Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Determinism

[Title Modified, as the original one probably sent the message that I believe the issue to be solved, which is not the case.]

I used to think that the concept of determinism, essentially the refutation to free will was too abstract and "technical" to be worth talking about -- even if it was true, who cares, right? Why get so confusing?

But I think there are simpler ways to look at this. Is killing yourself easy? Maybe -- after all, all you really need is a ridiculous overdose of some dangerous drug for example. Just swallow lots of pills. Swallowing is easy. But when you put that stuff in front of you, is it really easy? Just the thought of it would make it hard for me to make the movement with my petrified arm and put even one of those things in my mouth -- to destroy your body so voluntarily? It would probably be one of the hardest things for us to do, and when you look at it this way, it's very easy to understand how this demonstrates determinism -- a physically simple thing became nearly impossible purely because of our psychology.

But what about the people who do commit suicide? First of all, very few people commit it before giving off signs, almost signaling people to support them if they're going through a miserable chapter. You really have to truly give up. Anyway, one could argue the people who actually do it "beat the system," actually did what I said was nearly impossible -- but that was from my perspective.

If anything, this actually supports determinism: their mindset was characterized in that they had no other way out of their wretched life; at one point, what is nearly impossible for most of us became very easy once more; it was now the "obvious" decision.

Everything we do is doomed to our biology; our decisions are determined by, among other things, a combination of our personality, outside influences, and the level of ability to react appropriately to things that may contradict our personal desires (i.e., ethics; maturity). That is not the equivalent of predictable. However, sometimes predicting can indeed be easy or at least possible if you understand someone's psychological state: in the above example you would guess the person who committed suicide was probably not too happy; you would not predict someone who was genuinely smiling all the time to ever make such a decision.

For the person committing suicide, the decision depended on this question: "Is this really all I can do? And if so, would it be right to leave my family like this, or would it cause them too much pain?" In other words, you had to factor in his desires combined with morals (not leaving everyone forever); whichever feeling was more powerful would ultimately be the one to take over the decision.

We can flip this around and say that hard things can become easier depending on circumstance. For example, if your house is burning, you get out, and find out that someone is still inside, for some it may be, almost easy (as scary as it may be), to run into a burning building if it has purpose -- saving someone you love -- as opposed to say running in there to the second floor because you think you forgot a couple 10 dollar bills; for some, it's the only decision. It depends on whether or not the danger involved, factored with your judgment on the chances of success, overrides the desire to save a family member.

Really, our decisions are made easy or difficult on what seems to be just an extremely complicated equation! Sometimes it's predictable if you know the person, other times it's mysterious, but whatever it concludes is, easily or not, attributable to the brain's assessment of these factors, among dozens of others; in a sense, we aren't really choosing anything but merely observing these things play out in our head.

Comments


  • 7 weeks ago

    Monster_with_no_Name

    Do we have free will? 1st of all how much "free will" did you have in being born? Exactly.

    No one is saying we have 0 "free will"
    This discussion by its nature is always absolutely about *degrees* of "free will" and what "free will" means exactly (definition).

    We are not some magic spirit in a vacuum.. we are very *constrained* animals by:
    *very limited bodies (2 arms, 2 legs, need food/water, sleep, sex, etc)
    *with limited energy
    *and a brain and senses that has been *shaped* by evolution
    *feel pain/pleasure (getting punched in the head vs delicious food) predetermined by evolution (0 freedom)
    *primitive instincts + all the associations made in your upbringing + genes inherited from parents
    *a small environment/things/people around us
    *all we know and *can* know is only thru our 5 senses, brain

    All these very specific concrete *constraints* limit freedom.

    Anyway.. the best way to deal with all these kinds of "invisible castles in the air" type of philosophies is practical examples.
    Can I choose not to feel sexually attracted to a hot woman?
    Can I choose not to salivate when I see a delicious meal and I havent eaten in 2 days?
    If you ask yourself all these really simple concrete questions you will soon realise what you thought was a big free will has been chopped down to what it is: tiny.

    Picking countries "at random", choosing whether to watch a tv show or change channel...
    If you really analyzed in minute detail whats going on (not just in your consciousness) but also in the brain you will find again, you have less "freedom" in your choice than you thought.

