“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

To summarize, what you seem to be saying is that we need a new definition of determinism, not the definition that is traditionally used, which is that a combination of past events combined with the laws of physics cause events to happen without deviation, including human actions. This is the hard determinist position that DBT espouses, that human will is not free because what we do now, is determined by the past. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we lack free not because of that kind of determinism, but because of a different kind, which is our inner nature which compels us to move in the direction of what we believe to be greater satisfaction, whether it is or not. Is that correct?

You just quoted me without responding.

 

[peacegirl]

To summarize, what you seem to be saying is that we need a new definition of determinism, not the definition that is traditionally used, which is that a combination of past events combined with the laws of physics cause events to happen without deviation, including human actions. This is the hard determinist position that DBT espouses, that human will is not free because what we do now, is determined by the past. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we lack free not because of that kind of determinism, but because of a different kind, which is our inner nature which compels us to move in the direction of what we believe to be greater satisfaction, whether it is or not. Is that correct?

What we do is determined by antecedent events, as well as our heredity and our immediate environment, but we are not caused by these things as if to say we are not agents of our own choices. The problem is with the words "past" and "cause" because the past is gone so it cannot cause the present. IOW, we cannot say according to how determinism is presently defined; the past caused me to shoot that person. I had no choice in the matter. Of course you had a choice. What would be the point of contemplation, which is a human attribute, if we couldn't compare alternatives to decide which choice is preferable based on our particular circumstances and the situation before us? As was explained, our memory of past experiences, our personalities, our beliefs, our genetics, our knowledge base, all factor into the decisions that we find most preferable from moment to moment, but this is all occurring in the present. This will become important as we proceed. I know that my explanation is spotty at best, so I am going to give you another long excerpt that may clarify things a bit better. I really hope you take this in because it's an important chapter and leads up to Chapter Two, which is where you will find his discovery.

The government holds each person responsible for obeying the laws and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all responsibility. But how is it possible for someone to obey that which, under certain conditions, appears to him worse? It is quite obvious that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic bomb among their people; we wanted to. It is an undeniable observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures, even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT TO DO — but that does not make his will free.

In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,” which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will, he admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself because absolutely nothing is forcing him, against his will, to do what he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has mathematical control.

“It’s amazing, all my life I have believed man’s will is free, but for the first time I can actually see that his will is not free.”

Another friend commented, “You may be satisfied but I’m not. The definition of determinism is the philosophical and ethical doctrine that man’s choices, decisions, and actions are decided by antecedent causes, inherited or environmental, acting upon his character. According to this definition, we are not given a choice because we are being caused to do what we do by a previous event or circumstance. But I know for a fact that nothing can make me do what I make up my mind not to do, as you just mentioned a moment ago. If I don’t want to do something, nothing, not environment, heredity, or anything else you care to throw in, can make me do it because over this I have absolute control. Since I can’t be made to do anything against my will, doesn’t this make my will free? And isn’t it a contradiction to say that man’s will is not free, yet nothing can make him do what he doesn’t want to do?”

“How about that, he brought out something I never would have thought of.”

All he said was that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, which is undeniable; however, though it is a mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point — he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true that man has to make choices, he must always prefer that which he considers good, not evil, for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or fallacious relation because, in order to be developed and have meaning, it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not describe reality unless interpreted properly. Nothing causes man to build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man, who is always developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate, and during every moment of his progress, was doing what he had to do because he had no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two; it is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two opposing principles have never been reconciled until now. The amazing thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, and the millions that criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system; but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.

“Can you clarify this a little bit more?”

“Certainly. In other words, no one is compelling a person to work at a job he doesn’t like or remain in a country against his will. He actually wants to do the very things he dislikes simply because the alternative is considered worse, and he must choose something to do among the various things in his environment or else commit suicide. Was it humanly possible to make Gandhi and his followers do what they did not want to do when unafraid of death, which was judged, according to their circumstances, the lesser of two evils? Therefore, when any person says he was compelled to do what he did against his will, that he didn’t want to but had to — and innumerable of our expressions say this — he is obviously confused and unconsciously dishonest with himself and others because everything man does to another is done only because he wants to do it, done to be humorous, of his own free will, which only means that his preference gave him greater satisfaction at that moment of time, for one reason or another; but remember, this desire of one thing over another is a compulsion beyond control for which he cannot be blamed. All I am doing is clarifying your terms so that you are not confused, but make sure you understand this mathematical difference before proceeding further.”

