects of other philosophies and religions. I am not, however, a practicing Buddhist in a formal sense.

For whatever it may be worth, my personal view is that the core Buddhist teaching of Dependent Origination (also known as Dependent Arising) is logically indistinguishable from Hard Determinism. Notwithstanding the deterministic nature of Dependent Origination, however, the Buddhist concept of Karma (also known as Kamma) is aligned with Free Will — which is incompatible with Hard Determinism.

As explained below, I tend to believe that Siddhartha Gautama was a Hard Determinist and that all Buddhists who fully accept the Buddha’s teaching of Dependent Origination should be Hard Determinists. In fact, however, the vast majority of people with whom I have spoken and/or otherwise communicated and who claim to be Buddhists are quick to reject Determinism and to embrace Free Will. Indeed, many such people are dismissive of my view that Buddhism is a deterministic paradigm, and some such people exhibit animosity to the view that there is no Free Will. Based on everything I know of Buddhism, the Buddha was opposed to blind adherence to dogma and encouraged an open-minded assessment of everything (including his own teachings). I also understand that Buddhism teaches that a person should not be troubled by the beliefs of others. As such, I tend to question whether people who exhibit a knee-jerk aversion to equating Dependent Origination with Determinism are true Buddhists. Nonetheless, I readily appreciate the contrary arguments that have been advanced by Buddhists I have met who thoughtfully and compassionately consider the deterministic nature of Dependent Origination and are willing to acknowledge the possibility that Buddhism is deterministic, while preferring an alternative interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching that seemingly embraces the existence of Free Will.

Buddhism has diverse scripture, which is ever expanding and subject to diverse interpretation. Most Buddhist scripture I have read and/or read about places material significance upon purposeful acts of good will, which seem to be dependent upon people having Free Will (and are, in my opinion, incompatible with Determinism). Nonetheless, other Buddhist texts reflect a view of the universe that is entirely consistent with Determinism in its pure form. For a scholarly and detailed discussion of this subject, see Repetti, R. (2012). Buddhist Hard Determinism: No Self, No Free Will, No Responsibility. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 19 (April 19, 2012), 130-97.

As I understand it, Dependent Origination posits that all impermanent activity of the universe arises dependently from (i.e., “is caused by”) antecedent activity. Based on my understanding of Dependent Origination, all actions of an impermanent human being are dependent upon some or all antecedent and transient activity of the universe, and the belief by many people that they are in control of their actions is a delusion. As I see it, Dependent Origination presents a deterministic approach to the universe — and one with which I agree (or am caused to agree).

Note the similarity of Determinism to the Buddhist doctrine of "Dependent Origination" or "Dependent Arising." In Pali, which is the written language of Theravada Buddhist scripture, the doctrine of Dependent Origination / Arising is known as “Pattica-Samuppada” and/or “Pratītyasamutpāda.”

As explained by Thich Nhat Hahn, the doctrine is best described as "When this is, that is; This arising, that arises; When this is not, that is not; This ceasing, that ceases." Another Buddhist scholar, Peter Harvey, construes Pattica-Samuppada to teach: "That being, this comes to be; from the arising of that, this arises; that being absent, this is not; from the cessation of that, this ceases."

Pattica-Samuppada highlights the Buddhist notions that there is nothing that is permanent, nothing substantial, and no unique individual self in the nature of becoming and existence, because everything is an effect of a cause. Stated somewhat differently, there are no independent objects and/or independent subjects – only a fundamental emptiness in all phenomena and experiences.

Pattica-Samuppada is the root of the Buddhist notions of (i) anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit), which is commonly translated as No-Self, Not-Self, or Non-Self, and (ii) Suññatā (Pali) or Śūnyatā (Sanskrit), which is commonly translated as Emptiness or Nothingness. These notions are poetically addressed in the Heart Sutra, which includes the following prose:

So, in emptiness, there is no body, no feeling, no thought, no will, no consciousness.
There are no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing, no smelling, no tasting, no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard, nor smelled, nor tasted, nor touched, nor imagined.