  • 7 weeks ago

    Semasio

    Free will is a fact of human life. Although biological determinism makes sense, and today most scientists subscribe to reductive materialism, there is no scientific data that refutes free will, nor is there any consensus ruling it out in philosophy. The simple fact is that while there are certain mental kinds of information that seem to "come into consciousness" without our ability to "choose which do first" (vs. second or third or fourth), we are free to reject them and keep searching for a fifth, and sixth and so forth. If I ask you to pick a country, if to exemplify, it is true that your mind will come up with a country and that the country that "comes up" does so from apparent oblivion.


    If you were to pick a country in such a thought experiment and China of all countries arose in your mind first, such wouldn't mean you were bound by your consciousness to choose China. And, while there would perhaps be a reason for not choosing it, for example to show that free will exists or simply on account of some other factor, the simple reality would be that you were not obliged to choose any first or second or third country but could scroll through a list of countries that popped in to your mind and eventually decide on one.

    However, at the same time, think about the fact that the mind is not flooded with all sorts of information when we don't want it to be. We can of course distinguish between being on “idle," in which case we go from thought to thought apparently aimlessly - perhaps on a bus ride to work - and being flooded with random information all the time without any conscious control, (e.g. visual information, mnemonic information, auditory information, linguistic information, emotional information, kinisic information, etc); without any ability to block out the information and to ignore it. I.e., right now, you are exerting energy enough that you are able to understand each of these words and indeed the many sequences of words that compose this very paragraph. Simultaneously, however, you are "blocking out" or, "ignoring" the rest of the infinite kinds of information at your conscious disposal. The colors that make up this page, any one point on the screen vs. any other, the many noises around, perhaps the smells or temporal realities, etc. The fact that you are able to choose what information you would like process is a statement of free will. Indeed, the very fact that often our thoughts carry on without any overall "connection" shows that we are very much open to willing them into our minds.

    Also, asserting that factors will always determine the choices we make assumes first that other factors are always mentally present prior to any choice; and further, that their presence always has more effect for us than the choices they "lead up to." However, there are numerous circumstances in which we find ourselves when there are only a few basic factors involved, dare I say none at all, and in which those factors don't outweigh the subordinate choice according to our ability to judge.

    For example, if I don't like what is on t.v. but am at the same time too tired to raise my arm so as to grab the remote and push the button, said factors can easily be equal enough (to my mind) that I decide not to exert any energy and at the same time accept not being totally satisfied with what is on t.v. If my mind perceives that there are both pros and cons to both choices, which often times there are if one considers carefully, inaction is also a possible choice.

    In other words, yes the mind considers choices and yes the mind decides, even if the decision is to not act. However, acting either way or not acting is the  part where free will comes in. The difference is that the factors that lead up to the decision are in some way connected to the decision itself. However, asserting that they determine the decision is the assumption that seems unsupported by evidence. For example, my hunger informs me that an action or some series of actions is required of me if I am to satisfy my hunger. But the ultimate decision [to] act lies within me. 

    Also, free will needn't indicate dualism or something as extreme as idealism, nor does it evince supernature or even a mind, necessarily.

  • 5 months ago

    Elubas

    And yes, you can't really be free from yourself, which is sort of my point. That's why our word "free" may not mean what we think it means. Technically, if we are just carrying out functions determined by physical laws, the free term may not be relevant. In the practical sense though it certainly seems like we are free, and of course, I'm not claiming to know the answer here.

  • 7 months ago

    Elubas

    In fact, it's a lot easier to want to want something than it is to want something Smile. I would probably be better off if there were 10 different things I wanted to do rather than having 3 things I wanted to do, as in the former case I would have more to look forward to. Thus it is not that difficult for anyone to want to want. But to just plain want -- that may depend on things like their interests and personality, that can hardly be controlled.

    Although it's true that an annoying philosopher could, if he wanted, make an infinite regress of the matter -- e.g., to want to want to want, etc, it would be pointless, at least, compared to wanting to want. Here's why:

    As I have said it's pretty easy to want to want to do something. If we add one more "want," it's saying I want to do... the thing that what was mentioned in the first paragraph. In other words, you're saying "I wish I could want to want to do this," the wish being used to make it easier to read. There wouldn't be many cases where I would want to want to want something, because if I already want to want something, then I would just be wanting something I am already doing Smile(that thing I would already be doing is, to clarify, wanting to want something)

    To put it another way: If you want to want to want to do something, chances are you already want to want to do something, because all wanting to want requires is the logic that wanting to do a lot of things is probably beneficial. The same can be said for wanting to want to want to want something: if this is true, then you probably also want to want to want something, and thus also want to want something. However: if you want to want to do something, that doesn't necessarily mean you will want to do it.

