Questions about the future for determinists
My first question is do you believe that the illusion of free will was a necessary evil for the advancement and survival of the human race? I'm not saying it still is or that society would crumble if everyone became aware of the fact that their biology controls everything, but do you think it was necessary up until now or fairly recently in the history of the human race? I'm not religious by any means, but it might be an adequate response to the question of "if there is a God (or some kind of intelligent designer), why does he allow evil people to exists/evil things to happen." Maybe there was a plan all a long? I only bring this up because I've recently been reading about how incredibly complex the design of some living things are and how unlikely life was to even begin. Even without the God part it's still a question that I'm curious about.
My second question for now is if the fact that our biology controls everything becomes so obvious through advances in science that everyone accepts it as being true, I wonder how does that affect what we would do for fun/entertainment in the future? Do we get the same kind of enjoyment from playing/watching sports or games knowing that everything is predetermined? Do we still enjoy tv shows/movies where there's a good guy and a bad guy knowing that there's really no such thing as "good" and "bad." Do we still enjoy comedy even though most of the time someone is the dope or the fall guy in humorous tv shows/movies?
I can envision a future utopia where everyone views the rest of the world as being in this together instead of me vs you or us vs them, and celebrating everyone's uniqueness and differences and wanting to help people with problems instead of judge or shame, but I'm wondering what do we do for fun/entertainment in this future world or maybe that doesn't change?
My second question for now is if the fact that our biology controls everything becomes so obvious through advances in science that everyone accepts it as being true, I wonder how does that affect what we would do for fun/entertainment in the future? Do we get the same kind of enjoyment from playing/watching sports or games knowing that everything is predetermined? Do we still enjoy tv shows/movies where there's a good guy and a bad guy knowing that there's really no such thing as "good" and "bad." Do we still enjoy comedy even though most of the time someone is the dope or the fall guy in humorous tv shows/movies?
I can envision a future utopia where everyone views the rest of the world as being in this together instead of me vs you or us vs them, and celebrating everyone's uniqueness and differences and wanting to help people with problems instead of judge or shame, but I'm wondering what do we do for fun/entertainment in this future world or maybe that doesn't change?
Comments (61)
Indeterminism argues that we don't have free will (like determinism) but holds that instead of things being pre-determined by some great plan, much of life is left up to probability and chance. Something most philosophers as William James noted, disparage, but I personally embrace and find fulfilling and freeing.
My first question to you is, did you write this of your own free will, or were you compelled to say it? If the former, your thesis fails; if the latter, responding is pointless.
As far as movies and tv shows are concerned, if we accept that biology explains everything we do and that the ideas of hate or judgement are illogical because if we had the exact same biology as someone else we would have done the exact same thing as that person, would that make movies or tv shows with "good" guys and "bad" guys less interesting?
How does having free will make one any more amenable to reason? With free wiil, you have two initial choices when presented with an argument in reason...
1. Accept the most reasonable argument.
2. Reject the most reasonable argument.
If you choose 2 then you are not amenable to reason. If you reject 2 as a method, then you have only one choice, which is the definition of determinism.
No, because belief in free will is a religious idea that is used to justify ideas such as heaven and hell.
"My second question for now is if the fact that our biology controls everything becomes so obvious through advances in science that everyone accepts it as being true, I wonder how does that affect what we would do for fun/entertainment in the future? Do we get the same kind of enjoyment from playing/watching sports or games knowing that everything is predetermined? Do we still enjoy tv shows/movies where there's a good guy and a bad guy knowing that there's really no such thing as "good" and "bad." Do we still enjoy comedy even though most of the time someone is the dope or the fall guy in humorous tv shows/movies?"
No, because life is actually more fun after we lose our false belief in free will.
Because if your beliefs are determined by biology, then you are not amenable to persuasion. If I persuade you that you are indeed acting on the basis of free will, then you’ve been influenced by something other than biology. On the other hand, if your beliefs are predetermined, then nothing I can say will have any consequence. That is why it is an essentially meaningless argument, and a deeply irrational attitude. (And I think the real motivation for it is actually to avoid a sense of responsibility for ourselves.)
The notion of assigning a likelihood to life beginning is absurd. We have no frequency data (except that it happened on one iteration) to base this on.
Biology is the wrong level to consider determinsm - surely it is a physics question. Biological structures definitely contribute to our opinions in known ways, but aren't we talking about full-on 100% everything being fully determined .. i.e. "determinism" ... this is a physics issue... cosmology meets particle physics etc etc.
That's even more mistaken. At least biology recognises that living creatures are ontologically distinct from billiard balls. And sure, if you drop a human and a billiard ball from a height, they will fall at the same rate. That's about the extent to which physics can be regarded as a determinant of human behaviour.
