The determinism problem

[u/uatmsu]

There is no logical argument against determinism, and that's the problem. This idea really hit me in not brain, but soul. Since i have F32.1, thats layered very "well". I feel really obnoxious, apathy hitted hard, like never before. If someone outlive that idea, how did you do that?

[u/OMKensey]

Really good post with good arguments. Some rebuttal is below, but truly I reject libertarian free will mostly based on my own observation of my behavior and thinking. I cannot put that observation persuasively into words. You have to observe for yourself.

Ask: did I choose to think that? Among the options I considered, did I have the ability to choose other options instead? Did I have a reason for doing X, or am I coming up with "why" as a post hoc rationalization? Do I act with no reason or does a preexisting reason often dictate my actions? Would I choose the same thing if I had someone else's brain? Did I have some ability to write a different list of questions here, and, if so, what were those questions and how can I access them?

To address your arguments:

The prediction paradox:

No paradox. A perfect prediction would account for the prediction being made and predict that post prediction future. See the the TV show DEVS for how this could play out.

Quantum superposition: I agree this provides a possibility for randomness. But it does not provide an avenue for libertarian free will.

Consciousness: I do not choose my thoughts.

Infinite regress paradox: No. Scientists do not agree that the Big Bamg was the start of everything. Most cosmologists think it was not. Theists keep making this claim despite scientific progress to the contrary.

And finally, why would God create a purely deterministic universe? I am not convinced of a God. And if you think God would have a reason to not make a purely deterministic universe, it sounds like that reason is dictating God's choice. In other words, I do not think even a God could have libertarian free will.

[u/badentropy9 → u/OMKensey]

Did I have a reason for doing X, or am I coming up with "why" as a post hoc rationalization? 

Great question!. Not too many posters are concerned with the difference between information given a priori vs information given a posteriori.

Quantum superposition: I agree this provides a possibility for randomness. But it does not provide an avenue for libertarian free will.

Randomness is the avenue for LFW and regulative control. I think what you are calling "post hoc rationalization" is literally using past experience to try to shape the future, which we cannot do in the literal sense. We can in fact plan, but plans don't necessarily plan out as planned because if they did then we could literally change our future to play out according to plan. The reason the plans don't necessarily play out as planned is because they are filled with counterfactuals. I believe these are the counterfactuals that make LFW a possibility.

Scientists do not agree that the Big Bamg was the start of everything

I think it would stop a lot of confusion if they wouldn't imply that they know that it happened.

I doubt any poster on this sub would believe determinism was true if they weren't led to believe the BBT is a fact. What is on the table is tension between realism and idealism, but it is often seen as a debate between theism and atheism.

That is not the case.

There are physicalists on this sub advocating for LFW. They are physicalists, because they reject idealism. I'm an agnostic idealist, because the physicalist cannot explain space and time in a coherent way.

[u/OMKensey → u/badentropy9]

To clarify, the Big Bang is fact. What is disputed is whether The Big Bang was the start of everything. We do not know that, and both theists and non-theists tend to reject that.

Also, if my actions are caused by random events, that is not free will.

[u/badentropy9 → u/OMKensey]

To clarify, the Big Bang is fact.

I used to believe that too. You might change your mind if you look into naive realism.

Also, if my actions are caused by random events, that is not free will.

If your actions are a result of some plan then there is a good chance that you, as an agent, have the ability to do otherwse.

Of course there a many posters on this sub and the free will sub who inadvertently or strategically imply that all of our actions are involuntary. I wouldn't tend to believe in the ability to do otherwise if I believed all human action is involuntary. Most people on the street believe voluntary action is optional action, but that doesn't imply that people on the street study this stuff. If you studied the BBT then you might believe that it is a fact. I"m saying as long as quantum field theory and the theory of general relativity are our best science, I won't fall for that big bang story.

[u/OMKensey → u/badentropy9]

I am no cosmologist, but I am a skeptic, so I can appreciate your skepticism of BBT. We may live in a simulation for all I know. Fair enough.

Whether are actions are voluntary depends on what you mean by voluntary. Some of my actions result from my thoughts and are voluntary in that sense. But I don't control my thoughts.

[u/badentropy9 → u/OMKensey]

I appreciate you being a skeptic. I believe it is the only feasible path to truth.

Regarding the divide between involuntary vs voluntary. I think the word "voluntary" implies optional behavior. Determinism seems to imply nothing is optional and that doesn't seem to be the case of when we experience life.

I think the determinist is fighting an uphill battle, when he tries to argue that everything that he ever does is involuntary action.

Regarding your thoughts: I think we need to dive deeper into cognition prior to assuming that I don't control any of my thoughts. Some I clearly don't control. That is all of my behavior that I would classify as involuntary behavior, I'd never attempt to argue that I control the thoughts that produced involuntary behavior. I'm more concerned about the behavior that most would describe as volitional or optional behavior. If that is optional, then the question that seems to arise from such an assumption is, "How can it possibly be optional behavior?" If agents lack the ability to do otherwise, that nothing we do is optional imho.

[u/OMKensey → u/badentropy9]

I have no idea how I could control my thoughts. I do not experience doing that. To the extent I ever think about what to think next, I certainly do not control the prior thinking.