Less poetically, Peter Harvey explains: "We live under the illusion that terms such as 'I', self, mountain, tree, etc. denote permanent and stable things. The doctrine teaches this is not so." Harvey also teaches that there is no "first cause" and that Nibbāna (Pali) or Nirvana (Sanskrit) is infinite and timeless. As Harvey sees it, Pattica-Samuppada is an ontological principle that asserts that Nibbbana is all-encompassing and that nothing whatsoever is independent.

Consistent with the Harvey, Deepak Chopra has written the following:

Your real self is not a person. There is no such thing as a separate self. A person does not really exist. What we call a person is a transient behaviour of the total universe. When you get to the consciousness that is behind your thoughts, you are in touch with the same consciousness that is behind all intelligent activity in the whole universe. Enlightenment is where the individual transcends to the level of existence where the personal self becomes the universal self.

P
ersonally, I very much appreciate and agree that acceptance of No-Self and Emptiness is the end of suffering – even if the acceptance, itself, is an illusion, as there can be no real vision within the blessing and curse of the illusion / delusion of human consciousness.

According to Buddhist scripture: “He who sees the Paṭiccasamuppāda sees the Dhamma; He who sees the Dhamma sees the Paṭiccasamuppāda.”

The concept of Karma, on the other hand, “rewards” (and I use that term loosely) meritorious actions and discourages non-meritorious actions. As I understand it, the concept of Karma implies a modicum of Free Will — without which no person can intentionally, purposefully, and volitionally attempt to act, much less succeed in acting, in a manner that accumulates merit. Yet, if Dependent Origination is true (which I believe to be the case), then people can act only as they are caused to act and they have no control (which is a delusion) over their actions. To me, this is a conflict.

In a sense, Buddhism appears to walk a Compatibilist line, which seeks to harmonize Determinism and a form of Fee Will. Personally, however, I view Compatibilism to be an illogical philosophical construct that seeks to harmonize two logically incompatible concepts. Accordingly, if I am correct in understanding that Dependent Origination is akin to Determinism and that Karma depends upon some form of Free Will, I am troubled by the potential internal inconsistency of these two concepts.

Additionally, I am caused to wonder why a religion or philosophy that is built upon relieving pain and suffering would instruct that a person’s activities have positive or negative consequences, when those activities ultimately are involuntary. Personally, I get tremendous comfort from understanding that everything (including impermanent human activity) “Is What It Is,” and that the universe lacks judgment about involuntary, impermanent and transitory activity.

I reconcile the seemingly internal inconsistency between Dependent Origination and Karma by viewing the Buddha to have been a Hard Determinist who understood (or, more accurately, was caused or determined to seem to understand) that it is within the fate or destiny of most humans to fail to comprehend or understand the deterministic nature of the universe, and to seem to suffer from the illusion / delusion of control. As I see it, the Buddha also was caused to understand that is within the fate or destiny or most humans to seemingly benefit from understanding the karma-centric manner of thinking — even though that way of thinking was, itself, an illusion (albeit a seemingly beneficial illusion).

I believe that the Buddha saw complete surrender to Dependent Origination / Arising as providing the ultimate relief from the delusion of independence or separation from nature. But, complete surrender comes only to those who are fated or destined to enjoy such a state of understanding (people the Buddha referred to as awakened or enlightened). Short of complete surrender to Dependent Origination, the Buddha’s skillful teaching of karma (i.e., upaya) was the next best thing.

Stated somewhat differently, the concept of karma is a skillful tool to calm the mind to prepare it for full acceptance of the emptiness and fully dependent nature of ultimate reality. In the end, if we are blessed with seeming understanding, we get to enjoy the ride and the beautiful scenery, recognizing that we are not really driving the car, and the car, road and scenery do not exist outside the cosmic consciousness of which we are an indivisible part.

Perhaps, the way to reconcile Dependent Origination and Karma is to view Karma to accumulate simply by blowing with the wind.