I think your misusing 'biology' by making it to explain all human actions-human actions are the result of more than just literal biology, in fact, science has shown that genetics has very little outcome re: a person's life-unless you include genetics influenced by environmental invitro-ie. pre natal care, which does actually, determine a great deal about someone's health and future lifespan. But in no way does that necessary determine behaviour.
Who said anything about beliefs being determined by biology?
As I read it, the OP was referring to our biology defining how we respond. So if our biology determines that we will seek the most rational argument, how does that make it pointless you presenting one? And if our biology does not determine that, then we are free to agree with any argument, rational or not. How does that make it any more worthwhile presenting one?
But I thought this topic was about full on, absolute determinsm right down to all the details of all the particles in the universe at any time in the future. Because you can't have full on human behavioural determinsm without full on universal physical determinism.
That’s LaPlace’s daemon, right? Well, the problem there is Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle torpedoes it. Reality is in some fundamental sense indeterminate. This is what caused Einstein to grumble about ‘God playing dice’.
Quoting Isaac
Because it reduces reason to a function of biology, which destroys it. The ‘sovereignty of reason’ means that if you seek to explain reason in any other terms - biological or whatever - then you’re undermining it. Reason comprises the relationship of ideas, and ideas are not physical, although they can be represented physically. This is something that is often lost sight of in our scientistic age.
So, if you were to 'reason' that four is more than two, you're saying a computer couldn’t successfully agree or disagree with that notion on the basis of its programming?
You're simply making presumptions in saying that ideas are not physical (only represented as such), if you're going to make presumptions at this level, then what purpose has rational debate here either?
What’s that got to do with it? A computer is a device built by humans, to compute. It does so very well. Furthermore a computer doesn’t ‘agree’ except for in a metaphorical sense, any more than would an abacus. We see that the result on the computer agrees with logic.
If what you write is determined by endocrines or hormones or genes, then how could what anyone says change it? When persuade you of something, I make you see a reason why something is the case. Where in biology or physics is an analogy for that?
As I said, I don't read the OP as saying anything other than our biology determines how we respond. It would be insane to argue that our biology literally determines everything we do, like I'm going to walk across this river and whether there is a bridge there or not makes no difference to that. Its just pointless straw-manning to knock down that kind of caricature.
The way I'm going to respond to to what you say may be determined by my biology though, just as what you say may be by yours.
If I apply heat to a plastic spoon it's shape changes. Are you suggesting that spoons think? If not, then the alternative would seem to be that it would make no difference whether I applied heat to it or not, it was going to change shape anyway. Obviously that's nonsense, so why would it be any less nonsense to say that your words affect what I'm going to say next?
We didn't have to invoke free-will for the heat to affect the shape of the spoon, why do we need to invoke it for your words to affect what I write in response?
I don't think that's proven scientifically, not even by HUC, which, I believe, limits only our grasp of reality and not reality itself.
In any case, one needn't have any emotional difficulty with accepting the possibilty of full blown determinism because our experience of free will in a determined universe is indistinguishable from our experience of "true" free will.
Quoting jamesfive
Quoting jamesfive
Quoting Isaac
No, it changes as a consequence of physical force, not as a consequence of persuasion.
Quoting Isaac
Because you're a rational being, able to be persuaded. Objects cannot be so persuaded, obviously.
Quoting Kippo
In which case, what difference does it make, and how could you find out? Either way, it is, as I said, a pretty meaningless argument.
So your answer to the question "why do we need to invoke free-will here? " is "because its obvious"?
Quoting Wayfarer
There is a difference -full blown determinism rules out, or at the very least profoundly downgrades, the concept of "spirituality" as being something non physical. It takes "true magic" out of the experience of free will, and all we are left with is apparent magic. Which is still pretty good though!
I made an argument, which you so far have given no indication of having understood.
Quoting Kippo
That doesn’t follow at all. There are many ideas which could never be realised physically. What I said was that ideas can be represented physically. But think about this. The same idea can be represented in a huge variety of different ways - different languages, different media, and so on - yet still convey exactly the same information. So I say that information can be represented physically, but that essentially it's something other than physical.
Quoting Kippo
Why? Because it saves you having to wrestle with the conundrum of being?
Yes, seems to be a regular confusion around here where "made an argument" is taken as a synonym for "said some things about". An argument is a set of reasoned steps from a premise to a conclusion, not just some statements about a subject. So no, you heve not "made an argument", nor do I believe you had any interest in doing so.
My argument is that if one's beliefs and actions are determined by external causes, whether biological or other, then one cannot claim to have joined a forum and entered a post about this topic of one's own free will. To say that one has done so, is already to admit the very faculty which the poster has set out to deny. (And the poster did admit exactly this here.)
Consequently, it is impossible for anyone else to persuade the poster of the falsehood of this view, because causing the poster to change his or her mind, amounts to declaring that those views can be changed by something other than the supposed biological (or other) determinants of his/her actions, so, are not, after all, determined.
And how does this resolve the dilemma that I have posed?
...then
Quoting Wayfarer
...would be exactly one of those "other" external causes.
Nope. Some types of obstinacy are immovable rocks, unstoppable forces have no effect.
I suppose the deadlocks and dreadlocks just can't get along. :cry:
Well then that's just begging the question. Your assertion that you could have just as easily not done so is without support.
The results of evolution are not the product of necessity, but regardless, free will is not an illusion- it just isn't what you think it is. Free will means that we can make choices, do what we want. We do what we are disposed to do, and these dispositions include beliefs, desires, bodily urges, and short term impulses. All of these are consistent with determinism.
Do ideas in different languages convey exactly the same information? Do speakers of the same language, even, extract exactly the same information from the same sentence? Definitely not! i think the reference point for analysing whether "ideas" have a life of their own has to be the language of mathematics, which consists of the most precise ideas expressed presicely.
SO....can mathematical ideas exist independently of physical reality? Yes. Can they exist independently of a physical imagining? Not so sure ... it is possible to imagine a physical perfect sphere for example. And 1+1=2 is tied to the notion of object....and so forth....
Furthermore I cannot imagine a person born with a brain but without any sensory perception - without efffective contact with the real world (including their own body) in other words - being able to have any thoughts or ideas whatsoever.
Quoting Kippo
In the case of plans, formulas, and specifications, this is quite feasible. As you say, mathematics often plays a part in this as it's inherently not as ambiguous, or more precise, than language as such. But it's plainly possible to translate the same idea or information across many languages and media. So the question I raise is, what differs, and what stays the same? It's quite a tricky question, as it touches on linguistics, semiotics, and other disciplines. But I think it also helps draw out something which we generally don't notice, which is that in all these case, meaning and intention are determinative - not the actual physical constituents which convey it.
Now, something like that applies to genetics, also. There is a lot of research now on epigenetics, on how the environment and other facts cause genes to be expressed in different ways.
Clay Naff, A Fabulous Evolutionary Defense for Dualism
So again that radically undermines determinism; it's not as if genes determine an outcome, oftentimes a situation will feed back into the genes. If there's genuine novelty at the heart of evolution, then it can't be pre-determined.
Biology: the study of living organisms.
It's very clearly false, this assumption that biology explains and predicts everything we will do. Sorry jamesfive, but if you want to defend determinism you'll have to do better than that.
The truth or falsity of the latter, though it is extreme in scope and rigidity, has no scientific bearing on any issue. - including biological determinism. Biological determism is certainly true to an extent - there is no controversy there - only disagreement as to how much culture and randomness affect behaviour.
If you believe in "strict" determinsim then the randomness is pseudo-randomness - in other words there appears to be true randomness to all intnents and purposes.
If you believe in dualism , then this can be represented as randomness without prejudicing the study of biological determinism. Not so with "strict" determism of course...
If you read the OP I think you will find that @jamesfive is really wanting to talk about free will, which is really the provence of a discussion of "strict" determinism, rather than a discsussion of biological functioning. Unfortunately he referred to "our biology" when I think he meant "our universe".
I'm no expert but just because we cannot find out position and momentum of a particle simultaneously it does not mean that these things are undefined simultaneously. Try ducking (www.duckduckgo :smile: ) "Heisenberg and uncertainty" . But QM is sure weird, and I wouldn't be suprised if causality as we know it vanishes at some point. But I am not "afraid" of strict determinsm - it doesn't "scare" me, probably because I have happily accepted materialism. But then again I wouldn't mind if some sort of "spirit" existed - it would be very exciting!
Quoting Wayfarer
well all sorts of sub themes inevitably popped up. I wish we could have branches to threads - perhaps limited to one or two ply. ATM it seems that many threads effectively have them anyway, in a messy sort of way.
There's a big problem with saying that biological determinism is true to an extent, whether or not you think there is no controversy here. When there is exceptions to a rule, this is evidence that the rule does not capture an understanding of what is going on, even if you might say that the rule is "true to an extent". Exceptions render the rule meaningless, and "true to an extent", really indicates that the rule is false.
