What the $&#@ is a determinism?
Determinism is the position that every event, including human actions, thoughts and behaviors, is due to a prior unbroken causal chain of events.
A lot of people are bothered by determinism because it seems to be incompatible with free will. In fact, a common argument against an all-knowing god is that an all-knowing god necessitates a deterministic world, which calls into question the notion of free will. The argument goes something like this:
P: God is all knowing.
1. God knows what will happen to everything everywhere
2. God knows what I will do every second of my life.
3. God knows what I will do in every second of my future life.
________________________________________
C: my life has already been determined even before I am born.
P: My life is determined by God even before I am born
C: I have no free will
Using this argument, having an all-knowing god and free will are incompatible, because an all knowing god necessitates determinism. How can one's choices be free if they are already determined?
In determinism, free will is an illusion, albeit an illusion that has little practical consequences. I am a determinist, but this position does not mean that I believe humans can have no influence on the future (fatalism), just that this level of influence is determined by past actions and future occurrences.
A lot of people are bothered by determinism because it seems to be incompatible with free will. In fact, a common argument against an all-knowing god is that an all-knowing god necessitates a deterministic world, which calls into question the notion of free will. The argument goes something like this:
P: God is all knowing.
1. God knows what will happen to everything everywhere
2. God knows what I will do every second of my life.
3. God knows what I will do in every second of my future life.
________________________________________
C: my life has already been determined even before I am born.
P: My life is determined by God even before I am born
C: I have no free will
Using this argument, having an all-knowing god and free will are incompatible, because an all knowing god necessitates determinism. How can one's choices be free if they are already determined?
In determinism, free will is an illusion, albeit an illusion that has little practical consequences. I am a determinist, but this position does not mean that I believe humans can have no influence on the future (fatalism), just that this level of influence is determined by past actions and future occurrences.
Labels: definitions
posted by Ziztur
at
8:00 AM
20 Comments:
Perhaps a little more research from my side would be in order, but I can't see how someone (God, or the psychic who does my tea-leaf readings) knowing what will happen in my life, means that my life is determined. All it means is that they know what choices I make, not that they determine it.
For that matter, I can't see how anyone can't be a determinist. People don't randomly make decisions without any reason. The reason, however small, is there, in your past, somewhere. The free will bit comes in the form of that decision. No action has only one outcome, due to the number of factors impacting on it every time the same action is played out. And by the same reasoning, no outcome has the same effect.
Well Saigonb, I agree with you and Ziztur about Determinism, but I think I agree with Ziztur about the contradiction between an all-knowing God (or a successfully future-telling psychic) and free will.
It seems to me . . . Well, say, for example, that God (or a psychic) knows beyond a shadow of a doubt, with absolute certainty, that Bob the Guy will purchase the red shirt instead of the blue shirt at 7:35 pm on March 8th, 2009. Let's say that they know this as of today, January 6. If the all-knowing being in question knows that you'll pick the red shirt, they I would think that you do *not* have a free choice to pick the blue shirt.
I mean, I think it's obvious that free will entails the ability to actually choose between the different colored shirts. If someone knows with absolute certainty which you'll choose, how and why would one call it a free choice?
Of course, I'm not sure that this issue applies to a psychic, because you probably wouldn't say that he or she is 'all-knowing.' Most people would say that even the best psychics are capable of making mistakes. So one could say that psychics are not 100% certain what 'choice' you'll make, and so in this case free will is fine. The problem, as Ziztur said, is with an all-knowing God.
P.S. In case anyone is curious, no, I do not believe in psychic ability of any kind. I don't bring it up because it's not relevant to the discussion.
I'm really struggling with two statements: the first by ZIztur, and the second by Saigonb, which both amount to the same thing.
"In determinism, free will is an illusion, albeit an illusion that has little practical consequences. I am a determinist, but this position does not mean that I believe humans can have no influence on the future"
and
"I can't see how anyone can't be a determinist. People don't randomly make decisions without any reason. The reason, however small, is there, in your past, somewhere. The free will bit comes in the form of that decision."
These statements seem highly contradictory to me. I don't understand how you can claim to be a determinist, but maintain you have any control of future events. Maybe there's some subtle difference between determinism and fatalism that I'm missing. But if all of our present decisions are essentially pre-selected based on past events, then doesn't that imply our future decisions will be pre-selected based on the present decisions? If a=b, and b=c, then a=c?
I agree with the logic behind Saigonb's first part of the quote, but his last sentence about free will seems to contradict the rest, imo. If you claim your present decisions are dictated by past events, there's no free will there because there's no actual decision being made. Your past doesn't change, so there's only one possible outcome: the "decision" you're inevitably going to make.
Cool.