    So indeed, I do think wanting to want has significance, but that doesn't mean I feel there is any point of adding wants in an infinite stream.

    Of course, this philosophical stuff is trivial to many, and I don't discuss this because it solves practical problems; I mainly discuss it because it makes my head spin Smile. If you don't want to think about that kind of stuff that is totally up to you, but I should be able to make my head spin if I want to Smile. Believe it or not, I actually find this fun!

  • 7 months ago

    Elubas

    No, no, your concerns are perfectly valid. Nonetheless, keep in mind that I'm not hurting anyone by pseudo-philosophizing Smile.

    As for what it means to want to want: Well, what you want is determined by your nature -- there are going to be certain things that you wish you would enjoy, but simply won't -- wanting to want is wishing your nature enjoyed something different, essentially. For example, it may be inevitable that you don't enjoy the taste of lemons. A reason why I would want lemons to be satisfying to me is because then I would have a broader range of things that I enjoy, ultimately improving my life. As said though, I don't necessarily have control over whether I enjoy the taste of something or not.

    That's all it is Smile

  • 9 months ago

    Monster_with_no_Name

    I hate this kind of "pseudo-philosophising"

    The definition that I tend to use (perhaps just because of personal taste), is to not only be free from others, but to also be free from yourself! A person may be able to do what he wants, but can he want what he wants?

    Its nonsensical, meaningless and doesnt have any basis in any reality we know. How can you be free from yourself? What on earth does that mean?

    All we know and *can* know is only thru our senses, brain, and human experience. If you are free from that , your not human and the question doesnt make sense anyway.

    If I want ice cream, I want ice cream...
    To ask if I want what I want is just trying to confuse things... yes I want it! What does it mean do "I want to want it" ??? This is nonsensical.

    You could go on and on btw... do you want to want to want to want ice cream?

    Nietzsche had it right... philosophy should be practical and solve practical real world problems. Not this kind of metaphysical idling.

  • 9 months ago

    Elubas

    I think there are two plausible definitions of "free," the use of such are divided among people:

    Free meaning that if you "make a decision" or, the pessimistic version of that, "end up doing something," the other people around you will not interrupt you with that. For instance, my decision to eat ice cream if I am alone is free from everyone around me -- if I do it, I won't hear objections from any people.

    The definition that I tend to use (perhaps just because of personal taste), is to not only be free from others, but to also be free from yourself! A person may be able to do what he wants, but can he want what he wants? I have wanted to want to do something before (if I enjoyed playing football for instance, that would be nice, since it would be another thing for me to do; unfortunately, due to my nature, it never ends up happening). Again, under the first definition I would have total freedom to enjoy football -- people won't normally get in my way -- but if there are certain things about me that don't go well with football, then I might still not end up enjoying it.

    That doesn't mean I have a true problem with the first definition -- it's just not what feels most natural to me.

  • 9 months ago

    Monster_with_no_Name

    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • 9 months ago

    Monster_with_no_Name

    I dont like concepts like determinism and free will. Heres why... they are very similar to a concept of god for eg. What is god? god is a concept that has some basis in reality (a strong loving father to his children, I mean an actual human male) and then people distort this thing which people have experienced and add all sorts of shit onto it (invisibility, all powerful, etc etc) and things get confused (by the stupid). They say a good lie always has some element of truth. The "kernel of reality" (the good strong father) is distorted and turned into a weird one sided abstract *extreme* that is a non-sense and doesnt apply to reality.

    Do we have free will? yes and no.
    Will I have ice cream or chocolate? yes, I can choose.. Should I go to work today or not, yes I can choose.. Can I decide to be hungry or not.. no. There are infinite of these cases, to reduce it to one abstract stupid extreme is ridiculous.