“His reasoning is perfect. I can’t find a flaw, although I thought I did. I think I understand now. Just because I cannot be made to do something against my will does not mean my will is free because my desire not to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction. Nor does the expression, ‘I did it of my own free will, nobody made me do it,’ mean that I actually did it of my own free will — although I did it because I wanted to — because my desire to do it appeared the better reason, which gave me no free choice since I got greater satisfaction.”

“He does understand.”

“Does this mean you are also in complete agreement, so I can proceed?”

“Yes, it does.”

 

[steve_bank]

Free will is the ability to choose A or B without compulsion or necessity: free of influencing factors. Determinism is the opposite. It is choosing A because B is impossible or choosing B because A is impossible under one’s particular circumstances. I know this is simplified but I wanted to offer you a quick response.

I would add to free will making a choice without any bias from life experience going back to birth.

If you say free will in common talk I expect it is taken to mean you can choose between a Toyota and Ford without anyone looking over your shoulder, No one is going to force you to buy red shoes instead of black.

Determinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.[1] Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. Like eternalism, determinism focuses on particular events rather than the future as a concept. The opposite of determinism is indeterminism, or the view that events are not deterministically caused but rather occur due to chance. Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible.[2][3]

The problem with philosophy is there can be no hard and fast singular definition of terms, so arguments are made in context of a particular definition.

The question of determinism versus the justice system has been covered in crime dramas. If all things are predetermined behavior then the justice system falls apart. No one is responsible for actions.

I see some of that here in Seattle. Our progressive politicians tend to decriminalize as much as they can. No one is really responsible.

If you want to prove it one way or the other then come up with an experiment that demonstrates free will versus determinism, I do not think it is possible.

he way I look at it is from physics.Our thoughts are based in atomic interactions in cells. At the quantum level so far there is randomness at the lowest level. Given the exact same set of circumstances will someone always make the same choice?

 

[pood]

Free will is the ability to choose A or B without compulsion or necessity: free of influencing factors. Determinism is the opposite. It is choosing A because B is impossible or choosing B because A is impossible under one’s particular circumstances. I know this is simplified but I wanted to offer you a quick response.

Given the exact same set of circumstances will someone always make the same choice?

Of course, but that is an experiment that can never be run. Compatibilists have had this discussion with DBT (hard determinist). The standard compatibilist position is that given the same set of circumstances, a person would make the same choice, freely, if under no compulsion to do otherwise. The hard determinist position is the person would make the same choice because he HAS to — it is necessary. I’ve tried to point out repeatedly that you can’t derive a claim of necessary truth from a contingent proposition.

As to the bit peacegirl posted to which you responded, that sounds very much like compatibilism, and the determinism she posits as its opposite sounds like HARD determinism, not standard determinism. I’ve a feeling, however, that she is going to tell me I’m wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

Without an objective experiment it is all subjective positions.

I have not read the link, but the logical conclusion of determinism is no one has a choice in behavior.

Trump is as he is destined to be. A corrupt amoral liar.

It is not enough to argue a position, what are the consequences of a position.

We are all subject to subconscious conditioning from or earliest experiences. We are neck deep in propaganda like marketing. Mid control.

Do you pick Coke or Pepsi based on an isolated free choice, or is the choice the result of advertising and marketing.

Impossible to sort it all out.

 

[pood]

Without an objective experiment it is all subjective positions.

I have not read the link, but the logical conclusion of determinism is no one has a choice in behavior.

Trump is as he is destined to be. A corrupt amoral liar.

It is not enough to argue a position, what are the consequences of a position.

We are all subject to subconscious conditioning from or earliest experiences. We are neck deep in propaganda like marketing. Mid control.

Do you pick Coke or Pepsi based on an isolated free choice, or is the choice the result of advertising and marketing.

Impossible to sort it all out.

Yes, it’s all philosophy, but that’s OK, because philosophy informs science and vice versa.

The logical conclusion of HARD determinism is that no one has a choice. Compatibilism is also known as soft determinism.

In these varied discussions I’ve simply tried to point out that even if one always chooses Coke over Pepsi under identical circumstances, it doesn’t logically follow that this person HAD TO do that. Choosing Coke is a contingent truth, meaning, as a matter of logic, that it could have been otherwise. Necessary truths are things like, “all bachelors are unmarried” and “all triangles have three sides.” Such truths could not be otherwise.

 

[peacegirl]

Free will is the ability to choose A or B without compulsion or necessity: free of influencing factors. Determinism is the opposite. It is choosing A because B is impossible or choosing B because A is impossible under one’s particular circumstances. I know this is simplified but I wanted to offer you a quick response.

I would add to free will making a choice without any bias from life experience going back to birth.

If you say free will in common talk I expect it is taken to mean you can choose between a Toyota and Ford without anyone looking over your shoulder, No one is going to force you to buy red shoes instead of black.

