Determinism for Dummies (Me)

[tsmethers]

I did not find a Philosophy 101, so here we are. My first request is that any responses take into consideration that I am the result of the public school system environment and of a state financed institution of higher education, therefore responses must be as simple as possible.

Do I understand Determinism correctly that who I am and my consequent actions are caused, or determined, by preceding events? If so, can I act or am I entirely acted upon?

At first glance this seems to be rather obvious. Of course I am the result of prior actions. And yes, my actions are determined by preceding events. My difficulty is in the idea that my being and “actions” are wholly cause and effect and that I am unable to act otherwise. That final portion seems to me to be outside of common sense.

I understand that Determinism runs counter to the concept of Free Will, that is, we have the freedom to choose our responses and therefore bear a responsibility for them. (Previously, I would have just referred to Determinism as denial but I could not find the term, denial, in any Dictionary of Philosophy available to me. The idea of Determinism sounds to me similar to Adam’s response to God when asked if he had eaten of the tree that God had commanded him not to eat. Adam’s response, basically, “It’s not my fault. YOU gave me this woman and SHE gave me from the tree and I ate.” Adam was caused to eat by the actions of God and the woman that He had given to Adam and therefore bears no responsibility for his actions. My parents would have referred to this as, “Passing the buck.”)

To my understanding, Determinism requires that I bear no responsibility for my actions, as they were the cause resulting from forces outside of my control. If so, how can a Determinist defend Determinism? It seems entirely outside of possibility. If I bear no responsibility then in fact there is no right or wrong action or thought. If there is no right or wrong, how does one defend what there can be no offense to? For that matter, how does one form a Determinist sentence? Is there such a thing as a Determinist language? As G. K. Chesterton wrote about, Determinism precludes the ability to ask, “Please pass the salt.” The word “Please” would denote choice. By the same token it prevents one from even saying, “Thank you,” for having passed the salt.

Can a Determinist really accept, which to my thinking would present the counter concept of reject, Determinism and does induction even play a part? Where does the original causation originate? Can’t this run back to the argument of whether or not the Universe caused itself or was caused by some outside force. It seems that the blame would run back ad infinitum. Ultimately, then, doesn’t the responsibility fall on Whoever caused the first non-causal action. It seems odd that the very idea of Determinism, which runs counter to the teachings of the God revealed through the Bible, could reinforce the very existence of a god, though, admittedly not necessarily the God revealed in the Bible. What about it then? Can Determinism be used to prove the existence of a Creator, or does it require that there be no ultimate non-causal action?

Thank you for your time. I'll thank you for your responses if it becomes determined that they have caused one.

[Robyn Banks]

tsmethers:
Do I understand Determinism correctly that who I am and my consequent actions are caused, or determined, by preceding events?

Determinism states that a complete description of causal facts guarantees what happens next. If all matter is deterministic, and if a human mind is material, human behaviour is physically determined.

So, yes. According to determinism, who you are, and your actions are all explained by preceding events, and are totally explicable in terms of these causes: i.e. you and your actions are determined.

tsmethers:
If so, can I act or am I entirely acted upon?

You act, as well as being acted upon. It's just that you may not have any freedom to act, if determinism were true.

tsmethers:
At first glance this seems to be rather obvious. Of course I am the result of prior actions. And yes, my actions are determined by preceding events.

This may not be the case for subatomic particles. Quantum theory is undecided on this fact. So not all actions need be determined by prior actions. However, few people suggest that macroscopic bodies, such as you and I, are free from determinism because of what may or may not happen at the particle level. So it looks like all of our actions are determined by preceding events.

And even if we were influenced by quantum randomness, this does not necessarily offer freedom, but only indeterminism - which robs us of our freedom as much as determinism because it says that we are just subject to random events.

• Robert Kane: "chance events occur spontaneously and are not under the control of anything, hence not under the control of agents."

tsmethers:
My difficulty is in the idea that my being and “actions” are wholly cause and effect and that I am unable to act otherwise. That final portion seems to me to be outside of common sense.

That's the essential nature of the dilemma. According to common sense we are always making decisions freely. Yet, at the same time, we are in the world, and the world is arguably made up entirely of causes - as far as we know, anyway.

tsmethers:
I understand that Determinism runs counter to the concept of Free Will, that is, we have the freedom to choose our responses and therefore bear a responsibility for them. (Previously, I would have just referred to Determinism as denial but I could not find the term, denial, in any Dictionary of Philosophy available to me. The idea of Determinism sounds to me similar to Adam’s response to God when asked if he had eaten of the tree that God had commanded him not to eat. Adam’s response, basically, “It’s not my fault. YOU gave me this woman and SHE gave me from the tree and I ate.” Adam was caused to eat by the actions of God and the woman that He had given to Adam and therefore bears no responsibility for his actions. My parents would have referred to this as, “Passing the buck.”)