  • 14 months ago

    shequan

    I found it interesting your consideration here of relative ease or difficulty of killing oneself. let me offer a story. I heard about someone who was planning to take his own life. apparently he had just graduated from one the best colleges in the nation and was right on track to having a real good life, as one would expect. two weeks after graduating a horrible crime was perpetrated against him, destroying him completely in every way, physically, mentally, and spiritually (whatever that actually is). he was in immense pain. the pain only grew from day to day, eventually he realized he would never have the life he ought to have, that he would have had. the disparity between what would have been and what was became too enormous for him to handle psychologically; too painful. he decided to take his own life. the only thing stopping him apparently was the pain he would cause his family. he just wanted to do it in a specific way, under certain circumstances. to take his life in the specific manner which he had deemed most appropriate and favorable, he realized he was going to have to sever all connections with his family first (financial, everything) as well as have certain amount of monetary capital. he was in immense pain, had been ever since the horrible crime was perpetrated against him 2 weeks after he had graduated. this pain clouded his rational thought and caused him to embark on a completely insane, ill-conceived plan to gain the funds he needed to disappear, sever all ties with his family and take his life in the specific manner he had determined was most appropriate. as already related, apparently his primary concern was just to spare his family as much pain as possible and sought to accomplish this goal by having them not know at all what had happened to him, at least then they could entertain thoughts that maybe he was still alive somewhere since they didn't have a body. the utterly insane plan he came up with to gain the financial resources to take his life in this very specific manner, a plan that could only have come from a horribly vulnerable mind in immense pain, exploded in complete disaster before it ever got off the ground causing him even more pain. landed him prison, where he was under suicide watch, being kept alive against his will.

  • 15 months ago

    Sokrates1984

    I know. I was only taking God into this diskussion, to make my point about predicting things. Else you ofcourse is right. I think it makes a lot of sense to put him in here. all im saying.

  • 15 months ago

    SpaceOddity

    Sokrates,

    what you say makes perfect sense, although it is false.

    It is possible to think within different 'idealogies' or conceptual schemes, compare them to other schemes, reflect on them and understand where incommensurabilities reside.

    But this debates about God, free will and determinism is an old one, takes many forms, is like analyzing a chess opening 20 moves deep. 

    Does God have free will or not?  That is not an ideologically based question, but a question that is valid in any conceptual scheme.  Is God inside or outside time?  What could it mean to be outside time?  Is God all-knowing or not?  Did God create us free?  Does God even have the power to create us free, if our being free means that God would NOT thereby know or be able to predict what we will do in the future? 

    this list of questions goes on and on.  I'm not taking a stand on these issues.  I'm not expressing any particular 'idealogy'.  I'm just showing you the variety of complexities that arise and the kinds of questions that can be asked.  IF you want to spend time trying to answer, them, fine.  All I'm saying in response to you and Elubus is that this has been discussed for 2500 years and perhaps it would be worth your time to google 'free will and determinism' in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (free online) to learn a thing or two about it.

  • 15 months ago

    Sokrates1984

    SpaceOddity. You question about God, is superficial. It is the typical ateist questions. I am not religious. But the question you are asking, is ask by people how have never beleived, or doesnt know that much about religion. I think you argument are incomplete, and I agreed with you that beleiving in God is making new problems. But the problem you are raising, is typical non-beleiver questions. And I dont think you are able so distance from you own point of view, to discussed the problems in another idealogi than you own. Because this problems is the problems you ideologi have with the beleivers ideologi. Not and internal problem in the beleiver ideologi. If that makes any sense.

  • 15 months ago

    Sokrates1984

    I dont think I am.

    If something is determent. Then at least it most be possible to predict!

    That is the hole point. I know many religion is telling otherwise. But that is because of one thing. People like to beleive God can do everything, and they like to have a free will. And many religion connect Gods ability to do everything, with ability to predict everything. So I think the reason to included God in this diskussion, is that God is one of the reason this discussion started! God in some form.

    Nearly all the philofers defending a free will in the last 2500 years beleived in some kind of intelligens og purpuse. Maybee a God, maybee intelligens meterial, or the universal atom, or somethink like that. And nearly all defending determenism is from the science point of view. And offcourse a million in between. But sometimes it is easier to dicuss something from the extremes, because the differenses are more clear.

    It is the old discussion between materie and spirit.

    If somethink is determent, then it must be at least teoretical possible to predict?

    Like to see some of you argue with that.