I intentionally left my post on determinism a little obscure, hoping people would comment - besides, I think no matter hos succinct a post I write about determinism, it will never be enough.
That said - free will is still an illusion.
Let's say, for example, that you want to prove to me that you have free will by choosing to not get a drink, even though you're thirsty.
Really, this does not prove that you have free will, it proves that my assertion that you have no free will has a causal influence on your decision. Instead of getting a drink because your brain tells you that you are thirsty, you don't get a drink because your brain tells you that you want to prove to me that you have free will. The unbroken chain of events prior to your apparent decision to not get a drink to prove to me that you have free will in fact shows that your choice was determined by prior events - namely, me telling you that you don't have free will, and you wanting to prove to me that you do.
The difference between determinism and fatalism is a sticky and tiny.
@Flimsyman:
a. I don't believe in psychics - but they're great entertainment. And it's about the best alternative I could come up to against an all-knowing god to describe that any being could know my future and it wouldn't make a difference.
b.If God knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Bob the Guy will buy the red shirt, then it means that BtG has already used his free will and chosen to buy the red shirt. God knowing about it doesn't mean that God determines it - BtG determined it. If you're watching a newly released movie, and you know that at the moment that the party is crossing the rope bridge, the bridge will snap, does it mean you determined the moment and took away the free will of the writer/producer/director? Or only that you could foresee/predict/know the future?
@Tim:
I'm going out on a limb, having only done the first six months of Philosophy, and only barely passing that, but I'd say yes. There is a fine line between determinism and fatalism. Determinism is where choices are made based on the past and fatalism would then be where events are predetermined by the past. So in Determinism, you'd have a = {x,z} and in Fatalism it would be a = x.
Now, where I think free will comes in is here. There is more than one past event influencing any decision. I want to have a beer. This is influenced by the fact that I've always enjoyed beer, I have beer in my fridge, I'm not working at the moment, I'm thirsty, etc. It's also influenced by my past personality: I drink, I have no moral or religious issues against drinking by myself. And then it's influenced by time, season, cost, laziness, ad infitum. For all I know, it's influenced by global events such as the fact that the chrome flour shortage is over and the price of fuel has gone down. But even with all those factors allowing me to sit with this choice, at the end of the day I have the will to overcome my laziness or succumb to it. And at that personal level, I've demonstrated where free will becomes applicable.
Of course, if I were to believe in an all-knowing God, then I'd expect him to know all my possibilities, and all the possibilities that extend off that - he'd hold the multiverse in his head while I chose my reality.
How could I not get in on a discussion on determinism? I am also a determinist. Most of these comments have been on theistic determinism (God created the universe with a plan, knowing how everything will turn out making free will an illusion). However not much is said about the scientific version of determinism (everything that happens is simply a cause and effect reaction to various laws of nature like physics and chemical reactions in the brain that control the actions people take). There is a theory that if someone knew all the natural laws and the exact position of all matter in the universe they could accurately predict everything that will ever happen. I believe this is true (even though it is beyond human ability to even begin to calculate that amount of data).
Fatalism on the other hand is more of a the end result is always going to be the same no matter what actions people take (I guess it means people have free will, but that in the end free will is merely a futile fight against the inevitable). Personally I find this view to be a little morbid and a depressing way to look at life though.
I just find that it's best not to worry about it much and try and live life as best you can (though it's not like you can really help worrying about it if you do, after all you don't REALLY have a choice in the matter). I guess I should add the addendum TRY not to worry about it, and just live.
Plus, thinking that a course of events is inevitable is also inevitable, or thinking that a course of events is not inevitable is also inevitable.
I mean I could decide just to lay in bed all day because whatever happens is inevitable so I may as well do what I want. But if do whatever I want, the outcome will be different than if I do what I ought to do. My decision to lay in bed all day is the result of an unbroken chain of causal events that led me to believe that I should lay in bed all day rather than do what I ought to do. Or, if I decide to stop being a loserface and do what I ought to do, then my decision is still based on an unbroken chain of causal events. The outcome will not be the same if I choose to be a loserface or choose to do what I ought to do, so the outcome is still dependent on my choices, but my choices are dependent on unbroken causal chains of events. Part of the result of my influence on the future is that I believe I can influence the future.
I have always been kind of annoyed by determinism - even though I am a determinist - because it's so inescapable. It's the ultimate unfalsifiable hypothesis.
That's exactly the line of thinking I was fumbling my way towards, Thumper. Determinism, in that "scientific" version seems to intersect with Chaos Theory, of which I've long been a fan. I'm still confused by Ziztur's claim that one can be a determinist and still change the outcome of the future, but I may be getting wrapped up in semantics or just not educated enough in the more subtle aspects of the philosophy.
Your description of fatalism immediately brought to mind the movies Final Destination, if you've ever seen them. I laughed.