Determinism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable.[1] Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. Like eternalism, determinism focuses on particular events rather than the future as a concept. The opposite of determinism is indeterminism, or the view that events are not deterministically caused but rather occur due to chance. Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible.[2][3]

The problem with philosophy is there can be no hard and fast singular definition of terms, so arguments are made in context of a particular definition.

Thats not altogether true.

The question of determinism versus the justice system has been covered in crime dramas. If all things are predetermined behavior then the justice system falls apart. No one is responsible for actions.

If Will is not free, it is true that no one is responsible for his actions, but that does not mean we stop holding people responsible as a result. There is more to it.

I see some of that here in Seattle. Our progressive politicians tend to decriminalize as much as they can. No one is really responsible.

If you want to prove it one way or the other then come up with an experiment that demonstrates free will versus determinism, I do not think it is possible.

Thats not necessarily true either. Any equation has to be proved true first, before it can be applied in real life.

The way I look at it is from physics.Our thoughts are based in atomic interactions in cells. At the quantum level so far there is randomness at the lowest level. Given the exact same set of circumstances will someone always make the same choice?

If we were to go back in time, our choices up until the present would have been exactly the same.

 

[Elixir]

Free will is the ability to choose A or B without compulsion or necessity: free of influencing factors.

DNE
All things in this universe interact, so … this mythical ability cannot exist.

What we do is determined by antecedent events, as well as our heredity and our immediate environment, but we are not caused by these things as if to say we are not agents of our own choices.

”we” meaning “what we believe to be our self, discrete from the rest of the universe”?
That’s obviously an illusion.

I believe the question that is raised is “why should the sense of self necessarily entail an actual self that is not part of the causal chains to which all else is apparently subject?”

 

[steve_bank]

I don't see anything revolutionary.

I see a replay of the many lengthy threads going back years on free will versus determinism.

I should have learned to avoid these kinds of threads by now, but I guess I am predestined to post in meaningless debates.

 

[peacegirl]

Free will is the ability to choose A or B without compulsion or necessity: free of influencing factors.

DNE
All things in this universe interact, so … this mythical ability cannot exist.

What we do is determined by antecedent events, as well as our heredity and our immediate environment, but we are not caused by these things as if to say we are not agents of our own choices.

”we” meaning “what we believe to be our self, discrete from the rest of the universe”?
That’s obviously an illusion.

We are definitely part of the universe and are connected in that way, but if we shoot someone we cannot use the excuse that we didn’t do it because we have no self.

I believe the question that is raised is “why should the sense of self necessarily entail an actual self that is not part of the causal chains to which all else is apparently subject?”

Just because we aren’t forced by the past (for the reasons given) to do anything we don’t consent to does not mean we are not part of the causal chain of life.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't see anything revolutionary.

I see a replay of the many lengthy threads going back years on free will versus determinism.

I should have learned to avoid these kinds of threads by now, but I guess I am predestined to post in meaningless debates.

How can you see anything revolutionary if you don’t know what the discovery is and how it extends. This is not a meaningless debate. But if it rubs you the wrong way, by all means go to another thread. There are plenty to choose from.

 

[Elixir]

if we shoot someone we cannot use the excuse that we didn’t do it because we have no self.

Very true. Legal systems assume free will. The “”X” made me do it” excuse needs to be very well evidenced and best if it is physical compulsion.

Just because we aren’t forced by the past (for the reasons given) to do anything we don’t consent to does not mean we are not part of the causal chain of life.

If your consent is not isolated from causal chains not in “your” control, they too are not free from influence (your stipulation).
I’m not arguing against the utility of the concept of free will, just its existence as you defined it.

 

[Elixir]

I don't see anything revolutionary.

I see a replay of the many lengthy threads going back years on free will versus determinism.

I should have learned to avoid these kinds of threads by now, but I guess I am predestined to post in meaningless debates.

How can you see anything revolutionary if you don’t know what the discovery is and how it extends. This is not a meaningless debate. But if it rubs you the wrong way, by all means go to another thread. There are plenty to choose from.

lol! Don’t mind Steve. He’s our resident curmudgeon. But he’s right; he should have learned …

 

[bilby]

if we shoot someone we cannot use the excuse that we didn’t do it because we have no self.

Sure we can, but if we are right, then we must accept that the judge has no choice but to reject our claim, because he has no self either. It's not his fault that he won't believe that it's not our fault.

Hard determinism debayes always founder on this; If hard determinism is true it makes no difference to anything.

A completely deterministic universe looks exactly the same as one in which we have freedom of action, for the simple reason that we only get one go around on each action.