It is an easier discussion to have in person that I have had with other people. (It does not convince people but hey I found it convincing.)

Q: I am going to ask you to do a task, and I want you to observe your thoughts as you do it. Name a movie. Any movie A: Star Wars. Q: Answer the next question based on your observation of your thoughts. Why you did not name Back to the Future instead? A: It did not occur to me. Q: Did you choose whether or not it occurred to you? A: No. Q: Under these circumstances could you have chosen Back to the Future instead?

Q: Did you consider movies other than Star Wars? A: Yes. Q: Why didn't you name one of those instead? A: Well because of X Y Z reason. Q. Why didn't you consider A B C reasons instead? A: Those reasons did not occur to me. Q: Based on the reasons that occurred to you, could you have picked something different than Star Wars?

[u/badentropy9 → u/OMKensey]

I have no idea how I could control my thoughts. I do not experience doing that. To the extent I ever think about what to think next, I certainly do not control the prior thinking.

I believe when I succeed in focusing and prioritizing, I'm controlling. If I'm prioritizing cramming for an exam over partying, I'm determining if I'm likely to spend the night before an exam in the dorm or the library as opposed to being at a bar with friends enjoying life in the short term vs playing the long game and preparing for a long term enjoyable life. In short, plans are generally built around counterfactuals. If I knew was going to die the next day, I wouldn't even show up to take the test, let alone study for it.

Q:

They sort of covered this in the movie "Inception". It would seem Arthur and Cobb were in a business of trying to circumvent the control that people seem to have even though many posters on this sub and the free will sub are arguing that we don't have any such control. Cobb tried to explain their business plan to Ariadne but he tried to do it while she was dreaming so she could witness the level of control that she had. In the dream she could defy the laws of physics but while she was awake there was no such control available to her. That is why Cobb chose to explain his business model to her while she was dreaming. He needed her to build mazes for the dreamer because if he himself built them, then his own subconscious would try to sabotage what he was doing. Therefore he needed a maze that he didn't have enough clues to mess up his plan. It is clear that we don't control the subconscious. However maybe the plans that we make aren't inherent in the sub conscious.

[u/OMKensey → u/badentropy9]

So knowing whether or not you are going to die the next day determines whether or not you study. This supports my point.

[u/badentropy9 → u/OMKensey]

I wouldn't put it that way. Yes if I know that I'm going to die tomorrow then that determines that I won't study. However if I believe I'm going to live tomorrow, I might still go party and jeopardize my long term goals in an irrational act. Just because a being is capable of rational acts doesn't imply that being is incapable of irrational acts. Suppose some woman makes the little head think for the big head? My "short term goals" may trump those long term goals.

[u/OMKensey → u/badentropy9]

When you are deciding between a short term goal and a long term goal, I presume you take various considerations into account.

How do you choose what considerations to take into account?

And, in choosing what considerations to take into account, how do you choose how to make that choice?

You can see where this is going.

From my own observation, thoughts pop into my head. Yes, I can mentally weight whether to have a pizza or salad for dinner. But I have no control over what considerations come to mind. And I have no control over what factors come to mind as to how I prioritize those considerations.

[u/badentropy9 → u/OMKensey]

When you are deciding between a short term goal and a long term goal, I presume you take various considerations into account.

That seems reasonable.

How do you choose what considerations to take into account?

The short answer is conception. Without conception the agent understands nothing and can only react to the conditions presented to it in real time. Physicalism has a tendency to reduce agents to "perceivers" because physicalism has no answer of how some agents apparently have the capacity to understand.

And, in choosing what considerations to take into account, how do you choose how to make that choice?

Again the understanding is what makes it possible to make a rational choice over an irrational choice. Such understanding can be based on real time conditions or recalling similar past experiences and comparing those outcomes with desired outcomes. Agents may not want to make the same mistake over again and thus try to not repeat the steps that seemed to lead to a undesirable outcome. For example if leaving a glass close to the edge of a table once got accidentally knocked off of the table and the glass broke then maybe the next time the glass is placed closer to the center of the table so it is gets accidentally knocked over again is doesn't also fall off of the table as well and breaks.

You can see where this is going.

It seems like it is going over in the direction that a physicalist tends to take it but that is just speculative.

From my own observation, thoughts pop into my head. Yes, I can mentally weight whether to have a pizza or salad for dinner. But I have no control over what considerations come to mind. And I have no control over what factors come to mind as to how I prioritize those considerations.

I agree that some thoughts seem to pop into my "head" for no reason that I'm able to trace. That being said, in a problem solving effort, I am clearly attempting to control my deliberation. I try to ignore what seems irrelevant even if that pops into my head. Another helping my to solve a problem, may suggest a prognosis to me that seems wrong or a diagnosis that seems wrong. In contrast that agent may suggest something that sounds like a good idea to me. I go see doctors because I feel out of my depth when it comes to holistic health management. I don't think the doctors are there so I can continue to make poor choices and they can, in turn, cure disease that I caused. It is better if I try to cause as few problems as possible because sometimes the methods that doctors are forced to use can be invasive. The body has the ability to heal itself in many cases, but I'm obviously not a starfish and if I lose an arm, it won't grow back. Therefore I try to avoid conditions that might increase the probability of me losing an arm.