 

[Elixir]

Karl Popper, who is one of the father's of the philosophy of science explained Determinism as follows:

Yeah, to me it just say there’s either more than one future or there’s not. Either way, I only expect to be a tiny blip in one future. If the multiverse fantasy is correct, maybe there will be an infinite number of “me” and some will survive indefinitely. But I’m not going to experience an infinite number of me, so who cares? (Not me )

My dad died in 1959 at age 63.
I don’t remember a whole lot of little things about him, but I remember him saying more than once “maybe San Francisco Bay is made out of grape juice”.

 

[steve_bank]

Bsilvesq

Buddhist scholars? Buddhism like Christianity has thousands of years of interpretation and invention all based on what is taken to be scant teachings of an alleged Buddha.

There are major divisions in Buddhism. Like Christians you can freely interpret. Your determinism illusion is no different than a Jesus illusion.

Id you go by the Eightfold Path Buddhism like Christianity represents a conservative morality and lifestyle. No fornication, no intoxicants IOW self moderation.

I ask Christians who quote the bible if they live like a Jew and do what Jesus says. I ask those who identify as Buddhist do you live by the original core principles?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah, to me it just say there’s either more than one future or there’s not

Einstein demonstrated that there are an infinite number, he just didn't realize that's what he did.

No matter where you go, you see a different future relative to any of the others.

Which has been one of my points through this that keeps getting forgotten or ignored.

Even if you were somehow to look at the universe, figure out a dimension of variance from each point, and arrange these as if cards in a deck, there is still not more than one of them at any place in that deck, no matter how you shuffle them.

If you add some way these groups vary, all you do is add more decks, not in the same place but next to each other, still, now grouped as an array with one more dimension to it.

Always when you add another future, you have to extend the dimensions of the space you add them to to fit it.

This also works going the other way, though, I sofar as we can already see in our 3space the unfolding of multiple distinct futures that all become distinct parts of the past of some later time, as they join into a larger, taller cone.

This is why I being up the point that you see a different past having happened to your left as what happened to your right, especially in the time before the peak to your left and the peak to your right found common connection in the peak built across their points.

The universe already contains infinite variation of it is infinitely wide, and any finite patch of future inside it very well could be repeated an infinite number of times in different surrounding contexts.

There already are infinite futures, they just happen to be arranged orthogonally to one another in space, and are locally influential to one another.

 

[steve_bank]

What relativity and observation shows is there is no absolute inertial frame form which to make absolute observations and measurements.

You do nit see the future for any inertial frame. You can not see things that have not occurred.

When you see an event depends on distance and C.

 

[pood]

You cannot see things that have not yet occurred in your reference frame, but what lies in your present will lie in someone else’s future, implying and perhaps entailing the block universe.

The spacetime interval is invariant for all observers, and is not possible under presentism,

 

[Jarhyn]

What relativity and observation shows is there is no absolute inertial frame form which to make absolute observations and measurements.

Which is my point from my previous post: none of these points of the future digging forward in their own relative separation from each other is preferred as the absolute observation of the future.

No peak of any light cone is THE future, just as no place in space and time is THE past... It's A future, and A past, each related in some way to pasts that fall under the cone under that peak, but none are THE past, and all are orthogonal and spatially and temporally distinct as they happen.

An infinitude of parallel and even entirely disconnected patches of present exist in the universe, so saying which is THE present is kind of already a mistake.

If we wanted to add another set of these presents, even presents calculated based on the access of another present, they would never happen at the same place... At best you would have a new deck of events adjacent to the old one. That's not at the same place and time either.

The conclusion is that the very thought process that leads to seeking a contradictory thing as a proposed creator of some value is itself also contradictory to some metaphysical truth.

I have explained the error as a modal fallacy, a common sort of syntax error that is easy to miss because of the way English works.

 

[Elixir]

seems to me that you are focused on the ability of humans to make predictions, and not upon the reality that is the object of the predictive effort.

That keeps happening. All you need to know is that Steve is an engineer.
Problems like this predictability quandary are approached as engineering problems; analyses of our ability to predict, not as examinations of the phenomenon in question.