How do you tell whether a choice is, or is not, forced when you can only ever have a sample size of one?

 

[steve_bank]

I don't see anything revolutionary.

I see a replay of the many lengthy threads going back years on free will versus determinism.

I should have learned to avoid these kinds of threads by now, but I guess I am predestined to post in meaningless debates.

I don't see anything revolutionary.

I see a replay of the many lengthy threads going back years on free will versus determinism.

I should have learned to avoid these kinds of threads by now, but I guess I am predestined to post in meaningless debates.

How can you see anything revolutionary if you don’t know what the discovery is and how it extends. This is not a meaningless debate. But if it rubs you the wrong way, by all means go to another thread. There are plenty to choose from.

From long experience on the forum looking at revolutionary videos and links.

No Robots quotes his dead revolutionary guru saying the world is becoming Jewish.

Free will and determinism are one of those perennial philosophical debates picked up by each generation going far back in history. The ancient Egyptians had a kind of board game loosely translated as 'fate'.

Pragmatically in living we make decisions ad choices every day. I'd say all of it is predicated on prior experience and knowledge. What we are born into and how we grow up are randomized. we have no control over it and it affects how we think and choose.

The idea that mind is an independent reality in isolation is old pre 20th century metaphysics. We are all immersed in a culture continuum, it is inescapable. We are constantly subject to influences. No all of it at the conscious level.

Non of it is deterministic meaning predicable. Behavior of large grounps are predictable statically, but not individuals.

 

[DBT]

To summarize, what you seem to be saying is that we need a new definition of determinism, not the definition that is traditionally used, which is that a combination of past events combined with the laws of physics cause events to happen without deviation, including human actions. This is the hard determinist position that DBT espouses, that human will is not free because what we do now, is determined by the past. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we lack free not because of that kind of determinism, but because of a different kind, which is our inner nature which compels us to move in the direction of what we believe to be greater satisfaction, whether it is or not. Is that correct?

It's not that I 'espouse,' but that by definition a deterministic system evolves without the possibility of alternate actions.

Otherwise, if things can happen that are not determined by state of the system, these events are not determined, and it is not a deterministic system.

It can't be both ways, determined and not determined.

 

[DBT]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.
.

If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.

If determinism is true, how else could it be?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

If past states of the system determine the present state of the system, the present state of the system is set by its past events. That, by definition and action, is how determinism works.

If the present state of the system is not related or determined by past states of the system, you may call it probabilistic or random, but determinism it is not.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

 

[peacegirl]

if we shoot someone we cannot use the excuse that we didn’t do it because we have no self.

Very true. Legal systems assume free will. The “”X” made me do it” excuse needs to be very well evidenced and best if it is physical compulsion.

Just because we aren’t forced by the past (for the reasons given) to do anything we don’t consent to does not mean we are not part of the causal chain of life.

If your consent is not isolated from causal chains not in “your” control, they too are not free from influence (your stipulation).

That is true. There are many influences that determine our choices in the direction of greater satisfaction. This is an invariable law.

I’m not arguing against the utility of the concept of free will, just its existence as you defined it.

The concept has great utility as you will see.

 

[peacegirl]

I don't see anything revolutionary.

I see a replay of the many lengthy threads going back years on free will versus determinism.

I should have learned to avoid these kinds of threads by now, but I guess I am predestined to post in meaningless debates.

I don't see anything revolutionary.

I see a replay of the many lengthy threads going back years on free will versus determinism.

I should have learned to avoid these kinds of threads by now, but I guess I am predestined to post in meaningless debates.

How can you see anything revolutionary if you don’t know what the discovery is and how it extends. This is not a meaningless debate. But if it rubs you the wrong way, by all means go to another thread. There are plenty to choose from.

From long experience on the forum looking at revolutionary videos and links.

No Robots quotes his dead revolutionary guru saying the world is becoming Jewish.

Free will and determinism are one of those perennial philosophical debates picked up by each generation going far back in history. The ancient Egyptians had a kind of board game loosely translated as 'fate'.

Pragmatically in living we make decisions ad choices every day. I'd say all of it is predicated on prior experience and knowledge. What we are born into and how we grow up are randomized. we have no control over it and it affects how we think and choose.

The idea that mind is an independent reality in isolation is old pre 20th century metaphysics. We are all immersed in a culture continuum, it is inescapable. We are constantly subject to influences. No all of it at the conscious level.

Non of it is deterministic meaning predicable. Behavior of large grounps are predictable statically, but not individuals.

I agree with you. I also agree that it’s hard to predict individual behavior, but that’s not a requirement.