To my understanding, Determinism requires that I bear no responsibility for my actions, as they were the cause resulting from forces outside of my control.

Some philosophers say that determinism does not rule out free will. They are called 'combatabilists' or 'soft determinists'.

For example, David Hume believed in determinism, but also in free will (and thus in personal responsibility):

• "an action is performed freely when the agent could have done otherwise, had the agent wanted to."

For Hume, free actions are ones that are controlled by the agent's desires. They are caused by internal beliefs and desires, rather than external causes. But, it is true, that the beliefs and desires are already determined. The combatabilist account ignores the earlier causation of beliefs and desires from genes and environment.

Despite the combatabilist claim that we are free (and thus justifiably able to be held responsible), it is not a 'freedom' in any real sense. For a combatabilist, free actions must also be actions that are determined by antecedent conditions and causes - so it no longer seems very free when you bear this in mind.

Although Adam sounded like he was passing the buck, if you hold to determinism, he was right to pass the buck.

tsmethers:
If so, how can a Determinist defend Determinism? It seems entirely outside of possibility. If I bear no responsibility then in fact there is no right or wrong action or thought. If there is no right or wrong, how does one defend what there can be no offense to?

How can a Determinist defend Determinism? Because that is the way of things. Possibly.

It is no good to notice that the consequence of reality is that it is unjustifiable to blame someone for their actions, and then try to redefine reality because of this. If you are going to redefine reality, you'd better have some grounds in physics or elsewhere, rather than in ethics.

Arguing from ethics to reality is ass-about-face. It gets you in all sorts of problems. (By the way, combatabilism was usually argued for by people who also tried to deal with the very practical problem of how to still have personal moral responsibility in a deterministic world. The fact that they were arguing from ethics to reality shows in that they essentially 'invented' a space for free will in a deterministic system where there was no such space. That speciosity is the undoing of combatabilism.)

tsmethers:
For that matter, how does one form a Determinist sentence? Is there such a thing as a Determinist language? As G. K. Chesterton wrote about, Determinism precludes the ability to ask, “Please pass the salt.” The word “Please” would denote choice. By the same token it prevents one from even saying, “Thank you,” for having passed the salt.

Folk language tends to remain long after we realise that it does not reflect reality very well.

We still say that the 'sun rises' in the morning, many centuries after the idea of the geocentric universe collapsed!

tsmethers:
Can a Determinist really accept, which to my thinking would present the counter concept of reject, Determinism and does induction even play a part?

Both Determinism and Free Will are concepts that have been accepted by induction. Unfortunately, they conflict.

Maybe one is wrong? Induction does not provide certain conclusions after all. And maybe Determinism is wrong (in addition to the possible exception suggested by the incomplete Quantum Theory, that is)?

tsmethers:
Where does the original causation originate? Can’t this run back to the argument of whether or not the Universe caused itself or was caused by some outside force. It seems that the blame would run back ad infinitum. Ultimately, then, doesn’t the responsibility fall on Whoever caused the first non-causal action. It seems odd that the very idea of Determinism, which runs counter to the teachings of the God revealed through the Bible, could reinforce the very existence of a god, though, admittedly not necessarily the God revealed in the Bible.

The cosmological argument that you refer to is a whole new can of worms.

But the version of the cosmological argument you allude to does not reinforce the existence of God. Briefly, even though everything in the universe may have a cause, this does not require a caused explanation of the universe as a whole. Thus, the cosmological argument merely based on 'causes' does not necessarily result in God at all.

(Other versions of the cosmological argument, such as a the modal cosmological argument are better arguments, but avoid talk of 'cause' altogether.)

tsmethers:
What about it then? Can Determinism be used to prove the existence of a Creator, or does it require that there be no ultimate non-causal action?

Either possibility is fine. But neither can be proved.

tsmethers:
Thank you for your time. I'll thank you for your responses if it becomes determined that they have caused one.

I tend to think that there is in fact free will, but determinism does not apply to human minds. But I haven't come up with a very good way to justify such a conclusion. Nor has anyone else, mind you. Even belief in a non-physical mind runs into the problem that it is not much practical use if the body's actions are always determined. But dualism (of the mind and brain) could provide you with a way out, if you are prepared to accept dualism.

And as long as I think I have free will, and so does most everyone else (despite the determinism dilemma), then it won't make a shred of difference to how I act.

Christianity and Judaism has generally held to both free will and divine foreknowledge (if not divine determinism). The tension is not always well explained, but the point is that they seem to co-exist nonetheless.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[tsmethers]

Thank you for your response. It clarified for me that Determinism is as messed up as I first thought it to be. However my response is more geared toward your scrolling message stating "I * proved * that there are * no * valid predictive biblical prophecies." Actually no, you didn't. You defeated your opponent in a debate. But I'm sure you already knew this.

[Robyn Banks]

tsmethers:
Thank you for your response.

I predicted you would say this.

tsmethers:
It clarified for me that Determinism is as messed up as I first thought it to be.

Unfortunately, so are most of the Big Questions in philosophy - messed up, that is. The definitive answers are elusive.

tsmethers:
However my response is more geared toward your scrolling message stating "I * proved * that there are * no * valid predictive biblical prophecies." Actually no, you didn't.

"Proved" is an ambiguous term. It could mean deductively proved something to be necessarily so. In this case it only means that I offered evidence to support a conclusion. With something like 'predictive prophecy', which begins by interpreting things that happened in the world, the only 'proof' you're going to get is that you've made an inconclusive argument.

I was deliberately using the ambiguity in the word 'prove' to get attention for the debate, as you perhaps suspected. But, saying that, I entered the debate because I was quite sure that no predictive prophecies in the Bible have ever came true. The debate was far from an intellectual exercise. I was (and am) genuinely interested in the flawed claim that biblical prophecies have come true. And I genuinely consider, from my review of the prophecies cited, that there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. There's quite a number of folk who make extraordinary claims about there being "100s" of prophecies in the bible which have come true, or similar claims. I "proved" that this was not the case, by putting forward what I considered to be the better explanation of the facts.

tsmethers:
You defeated your opponent in a debate. But I'm sure you already knew this.

Actually, this is officially incorrect. None of the debates here are officially judged. But thanks for your opinion!

Robyn Banks

[tsmethers]

Today @ 06:18 PM post located here
Robyn Banks wrote:

I was (and am) genuinely interested in the flawed claim that biblical prophecies have come true. And I genuinely consider, from my review of the prophecies cited, that there is no evidence to support such a conclusion. There's quite a number of folk who make extraordinary claims about there being "100s" of prophecies in the bible which have come true, or similar claims. I "proved" that this was not the case, by putting forward what I considered to be the better explanation of the facts.

But don't you consider that rather subjective. First, your statement that it is a flawed claim. Whereas it is to you and your take on the data, to someone else it obviously is not. Because they are less able than you to defend their position does not render it incorrect or even flawed kust poorly supported by them. Second, as you state, it is what you considered to be the better explaination of the facts. Though I believe that there are predictive prophecies in the Bible (I wonder on your take on the predictions in Isaiah and Jeremiah on Babylon, but this is not the place), I can not deny that in the debate in question I felt you better presented yourself.

I wish I could remember where I read it but someone of some note once noted (paraphrase), "Truth is absolute, experience is subjective." To my mind, it is impossible to be completely unbiased toward a subject. Uninterested, yes. Unbiased, no. If the roles were reversed, do you believe that you could have better defended the opposing side of the debate?

I wonder though, what you would consider conclusive proof of a predictive prophecy? How much detail do you require for proof? I know this is a topic for other forums, so if you decide to answer please let me know where it has moved. As you can tell I am rather green with Tweb, so if there is an easy way to move this topic, I sure you know it better than I.

[Darwin]

Robyn Banks;

Re. Post #2, very good answers.

tsmethers

To my understanding, Determinism requires that I bear no responsibility for my actions, as they were the cause resulting from forces outside of my control. If so, how can a Determinist defend Determinism? It seems entirely outside of possibility. If I bear no responsibility then in fact there is no right or wrong action or thought. If there is no right or wrong, how does one defend what there can be no offense to?

This is the dilemma in recognizing the validity of a deterministic world (random quanta events excluded): if everything is caused, how can we assign blame or praise? When carefully considering the situation, I don't believe we can. However, as a practical matter, fallible humans living in a world where a great deal of survival depends on psychological interactions, and the resolution of conflicting goals and actions, it is necessary to act as if free will does exist. Even if we truly tried to live a deterministic life--finding no need to praise or assign personal responsibility, certain aspects of survival demand that we set aside any lofty notions of inculpability. We would still find it necessary to incarcerate others to prevent them from committing further transgressions. We would praise others because in doing so we know that their psychology is such that they would be more apt to go along with our desires. We would scold children for doing wrong because we know this will teach them appropriate social behavior. So, although we do live in a world where determinism rules, for personal and societal survival we act as if free will is true. Of course, even this survival impulse and our election to act as if free will were true, has been determined. Just don't ask for the particulars, such as, How?