I think it's really more of a semantic thing possibly.
Fatalism is sort of the idea that we are not responsible for our actions because they are determined by prior COE (Chain(s) of Events)
It's the sort of idea that we aren't justified in punishing people for committing immoral acts because they were incapable of doing otherwise.
Really, it's just best that in our day to day lives we ignore this whole determinism thing so we can actually accomplish something - even if we were supposed to do that too. Ack.
@ Saigonb: Ah, see, I wouldn't say that it's automatically the case that God is directly taking away the possibility of free will by knowing the future, simply that the fact that he knows the future disproves the concept of free will.
Take your example; if I'm watching a movie and I know that the characters will step onto the rope bridge, it's not that I myself am 'taking away' those character's choice to get on the bridge. However, the fact that I DO in fact know for certain that they will step on the bridge demonstrates conclusively that those characters do not have a 'free will' choice whether or not to do so.
The bit about the choice of the director to have the bridge break is probably irrelevent, since determinism necessarily is concerned with *future* events, while that choice is obviously one made in the past (during the production of the film, relative to my sitting in a movie theatre to watch the film in question, obviously). On the other hand, there might be a point to make here after all.
After the film is released, the director has no 'free will' choice to change his decision to have the bridge break. I might phrase my question like this: If the director has no free will to make an actual decision *after* that decision is already made (because we know that the event *has* happened), how does he have the free will to make that decision even before that point in time (if there is a being who knows that the event *will* happen)?
I don't know - really. At the end of the day, I can't see how some one knowing the result of something can be the cause of or the limitations of the result. All they are is aware of the outcome. And since the outcome was predetermined by the entities involved and not the observer, the observer can't limit the results.
Scientifically, determinism, the chaos theory, quantum mechanics and the numerati are great theories, interesting theories, but not yet of much value to me as an individual.
I still have the illusion of free will, regardless of the theory behind it. And the theory is incomplete and full of irregularities and contradictions.
We need more knowledge!
I agree completely; regardless of any philosophical considerations, we're nowhere even close to being able to map even a significant portion of the influencing factors in a person's mind.
It's not that someone knowing for certain the future takes away free will, but it's that if someone CAN know for certain the future that means that there is no true free will because that means that there is not other action that we could have taken, hence either an all knowing god or theory about being able to predict everything would prove that free will is an illusion.
Exactly my thoughts, Thumper.
This is a purely philosophical question, untouchable by science, because (thanks to Heisenberg) we know that it is impossible (theoretically, not just in practice) to gather all the information about—well, even so much as a single particle.
That aside, I think (having read Dennett’s Elbow Room) that non-determinism doesn’t really do much to save the notion of free will as it seems to be commonly envisioned. Basically, we have two possibilities: Either the universe is completely deterministic, in which case everything that happens does so according to fixed rules, and everything that happens could in principle be predicted if we knew everything in the universe (which happens to be impossible); or the universe isn’t deterministic, in which case some things happen randomly, for no ‘reason’ whatsoever—as we tend to think with regard to phenomena like quantum field fluctuation, radioactive decay, etc.
Apply this to the notion of ‘will’, and what do we get? Either our decisions are all completely determined by events in the past; or they are influenced by random events. We tend to look aghast at the former notion and protest that it robs us of free will, and I can see this; but is the latter notion really any more palatable? Personally, I would rather that my mind worked entirely on the basis of things that happened in the past (because there is then a possibility that I’m behaving rationally according to known, accessible facts) than that my decisions are influenced by completely random elements. After all, how does the latter free my will? It seems just as un-free, only now it is chained not only to the past, but also to a pair of metaphysical dice on which I can exert no control whatsoever (even in the sense that I control things as a causal agent in a deterministic universe, however foreseeable my actions).
It seems to me that defenders of ‘free will’ are really thinking of a third option, where the will is neither deterministic nor non-deterministic. I’m not sure what that third option is supposed to be, though.
Ever since reading Susan Blackmore’s book on consciousness, and Dennett's Elbow Room (subtitled, not coincidentally, The varieties of free will worth having), my standard response to people who argue for a notion of free will is to ask them to please define it. Unfortunately, the conversation has never yet advanced from thence…
This is a really excellent comment! I am inclined to post it as a guest post. Could I?
I would be honoured! Also, if you can get a copy of Elbow Room, I urge you to devour it. It really changed the way I thought about all this. (Until I read it, the free will problem caused me some existential angst.)
Agreed. That was an amazing comment Petter. Thank you. =) Looking forward to your reading recommendations.
I've added it to my Amazon wish list, finding no cheap copies on eBay. :)
@ Petter Häggholm:
Wow. Really succint way of putting it!
I'm setting off to find the third option - wish me luck!
Post a Comment
I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home