If a creature is observed to act in a certain way, due to habit, then we might make a rule concerning that activity. One might call this "biological determinism". But when the creature displays the capacity to break the habit, then the claim of "determinism" is falsified. So there's really no such thing as "biological determinism", or 'soft determinism", those terms are smoke and mirror illusions which veil misunderstanding and false rules, whereas "freewill" represents something substantial, the capacity to break out of habits.
The real world doesn't work in words, and definitions. For example, consciousness can be present in different species to a greater or lesser extent; also in individuals of the same species exhibiting varying degrees of trauma to the brain. Biological determism is the domain of science. It has nothing to do with free will, which is logically compatible with biological knowledge - (even if possibly not a proven or scientifically meaningful entity). Just because you believe in free will you don't have to jettison the findings of science - for example that babies (and adults) are hardwired to respond to faces and smiles; snake shapes etc etc.
I'm not trained in physics past high school level, but I've read quite a bit about the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. It's a lot more mysterious and therefore controversial than most people realise.
The basic question is, 'determined by what'? If you're familiar with the current state of science, then you would know that there are many massive explanatory gaps, like physics only being thought to account for 4% of the totality of the cosmos (the remainder being 'dark'). Big bang cosmology itself is almost mystical. The idea of 'determinism' really belongs with LaPlace, who lived and wrote shortly after Newton. As I said before, I think it's a way to avoid the responsibility of life NOT being determined.
But you were talking about what is "true". And truth concerns how the words and definitions correspond with the real world. So words and definitions are just as important to truth as is "the real world". To say that biological determinism is "true to an extent" is really meaningless, because it's like saying that the words vaguely correspond with reality. And what this means is that there appears to be some semblance of correspondence, but when it comes right down to the specifics, correspondence is just not there, and the semblance of correspondence is just an illusion.
Quoting Kippo
Let me get this straight. Free will is compatible with biological knowledge. Then there is something called "biological determinism" which has nothing to do with free will. But since determinism is not compatible with free will, I conclude that biological determinism is not compatible with biological knowledge, which is compatible with free will. Why adopt the position of biological determinism, which grasps for some semblance of correspondence, but is really not compatible biological knowledge?
No it doesn't. The behavior may be due to a complex set of factors that are unobserved or unobservable. As an extreme example, consider a deterministic account of a human choice: it is determined by the prior beliefs (short and long term), desires, dispositions, transient urges ....
The point about qm, is that it casts into doubt the notion that on a fundamental level, the real universe exists in a particular way, independently of our observation of it. In other words, it seems to undermine the notion of the mind-independent nature of fundamental particles. And mind-independence is a strong assumption in modern science. This was the bone of contention between Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr in their decades-long debates over interpretation of qm. Einstein was a staunch scientific realist and couldn't accept the notion of observer-dependency which seemed at the heart of this 'new physics'. Bohr was (in my view) more philosophically sophisticated, and had less trouble with ambiguity and the uncertainty implied by physics.
Edward Frenkl
But that's just invoking magic, claiming unobservable causes.
Quoting Relativist
This is not a good example of unobservable causes, because these causes are observable, to the person acting. They are not properly unobservable. And when they are properly observed these things are understood to influence actions (affect them) but not cause them.
It's argument from ignorance to insist there are no causes just because we're ignorant of them.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You're focusing too much on the unobservable. I also said they can just be unobserved. You were claiming determinism is falsified by observing a behavioral pattern to be broken. You're wrong, because we may simply be unaware of all the factors that collectively cause the behavior, some of which are less frequent.
I'm not claiming these possibilities prove determinism, just pointing out that determinism may still be true- therefore it's not falsified.
No, I was not claiming that determinism is falsified in this way, I was claiming that "biological determinism" is falsified in this way. Biological determinism is dependent on what is known to biology, so you can't just claim that the cause of the behaviour is something unknown to biology because that is self-refuting to biological determinism. Either the cause of the behaviour is something known to biology or it is not. If it is not, then biological determinism is falsified.
News to me, and sounds like an odd definition. Determinism, as typically used, is ontological or metaphysical. You're defining it epistemologically. Is this your personal definition, or is this a standard I've never heard of?
It's this remark which I was replying to:
Kippo said: "Biological determinism is certainly true to an extent...".
I think there's a problem with saying that something is true to an extent.
I suggested that when the causes for a certain type of behaviour are seen to be biological, for the most part, like habits, yet there are exception to the rule, then biological determinism is ruled out by those exceptions. And "true to an extent" doesn't make sense. But I just said "determinism" is ruled out, so you jumped in on my mistake, and said it's not, because there could be other determinist causes which are responsible, that are not biological. I meant to say biological determinism is ruled out.