[tsmethers]

Darwin,

Just for argument's sake, what do you consider the key elements of Free Will? As I understand it, Free Will (though I have heard some argue that it is not free since there are consequences and free would dictate that there are no strings attached, at least from the Theological side of things. For myself I prefer Open Will but I am neither scholar, theologian or philospher by practice or training so who I am to make things up as I go?) involves the ability of one to choose to act in a voluntary nature. That is I am not forced to act but can choose between varying options.

For the layman that I am, if I choose to act as though Free Will exists, then hasn't that proven Free Will. Or is it that since I believe that my actions are self directed then determinism requires that I act according to that belief? Rather circular, at least how I stated it.

[Darwin]

tsmethers,
Just for argument's sake, what do you consider the key elements of Free Will?

From those whom I've heard espouse the idea, in its most naked form, Free Will is the exercise of choice free of ANY determents. That is, even one's thoughts of selection are uncaused--which implies they are random. And this by itself is logically inconsistent with the idea of informed choice, or even rational choice.

As I understand it, Free Will . . . involves the ability of one to choose to act in a voluntary nature. That is I am not forced to act but can choose between varying options.

This is likely the most common view of free will. But ask yourself: how is it any different to be "forced" to do something, and choosing to do something because of whatever reason? That very REASON is what has determined (forced) you make the choice you did. You could not have done otherwise. Had you done otherwise (choose B, say), it would have been because you valued its results over choice A. And why did you value these results more than those of A? Because........................ The never ending regression of effect and its cause. To say that nothing caused (forced) you to act as you did would be to say that your choice was ENTIRELY RANDOM. It had no justification whatsoever.

If I choose to act as though Free Will exists, then hasn't that proven Free Will.

If I choose to act as though you're not in the room doesn't prove you're not in the room. Why did you "choose" to act "as though free will exists? Was it a totally random act, or was it motivated (determined) by something else, such as a desire (cause), need (cause), compulsion (cause), belief (cause) etc.?

Or is it that since I believe that my actions are self directed then determinism requires that I act according to that belief?

YUP!

We just can't get away from determinism, even for a second. It constantly dogs us in EVERYTHING we do. Even this dialog right now was determined: you asking the questions you did, and I, answering as I have.


But! even recognizing determinism's complete control over our lives, I choose to ignore it in my day-to-day existence, because to do so simply makes life more tolerable and interesting.

[Robyn Banks]

tsmethers:
But don't you consider that rather subjective.

All weighing up of evidence is subjective. Science for the last 400 years has been completely subjective. And rather successful at it.

Some inductive arguments are better explanations of the available data than others. And that was the goal I had in what I was doing. I was assessing the data, and coming to the conclusion that best (or 'better') explained the data. And the best explanation (or hypothesis) is that no predictive biblical prophecies came true in reality.

tsmethers:
First, your statement that it is a flawed claim. Whereas it is to you and your take on the data, to someone else it obviously is not.

Quite correct. That is why I was careful to set out the evidence I had for my position at each step of the way, so that readers could understand the process I followed in evaluating the evidence. I am entirely more interested in assessing data than in what the results of my final interpretation of that data is. Necessarily, in a debate formate, this involved presenting the positive evidence and rebutting any negative evidence ('positive' and 'negative' being that evidence which supports or opposes my hypothesis). But for at least some predictive prophecies covered in the debate, I had already assessed which hypothesis the evidence best supported.

tsmethers:
Because they are less able than you to defend their position does not render it incorrect or even flawed kust poorly supported by them.

This is also true, but is a separate point from the assessment of evidence. I acknowledge that some people can make a better case for their evidence, and this does not necessarily mean that the evidence supports their hypothesis. But, I do not believe that the debate was 'won' merely because my skills at debating were better. (In actual fact, this is the only ever 'on-line debate' I have been involved in). My hypothesis of no predictive biblical prophecies coming true in reality was superior because the evidence does not support the opposite conclusion at all.

tsmethers:
Second, as you state, it is what you considered to be the better explaination of the facts. Though I believe that there are predictive prophecies in the Bible (I wonder on your take on the predictions in Isaiah and Jeremiah on Babylon, but this is not the place), I can not deny that in the debate in question I felt you better presented yourself.

As I noted above, inductively proving an hypothesis always involves subjectivity of interpretation, and always leaves room for doubt. But an hypothesis can still be considered 'strong' if there are enough facts to support it.

tsmethers:
I wish I could remember where I read it but someone of some note once noted (paraphrase), "Truth is absolute, experience is subjective." To my mind, it is impossible to be completely unbiased toward a subject. Uninterested, yes. Unbiased, no.

The person who denies bias is to be treated with grave suspicion. But I do consider that we may eliminate some (or even much) bias with a proper hermeneutic.

tsmethers:
If the roles were reversed, do you believe that you could have better defended the opposing side of the debate?

Certainly. But I would not be presenting my own evaluation of the data, which I have attempted (always, only attempted) to evaluate without bias.

tsmethers:
I wonder though, what you would consider conclusive proof of a predictive prophecy?

No inductive argument results in 'conclusive' or 'certain' proof. However, I would be extremely interested in predictive biblical prophecies which are even 50% or greater probable.

tsmethers:
How much detail do you require for proof?

Even one very precise detail in a prophecy could make it more likely than not that it was a prophecy. In other words, given enough precision in a prediction, I would be persuaded that the fulfilment of a genuine prediction is the better hypothesis.

(I do not discount so-called 'miracles' or 'the supernatural' as requiring some higher proof, unlike some).

For example, a writing dated plausibly to the eighth century BC that predicted the name of Cyrus would convince me. In this particular example, of course, the dating of Deutero-Isaiah on quite separate grounds from the question of fulfilled prophecy makes that a non-starter.

tsmethers:
I know this is a topic for other forums, so if you decide to answer please let me know where it has moved. As you can tell I am rather green with Tweb, so if there is an easy way to move this topic, I sure you know it better than I.

I don't really know. Asking the moderator to move the off-topic parts could be the trick.

Robn Banks

[tsmethers]

Robyn and Darwin, thank you for your input and explanations of Determinism.

I believe I have a sufficient grasp of it to know what a person should mean when they use it in a discussion. For myself, I see it as a fine tool for examination of purely physical systems. It holds in my opinion when applied to a particle, a pebble or a planet. But my from my observations of life it does not hold when applied to the human condition. While it's great for removing the moral consequences of our actions, it in my opinion also removes the benefits as well. I understand that there is a series of actions and reactions, causes and results when I place the barrel of a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger. But there are consequences beyond the physical aspect even if there is no bullet in the chamber.

I, for one, refuse to accept it. Not that it, again, does not hold to a physical, mechanical system but that it reduces a person to no more than the sum of the parts, that is, equal to the whole and my experience has been that a person is greater than the sum of the parts. Determinism, in my mind, removes the idea of Heroism, Love, Devotion, Charity, and the like to some kind of biochemical reaction, to nothing more than candy for the brain. And that, no matter how much Science and Logic care to argue, can not be proven with logical arguments or empirical data.

Again, thank you for your time and input. You may talk among yourselves. I’m finished here. God bless you in your search.

Todd

P.S. Pearls are on the way.

[James]

Today @ 09:44 AM post located here
tsmethers:

I, for one, refuse to accept it. Not that it, again, does not hold to a physical, mechanical system but that it reduces a person to no more than the sum of the parts, that is, equal to the whole and my experience has been that a person is greater than the sum of the parts.

Determinism (or modern materialism, for that matter) and "being more than the sum of your parts" are not mutually exclusive, you know

Take quantum mechanics, for example, since Robyn mentioned it. Particle attributes are not necessarily commutative: knowing one piece of information about a particle changes the nature of all the other pieces of information, so it is impossible to coherently describe a particle by "adding together" its various properties). This does not mean that everything does not have a physical or deterministic explanation.

The human mind is the network state of many millions of neurons, but it is not just the sum of millions of neurons firing. As in the quantum example, the very act of knowing something (no, not in the Biblical sense!) changes its properties. Since the human brain is a computational organ and is capable of processing information, it is capable of reacting and changing based on this information. Realizing and understanding that determinism occurs allows us to make conscious choices on this information (though this isn't the same as "absolute free will"). It's intuitive that tastes and preferences are deterministic because we do not say to ourselves, "I think I'm going to like brussel sprouts and be attracted to men today." There's not much we can do to change that. Much of our personalities is deterministic. However, since we're capable of understanding this, we stand a chance of affecting choices and acting according to these preferences. Of course, even understanding that determinism occurs is deterministic as well, but what can you do