  • 15 months ago

    SpaceOddity

    The question is not what 'definition' we choose to use to define 'freedom'.  That would make the issue completely arbitrary, just as it is essentially arbitrary whether we uses centimeters or inches.  What matters is what freedom is.  That is beyond the definition of the phenomenon, but an understanding of the phenomenon itself.  There is a clear problem here, and it is biological as well as philosophical, since any complete account of freedom would have to be reconciled with our biological and physical understanding of causation. 

    Philosophers have been debating this issue for over 2500 years.  They are not stupid.  Just about every possible response you could have to the debate has been thoroughly explored.  To think you can solve it by your centimeter analogy (which misunderstands how we actual measure anyway, let alone language, reality and the relation we have to both) is a bit...how shall I say, presumptuous.  Perhaps you'd benefit by googling 'free will and determinism'.  I suggest looking at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a good free online source.

  • 15 months ago

    Elubas

    Sokrates and Space, I think here, in a similar way to many cases with philosophy, a lot of your position depends on the somewhat trivial matter of your precise, deepest definition of "free." In one sense, if everything we do is based on biology, we are all "doomed" to make a certain decision, even if it's one that we do not yet know. But then again, you could argue it's rather annoying to think in that way, because, well, of course everything we do is because of biology -- that would be an overly obvious point. It's like saying when we measure something to be 1 cm, right on the mark, to say "It's probably not exactly a centimeter," because we could be off by a few diminutive micrometers that we can't see. And that's true, of course, but usually micrometers aren't so important. Getting all finicky with the micrometers can be compared to spending so much time on what free really means.

    Whether the above fits in with your definition of free or not, one thing this topic makes you think about is how sometimes you can predict what people will do based on how much you know them; that's where statements like "I know him; he would never lie to me like that," are based on.

    Btw, Sokrates: I wouldn't get involved in discussing things with Space if I were you -- he (or she) mostly argues to feel superior. Just let him (or her) think that and move on.

  • 15 months ago

    SpaceOddity

    Sokrates,

    you are confusing predictable with determinism.  Determinism has nothing essentially to do with predictability.

    God, determinism and free will introduces other problems, but does not solve any of the old ones.  Does God have free will?  MUST God ALWAYS do what is GOOD?  If so, then God is FORCED to do what is good.  If God chooses or creates what's "Good", then Good would be relative to God's whims.  Also problematic. 

    And if God created us knowing what we'd do, then we're not free since we'd just be puppets on God's strings.  In any and every case, free will is a problem, not just for us vis-a-vis God, but a problem for God as well.

    The more interesting arguments are those of the compatibilists, ie, those that try to show a disconnect between determinism and free will, that both are compatible.  Sokrates, I don't see how your experiences with Jehovah's witness shed any light on these issues.

  • 15 months ago

    Sokrates1984

    determenism and free will does collide. I was Jehovas Witness once, i did break out. Jehovas Witnessed Beleived that God can predict everything, and that people have a free will. A free will is the power to choose! A free decision cant be predicted! The only way it can be predicted, is (a) because the act of making the decision has allready taken place, or (b) because the person (determenism (more or less) dont have the power to make a free choice. Free will cant be predicted! You can only predict something that are secure, and the definition of free will, is that it is free untill the subjebt make a decission. So per defintition a a free decision is unclear to everyone untill it has been made. So free will cant be determenism. Because determanism says that decission only can be ONE thing. And how can the decission then be free? Maybee there are other definitions, and in betweens. But determenism and free will in its ektreme, atleast can not be connected.

  • 15 months ago

    SpaceOddity

    A few points:

    1) Determinism needs to be more rigorously defined.  Strictly speaking, it's the thesis that the antecedent conditions of an event are sufficient for causally producing that event. 

    2) Determinism is NOT necessarily incompatible with free will.  In fact, the position that determinism is compatable with free will has a long and strong following; these people are known as compatibilists and the thesis is compatibilism. 

    3) Even if determinism is FALSE, we still might NOT have free will.  Free will is not characterized by randomness, and if the lack of determinism (ie, indeterminism) is simply random chance, then it's hard to see how free will is compatible with random chance. 

  • 15 months ago

    JohnTheLovely

    Science is very good at sorting out biological influences, some people with certain genes are more likely to kill themselves, some people born in certain environments are more likely to kill themselves. There is no biological or cultural determinism but there is a high degree of predictability, determinism is such a strong term, its basicly fate.

Back to Top

Post your reply: