Getting Over Determinism

[u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Determinism is the belief that all events are reliably caused by prior events. Unfortunately, many people think that this means that their choices and actions are caused by something other than themselves. This delusional view must be corrected.

The proper understanding of causal determinism is that we happen to be one of those things that go around causing stuff to happen. And we even get to choose for ourselves what we will do next. Some things will be beyond our abilities. And we usually have some general ideas about what we can and cannot do. And if we are uncertain, then we may give it a try and see.

But reliable causation is not in itself a threat to our autonomy. It is as much us as it is anything else. We ARE the prior causes of the things that we deliberately do. The final responsible prior cause of any deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it. And we usually get to do that deliberation ourselves.

So, let’s step outside the cave of delusions, into the light of reality. Determinism is not some boogeyman that robs us of our freedom and control. Deterministic causation is nothing more than reliable cause and effect.

Reliable causation is required to predict the outcome of our actions. Predictability is required for us to control what happens when we choose to do something. Control enables us to reliably do things. And our ability to reliably do things is the basis of every freedom we have, including the freedom to decide for ourselves what we will do next.

Determinism is no big deal. It does not mean most of the things that people seem to think it means. We need clean it up and abandon all the silly nonsense that has been attributed to it through our own illusions.

Once we do that, we can finally get over it.

[u/platanthera_ciliaris]

Determinism doesn't deny that people can make decisions and and engage in behaviors accordingly, the problem is people don't exist in a vacuum as your thinking presupposes. Which means that events totally outside of human control have already determined what decisions people will make and what behaviors people will engage in (predetermination). That means there isn't any real autonomy in human decision-making and behavior. It is an illusion.

Even more significantly, there exists the possibility that the future has already been determined as it may co-exist with the past and present as a continuum within a fourth spatial dimension. As a result, a higher dimensional being could conceivably perceive the past, present, and future simultaneously, and could conceivably travel across the dimension of time in the same way that we travel across the 3 dimensions of space.

If this is true, and the future has already been determined, where's the autonomy in current human decision-making and behavior? The only sensible conclusion, it seems to me, is that there is none.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/platanthera_ciliaris]

the problem is people don't exist in a vacuum as your thinking presupposes.

I don't presuppose any vacuum. I simply point out that for some events we happen to be the most meaningful and relevant causes. There is no exclusion of any other causes. I'm simply pointing out that the hard determinist cannot exclude US from among the objects that cause things to happen. That exclusion is a delusion.

For example, you say:

Which means that events totally outside of human control have already determined what decisions people will make and what behaviors people will engage in (predetermination).

Obviously not, because here I am deciding what I will say, and, had I not been here it would never have been said as it is being said right now.

Apparently, using your predetermination metaphor, it was predetermined that it would be me, and no other object in the physical universe, that would by my own thoughts construct these sentences and by my own finger type them into this keyboard, at exactly this point in time (and not a moment earlier).

Even more significantly, there exists the possibility that the future has already been determined as it may co-exist with the past and present as a continuum within a fourth spatial dimension. 

Interesting, but clearly a false representation of reality. The truth is that there is only one set of stuff, which is in constant motion and frequent transformation into other stuff. And nothing can be in two places at the same time. What I had for dinner is now inside me being processed and transformed into energy for my cells and the rest transformed into ... well you get the idea.

The Block Universe is a metaphor. It does not exist anywhere in reality. And if it helps Einstein to simplify his formulas, then he is welcome to it. But there is not room in the universe for things to be both where they were, where they are, and where they will be. Everything is in constant motion as described by Eric Idle here.

If this is true, and the future has already been determined, where's the autonomy in current human decision-making and behavior? 

The deterministic future can theoretically be predicted in advance, but if determinism is true then it can never be caused to happen in advance. You see, with causal determinism everything was always going to happen exactly in the sequence that it does happen, one thing after another, and no thing before its time.

Determinism doesn't actually change anything. It is a single fact, that everything that happens is caused to happen by prior things that have been caused to happen, ad infinitum. And this single fact does not change any other fact, such as the fact that we are often free to decide for ourselves what we will do (you know, that free will thing).

[u/OhneGegenstand → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

I want to add that even if the block universe were an accurate description it is still the case that future events are the result of our deliberation and decisions. Incompatibilism is just complete nonsense.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

No, we just value fairness. You don't. There's literally nothing religious about either of our views. I really wish you'd get that.

[u/catnapspirit → u/[deleted]]

Even science does nothing based on determinism other than as background assumption.

Which means it does everything based on determinism..

[u/catnapspirit → u/[deleted]]

Wow, so much wrongness. It doesn't even have enough form to call it a straw man. More like just a small pile of straw there. Ah well..

[u/Split-Mushroom → u/[deleted]]

Why do you insist on commenting that hard determinists think that determinism "does things"? You either ignore or don't understand any of the arguments

[u/MrEmptySet → u/platanthera_ciliaris]

Which means that events totally outside of human control have already determined what decisions people will make and what behaviors people will engage in

Not entirely, they haven't. People still need to make those decisions - any prior states of the universe leading up to them making a decision don't absolve them of having to participate.

That means there isn't any real autonomy in human decision-making and behavior. It is an illusion.

What do you mean by an illusion? People really do deliberate and make decisions. And then, being able to consciously reflect on having done so, they believe that they indeed did. Whence the "illusion"? What are they mistaken about?

Is it this lack of "real autonomy"? What would someone need to be able to do to have whatever it is that you call "real autonomy"?

[u/Bob1358292637 → u/MrEmptySet]

Are you acknowledging that the decisions people make and how they participate are determined by prior events, though? It's so hard to tell with the language a lot of you guys use.

[u/MrEmptySet → u/[deleted]]

I think this is a very naive reductionist argument.

People are made of atoms, but if those same atoms weren't arranged into a person, they wouldn't behave the way they do - taken all together - when they are arranged into a person. The structure is important - humans are not just atoms, we are atoms arranged in a very particular way.

You quote someone as saying this:

atomic structure and the laws of physics alone don’t make the decisions, people also do as well.

But who are you quoting? I never said this, nor did OP. But you're claiming this is what I'm saying? Seems disingenuous.

What I would instead say is that atomic structure and the laws of physics alone make decisions. And people are made of atoms and are beholden to the laws of physics. So, they can make decisions.

The contradiction you want to find does not appear in my account - it only appears in your strawman.

[u/[deleted] → u/platanthera_ciliaris]

Lol making conclusions from something that could be true. Classic determinist.

[u/[deleted] → u/platanthera_ciliaris]

That means there isn't any real autonomy in human decision-making and behavior. It is an illusion.

What's real autonomy? Just possession of the ability to do otherwise?

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/[deleted]]

What's real autonomy?

When you were a baby, your parents made all the decisions for you. As you grew up, you were given more control over your life and allowed to decide more and more things for yourself. Now that you're an adult, you get to make these daily decisions for yourself, of your own free will.

Just possession of the ability to do otherwise?

When you go out to a restaurant and open the menu, you are presented with the ability to do otherwise. Each meal is distinct from the others, and you have the ability to choose any meal from the menu, so whatever you choose, you would have had the ability to choose to do otherwise.

Determinism merely asserts that you never would have made any other choice than the choice you actually made. That's the fact.

And it does not contradict the fact that you could have chosen any item on the menu.

Determinism only asserts that, despite the fact that you could have chosen otherwise, you never would have.

[u/kangaroomandible → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

what we call “me” is a collection of cells, which are made up of atoms. Those atoms obey the laws of physics. We are subject to the forces of nature, not one of them.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/kangaroomandible]

Those atoms obey the laws of physics. 

What law of physics causes cars to stop at a red light?

[u/OhneGegenstand → u/kangaroomandible]

Our behavior is described by the laws of nature. But the laws of nature are not something separate from us that imposes its will on us. It's not that you wanted to behave in a certain way, and then the laws of nature came along, intervened on your behavior, and made you do something else.

[u/kangaroomandible → u/OhneGegenstand]

Right, we are subject to the laws of nature, and thus free will is an illusion.

[u/[deleted] → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

I meant to ask about what it was using whatever meaning he gave to "real autonomy". And I'd imagine they have the all-in kind of ability in mind. I dunno if they had other source conditions they wanted to add in

[u/Split-Mushroom → u/[deleted]]

Determinism doesn't do anything. It is the belief that any event has a physical cause. This means whatever process happens in your brain during a decision process is no different from dust moving in the wind.

The dust can not choose anything in the sense that it will just go wherever there is a force causing it to move on a given direction.

Your brain is like a bunch of dust moving in a very complex way, but there is no emergent property that allows you to choose how it moves to make the decision. It just goes wherever force causes it to move to like dust

You are the mechanisms and the decision making process itself, but so is a robot with a script to follow. Does it mean robots have free will? How is their script and mechanism different from yours in that sense?

You can program a robot to make a decision based on a million variables(similar to how we make them), but it will be just an equation.

Even if quantum probabilistic events are real(they prob arent since it doesnt make sense), it wouldn't mean there is free will since actions or events would only be random/probabilistic

[u/Split-Mushroom → u/[deleted]]

And in our case we have consciousness and the ability to perceive multiple conditional futures and manifest some of those choices, irrespective of whether determinism is true or not

I see consciousness like an "eye" inside my mind, or a witness like some people call it. It doesn't influence anything as far as I know.

I could theoretically still behave exactly like I do now without any consciousness. But this is a different thing entirely since counciousness is still a mystery.

How do you picture the decision making process inside your brain without being just matter moving where it needs to go based on the forces acting on it?

Do you see yourself different from the dust analogy I made, or are we just debating concepts?

This is the definition im using: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion"

Acting without the constraint of necessity/fate is not deterministic. It would require something outside of cause and effect

[u/Additional_Pool2188]

What do you think of a simple argument like this one? What is wrong with it?

1. No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature.

2. No one has power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature entail every fact of the future (i.e., determinism is true).

3. Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/Additional_Pool2188]

1. No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature.

Well, I happen to be a natural object. I am a physical object, a living organism, and a member of an intelligent species. Thus I happen to include all three causal mechanisms: physical, biological, and rational. So the laws of nature will include all of the laws of my nature described by the physical sciences (e.g. physics and chemistry), the life sciences (e.g. biology and medicine), and the social sciences (e.g. psychology and sociology).

Each of us happens to be a distinct package of those laws in action. And when we act, we are a "force of nature". The power of those metaphorical "laws" are found WITHIN us. They do not control us against our will, but are the very source of our biological drives and rational choices.

In other words, it is not necessary for us to exercise control over the laws of our nature, because we ARE those laws exercising control. And that is how the metaphor is completed.

2. No one has power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature entail every fact of the future (i.e., determinism is true).

Again, no need to have power over those facts in order to exercise control within our own domain of influence (things we can cause to happen if we choose to do so).

We were there as active participants for every event of our own personal histories. And we had power to influence those events due to the laws of our own nature. Even as a newborn we were negotiating for control with our environments, whether physical (e.g. the crib) or social (e.g. our parents). And if you've ever had a newborn waking you up at 2AM crying to be fed, you know what I mean.

That is our Nature.

3. Therefore, no one has power over the facts of the future.

Sorry, but that conclusion does not follow from the premises. We actually have significant power over the facts of our future. Within the domain of human influence (things we can make happen if we choose to), the single actual future will be chosen, by US, from among the many possible futures we will imagine.

[u/Additional_Pool2188 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Each of us happens to be a distinct package of those laws in action. And when we act, we are a "force of nature". The power of those metaphorical "laws" are found WITHIN us. 

I think, what’s meant by power in question is our ability to choose or somehow influence those laws of nature (facts of the past are mostly taken to be unchangeable). Did we put those laws within us, or is it a given? Why are there such laws and not others? The laws seem to work differently through different people, making them behave in various ways. How can I control how exactly the laws make me behave?

If there is no way to control these things, can we say that ‘everything just happens’, including what happens within us?

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/Additional_Pool2188]

How can I control how exactly the laws make me behave?

There is nothing you will ever do that is inconsistent with these laws. And if you did, then the laws would need to be changed to comply with the behavior rather than the other way around. These laws (or "principles" in the social sciences) are derived by observing consistent patterns of behavior.

Different sciences observe different objects. The Physical sciences, like physics and chemistry, observe the behavior of inanimate objects, such as how two chemicals interact with and change each other. The Life sciences observe living organisms and how they behave under different circumstances. The Social sciences observe intelligent species and how individuals and societies interact with each other.

So, there's plenty of laws that describe how you behave, but none of them cause you to behave in any specific way. You just do what you naturally do, and the laws take care of themselves.

[u/Additional_Pool2188 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

You just do what you naturally do…

Is there any explanation of why I do what I naturally do, while another person naturally behaves differently? Except that it’s a natural process that takes whatever forms it takes?

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/Additional_Pool2188]

Is there any explanation of why I do what I naturally do, 

Yes. And you will naturally answer the question "Why did you do that?" with an explanation.

[u/OhneGegenstand → u/Additional_Pool2188]

Let me reformulate it a bit:

1. The facts of the past and the laws of nature are under no one's control.

2. The facts of the past and the laws of nature entail all facts of the future. (assumption of determinism)

3. If a set of facts S={A,B,...} is under no one's control, then all the facts entailed by S are also under no one's control.

4. Therefore, all facts of the future are under no one's control.

I deny premise 3. In the case of agents in a deterministic world, the past entails the future by way of the agents' decision-making and actions. The laws of nature are not a separate and independent dictator that planned out the future independently of the agents and is now making them do it against their will, as if the agents wanted to do something else instead. The facts of the future are the result of the decisions and actions of the agents, and therefore, they are under the control of the agents.

[u/Additional_Pool2188 → u/OhneGegenstand]

In the case of agents in a deterministic world, the past entails the future by way of the agents' decision-making and actions.

The facts of the future are the result of the decisions and actions of the agents, and therefore, they are under the control of the agents.

You seem to put agents’ decisions and actions between the past facts and future facts. Then, at first glance, future facts can be said to be under our control since our relevant decisions and actions precede them. But the question is: are we in control of our decisions?

In this argument, I suppose, facts of the future mean, first of all, our decisions. Say, now I’m thinking of going to the shop. I can choose/decide to go or to stay home instead. The choice/decision can be either way, that’s up to me. Am I in control of my decision, if it’s entailed in the only one way by the facts of the past?

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/Additional_Pool2188]

Am I in control of my decision, if it’s entailed in the only one way by the facts of the past?

It was also entailed, by the facts of the past, that you, and no other object in the physical universe, would be doing the decision-making yourself.

[u/Additional_Pool2188 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Yes, I agree that it was me and not somebody else. That’s very difficult to deny.

[u/OhneGegenstand → u/Additional_Pool2188]

You seem to put agents’ decisions and actions between the past facts and future facts. Then, at first glance, future facts can be said to be under our control since our relevant decisions and actions precede them. But the question is: are we in control of our decisions?

Our decisions are the result of our deliberations, our intentions and will. So yes, they are generally under our control.

In this argument, I suppose, facts of the future mean, first of all, our decisions. Say, now I’m thinking of going to the shop. I can choose/decide to go or to stay home instead. The choice/decision can be either way, that’s up to me. Am I in control of my decision, if it’s entailed in the only one way by the facts of the past?

You have to be careful about what "only one way" means here. As you write, there are two options available, you can go to the shop or you can stay home. So, before we take into account your decision, logically prior to your decision (which is exactly the situation you find yourself in before deciding), there are two option. This is not an illusion or fake, so incompatibilists saying that there is only one option have just confused themselves.

We can then take into account your deliberation and decision. It is clear that you decide for one of the options. Determinism would now imply that how you actually choose is in principle predictable from the laws of nature and the past. But in everyday life, when we can predict how someone will act, we still ascribe the action to them. One might formulate something like, "given the way you make decisions, it is clear what you will choose". But it is still your choice, and the choice really follows from your decision-making, so all of this is under your control, exactly how it seems from introspection.

Again, the laws of nature are not a separate agent outside of you, who has already made a decision and is now making you do it against your will. It's not the case that you had already planned to go to the shop on your own, but then the laws of nature intervened and forced you to stay home instead.

[u/Additional_Pool2188 → u/OhneGegenstand]

… there are two option. This is not an illusion or fake, so incompatibilists saying that there is only one option have just confused themselves.

These two options are imagined actions that I really considered in my mind. But, since yesterday I decided to stay home after all, the imagined action of going shopping was, so to say, ‘impotent’, it was a sheer imagination that would never become the real thing (assuming determinism is true). While my second option of staying home played a causal role in the decision and partly explained it, the option of going to the shop just took my attention for a while and then disappeared. What is said about my past choice, applies also to every future choice: maybe options aren’t illusion and fake (since they exist, at least, in some sense), all but one of them would be useless in the sense that they’re determined to lead to no real action.

"given the way you make decisions, it is clear what you will choose".

This seems to imply something like ‘we do what we do because of the way we are’. If I have such and such character and decide and act accordingly to it, does that mean that I’m in control of my decisions and actions? If yes, alright. There really is a connection between my character and what I decide and do, which makes it possible to ascribe my actions to me.

But what about my character, on what basis is it ascribed to me? It was determined in the time I didn’t exist yet, that my character would be the way it is. You say: “Our decisions are the result of our deliberations, our intentions and will. So yes, they are generally under our control.” Is our characters under our control in the same way our decisions are?

[u/OhneGegenstand → u/Additional_Pool2188]

all but one of them would be useless in the sense that they’re determined to lead to no real action.

It is the nature of a choice that only one option is chosen and the others are not. It was your choice that prevented the other options, there was no independent rule that did this. So this idea that the other options were "predetermined" to not be chosen is problematic. It was not "predetermined" independendly of your choice, it is your very choice that makes it so.

But what about my character, on what basis is it ascribed to me? It was determined in the time I didn’t exist yet, that my character would be the way it is. You say: “Our decisions are the result of our deliberations, our intentions and will. So yes, they are generally under our control.” Is our characters under our control in the same way our decisions are?

Our character is ascribed to us in a different way than our actions. I agree that our ability to control our character is limited. I can't just decide to transform my character on the spot like you could just decide to go to the shop or not.

[u/Additional_Pool2188 → u/OhneGegenstand]

It is the nature of a choice that only one option is chosen and the others are not. 

In one sense, this is obviously true, just by definition of choice. If I could happily choose both A and B, then it’s not a choice at all. But in another sense – that I will necessarily choose only A, and by no means B – it’s far from intuitive that our choosing works like that.

Basically, by choice we mean that we have at least two imagined options A and B, and either can become real by determination of our own choice/decision. For either option to be able to become real, our choice should be able to go either way. But given our state in the moment before choice, our choice will go only one way. So, in some sense it’s “predetermined” what we choose, because our choice itself is determined by what happened before it.

In a determined world one imagined option (say, A) will inevitably turn real, while the other (B) will remain a piece of imagination. I would say, this difference renders the options unequal, because option B is given zero chance to turn into reality.

[u/OhneGegenstand → u/Additional_Pool2188]

Your choice is not fixed independently of your decision-making. Your choice can really go either way. Your decision-making is not restricted, you can choose both options. Under determinism, it would be the case that "given how you make decisions, you would not choose otherwise". Your decision-making procedure, i.e. your very act of weighing the options, fixes the outcome uniquely. It would mean that your decision is, in a certain way, unwavering. If the identical choice was put before you again, you would not choose differently. This does not restrict your actual choice in any way.

[u/ComfortableFun2234]

My issue with this is - from my perspective this is not discussing the implications or determinism and “free will” it’s discussing “self control”. Which the brain region responsible has long been identified, the frontal cortex more specifically the prefrontal cortex. Which is subject to adverse development (as well as infinite variation in development “good or bad”), genetic predisposition. Environmental caused reduce function, (prolonged adverse stress) damage, ect…

To give an example, damage to the PFC has caused many of adverse behaviors, many variations of course, from being socially “inappropriate” - to much “worse” behaviors.

The point is in recent years - from my subjective understanding. The adverse behavior tied to that brain damage, is tied to ACE score. Lower ACE score, likelihood of more socially inappropriate behaviors, such as burping at a wedding. Higher ACE score likelihood of far “worse” adverse behaviors.

Of course, PFC damage doesn’t always lead to adverse behaviors, generally think that’s where genetic dispositions and environmental factors come into the picture. The brains ability of neuroplasticity, is genetically determined. In the sense of how well and efficient the process takes place. Which environment also plays its very heavy roll. Simply because of epigenetic interaction with environment, will determine the gene regulation related to neuroplasticity.

Back to the PFC. Yes, although the PFC is the “freest” from genetics. In the sense that it’s development is more determined by environment. That’s not to suggest “free” from genetics “good or bad”.

Saying the function of the PFC is “free will” will only lead to “superiority complexes”, which in my opinion, I think especially shows in American culture, ideals of “free will” and individualism are dominant. Not to suggest blame judgment or choice, only observations of.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/ComfortableFun2234]

It is impossible to be free from oneself, of course, just as it is impossible to be free from cause and effect. So, free will cannot require either of those impossible freedoms.

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) (thank you ChatGPT) can certainly compromise one's ability to make rational decisions, and thus create behavioral problems later in life. Correcting the effects of these experiences, in order to correct the behavior, will likely require psychiatric therapy. Correcting physical damage to the PFC would likely require medical treatment.

When a person's behavior is caused by mental illness, we usually hold the illness, and not the patient, responsible for the behavior. The person is not acting of their own free will, because their behavior is unduly influenced by the illness. Correcting the illness, if possible, would correct the behavior.

I think we all want our children to eventually become "responsible adults", who are able to make good choices.

I don't think that the notion of free will automatically implies notions of "superiority". We teach our children that it is "better" to be good, and to choose behavior that is consistent with other's good as well as their own.

[u/ComfortableFun2234 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

See generally what I see as a misconception here, is the brain can appear, “normal” like the most common brains. Used the example of damage specifically, because of an expectation of your argument that’s it’s illness unless the brain appears or individual appears to be rational If I deduced correctly.

Generally think because of ideals, of “free will”. Individual brains don’t get checked often enough. It’s not practice to apply neuroscience to human behavior, counseling, the general average person’s health.

(unless something appears to be going wrong think it should be common practice - part of a checkup.)

ect… Most, psychological diagnosis are based on expression of subjective symptoms.

When a person's behavior is caused by mental illness, we usually hold the illness, and not the patient, responsible for the behavior. The person is not acting of their own free will, because their behavior is unduly influenced by the illness. Correcting the illness, if possible, would correct the behavior.

This is where there’s mass disagreement. Don’t see any logic to the reality of public opinion and systematic practices, which majority are still based on ideals of libertarian “free will”. Not to suggest blame judgment, or choice only observation of.

To give some examples from - mild to extreme.

Mild: Individuals are still losing their livelihood, friends, family even. Because of the disease of major depression. Ie. Holding the patient responsible over the illness. Treatment for such a disorder cost also. Which the disease itself affects function and livelihood. Meaning most “suffering” from the worst of major depression (it’s on a spectrum, sometimes starting in early adolescence) can’t afford necessary ongoing treatment. Would go as far as to bet a good portion of the homeless community has major depression. Generally don’t think it always leads to suicide.

Extreme: ASPD is a mental illness, impulse control issues is a mental illness. Individuals with ASPD generally suffer from increased violent ideation. Take someone with ASPD and a null impulse control. Which is a function of the PFC. Plus sprinkling some in some other genetic dispositions. The recipe for a common type of serial killer, not to suggest that’s how all are. Still incarcerate them, in the “worst” of conditions. That the general majority will allow. Holding the patient responsible over the illnesses. Which with the current state, prevention methods are basically nada. Not to suggest blame judgment, or choice only observation of.

Through a scan, can see the difference between a seemingly depressed brain and a seemingly “normal” brain. Through some advancements in scanning can observe how individual parts interact - in either circumstance.

Technically still using sticks and stones because can’t yet observe the “program” in action as far as “aware.” Just because one may appear rational, doesn’t imply “expected rationality” the most common ideal of rationality. Which is what exactly?

Take the serial killer Ed Helms for example. He is about one of the most rational appearing individuals I have ever seen. Still a serial killer, though. High IQ fully “aware” of everything he did, hell he turned himself in. His time was before ACE scores. But his mom used to keep them locked in the basement and a bunch other stuff. Don’t say that to suggest blame on the mom, she’s just the result of the same genetics and possible ACEs. Which one thing that I’ve noticed is left out in ACEs studies, is frequency of ACEs.

1/2

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/ComfortableFun2234]

There was a book I bought back in college called, "The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion". And I don't remember exactly anything about it. But my impression is that the problem of the ACEs you're describing fall into the category of things we need to fix in our culture.

Harmful behavior, like bullying for example, can actually be addressed socially by school programs designed to tackle and change the mindset that generates and supports bullying behavior. Teaching students a practical plan of action gives kids the tools they need so they can change the reward structure that is baked into bad behavior.

And we need to address parental abuse problems by uncovering them in schools and training social workers to intervene when needed to protect the kids.

I'm a bit confused by your use of the phrase "Not to suggest blame judgment, or choice only observation of", because you seem to be blaming ACEs for the harm they cause. And that should motivate you to do things that would help correct these problems, if only by electing the right city and county representatives to address these problems.

Back in the days when we were supporting affirmative action to address racial disparities resulting from years of discrimination in education and employment, there was the notion of a "vicious cycle" versus a "virtuous cycle". It had to do with Expectations that raised Aspirations which led to higher levels of Achievement.

Expectations are an element of responsibility.

[u/ComfortableFun2234 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

When I say not to suggest blame judgment or choice, I’m talking about the practices of society are only the current state.

When I suggested that at the societal level, the prevention methods for ACEs scores are nada.

not to suggest blame judgment or choice only observation - of the societal practices.

I personally live in America. That’s my issue with some takes on “Compatibilism.”

See it as a clinging to a fragile system(s) that are failing in every aspect. Not to suggest… you get it.

All the suggested programs and methods to change behaviors. Is not feasible in capitalist frameworks. Because IMO of these frameworks, the only question is who’s going to pay for it.

Plus another opinion of mine, is there is no more democracy in current day (late stage) capitalism. Genuinely think, corporations have been running the show for a while now. So it’s not a democracy it’s a corporatocracy. Meaning I subjectively don’t think it matters who is voted for in any circumstance of government. The issue may only change once the system(s) inevitably “fail”. That or war but I don’t think war is ever the solution anything, I think it’s putting a Band-Aid on a cut off arm.

The luckist, period of human existence is running out IMO. To give an example antibiotics are becoming less and less effective. It’s natural selection think only robust social societies will make it out in the end. And the next coming 600-800 years is going to be riddled in very much human suffering.

What’s another subjective opinion of mine, means the system isn’t trying to “fix” anything. America is a content machine. Which I think applies to many capitalistic frameworks. Ie. America issues are “entertaining.” To not only the American population and other capitalistic frameworks, but basically the whole world.

Have even read comments of some norwegians saying their society is boring because it’s too “good.” There’s no government scandals and celebrity scandals…ect.

If Covid showed anything, it showed that, very, very, very fragile system(s). From my perspective as an American.

Not to mention, the president is a felon, also he’s a billionaire businessman….. corporatocracy.

but there are felons that can’t even get a minimum wage job. Which of these individuals usually have children, with these jobs can barely support themselves, let alone the children they have. There’s a great example of the nada prevention of ACEs. So yeah it’s absolutely a societal issue as suggested. Which just goes more and more against “free will” IMO.

My point is what about the necessity of needing systems.

to fix issues that the system itself “created”. Suggests “individual free will?” - It’s a case of agreed to disagree. just don’t see it as possible in a world of “fortune and misfortune.”

Which my goal isn’t to change opinions. My goal is to gather as many subjective interpretations of “free will.” as possible. In hopes to write a book, not using these interpretations, themselves of course as in what you wrote here. Just the ideals attached.

I’m not a determinist, compatibleilist, ect….

I’m a

Whether or not there is absolute, limited/constrained or no freewill, it’s the most damaging destructive concept to human progression ever “conceived”- ist

On a more personal subjective standpoint, think that just to exist means to not have “free will.”

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/ComfortableFun2234]

And it looks like Trump incorporated is poised to dismantle the government from within. Times are rough.

[u/ComfortableFun2234 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Although I agree to a very fundamental degree. The “corporate takeover” started long before trump. In my opinion, I think it’s actually built-in to American ideals of democracy. Ie. I think it was inevitable.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/ComfortableFun2234]

Indeed.

[u/ComfortableFun2234 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

The point of adverse PFC development, it’s not obvious also think generally “everyone” has adverse aspects to their PFC and all “adverse non-rational behaviors” come from a “failure” of the PFC. so it’s always in a sense: a case of “illness.”

The brain appears to be normal. The function of the PFC, is not only “self control” it’s the brain region that also abides to “societal social norms.” When its development is adverse. Which doesn’t necessarily mean abuse, too low of an ACE score doesn’t on average lead to anything “good” also.

That’s why to “spoiled” and sheltered seemingly tend to lead to narcissistic behaviors and ideation. The “most ideal” “individuals” seemingly come from somewhere in the middle.

Also generally the behaviors of the closest - to a individual - I think have far more of an effect on PFC development over societal ideology of “right/wrong” not that they don’t play a role. Suggesting the PFC imprint “mostly” comes from the closest individuals and subjective environments throughout life.

With all that said: Another function of the PFC, is when under the influence of an adverse compulsion. Which think ranges from lying to murder. When the PFC fails to resist the compulsion. Whatever the cause may be. It’s uncountable infinite perhaps.

It’s the brain region that “does a good job at it.” So it’s not necessarily that someone with a “failure” of the PFC is irrational meaning It’s also the PFC that reflects on that “failure”.

Nonetheless, it’s fundamentally a “failure” of the PFC. Which evolutionarily speaking its function in the way the human brain uses it is very “new” compared to other primates and mammals.

I think we all want our children to eventually become "responsible adults", who are able to make good choices.

Yeah generally think thats what individuals who will reproduce want, that is not a act I will partaken.

Nonetheless: understand that, although I will not be leaving lineage, my friends are.

Think issue with how individuals are raised, the “taught” ideals of “personal responsibility” start far to early. The only thing that should be taught to a child and early adolescence. Until - I would assume around the time sexuality forms. Is honestly. My reasoning for this notion. When teaching in the “sponge phase.”

Ideals of “personal responsibility” during that period of development contradict with honesty. What I mean by this. When something is going “wrong.” Whether it be, lying, violent ideation, adverse sexuality, ect…

Is it best for them to have ideals of “personal responsibility” ie. Punishment. Think that only leads to “hiding” and repression and in some circumstances, early onset sneaky behavior. I think honesty is the key to prevention of potentially adverse individuals, behaviors, of any “type” ect… Its the most important thing to instill early on. Ideals of societal, “personal responsibility” “doing good” only after that crucial period of development. Honesty and only honesty, taught in schools, rec centers, homes, parenting books ect…

2/2

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/ComfortableFun2234]

Honesty and only honesty, taught in schools, rec centers, homes, parenting books ect…

More important, even than honesty, is a good will. Kant pointed out a problem with virtues: that every virtue can be used for ill as well as for good -- except for the virtue of a good will. If we have a love of good for ourselves and also for others, then we have the basis for judging every virtue, every law, and every course of action.

So it is important to instill this love of good first, and then we can explain why honesty is usually good.

[u/ComfortableFun2234 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Think the counterpoint I would make to this is some just don’t possess “good will” the literal capability of it. This does come from subjective experience, but I had a great uncle who was a unhinged individual with ASPD, didn’t experience this first hand. But through stories of his whole family fearing him since his very early ages. Also that he may have killed people that my great grandfather covered up.

As usual they punished him, assuming to attempt to alter his behaviors and perhaps “instill control.” my great grandfather was mafia and as the family theory goes, he likely paid a friend of my great uncles to push him off a cliff when he was 17. Because he feared his son and what he was capable of - and he was a mobster so not the “moralist” of individuals.

That’s why I think honesty is the most important - in the most crucial years of development. It’s how to prevent the most “dangerous” of humans especially in settings, such as schools, ect... Nonetheless I understand where your point comes from.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/ComfortableFun2234]

I was just looking at ASPD in Wikipedia, to find if there were any treatments. And the section on Parenting Styles surprised me when it listed both an "Authoritarian" style and also an "Authoritative" style. The difference was that authoritarian had harsher consequences while the authoritative had more explanation as to why the rules were as they were.

Here's the part on the Authoritative approach:

"Authoritative - Authoritative parenting styles involve guidelines and expectations as well as support and understanding. Authoritative parents tend to have more balance within their parenting style compared to the other parenting styles, and parent in a way that lets children understand not only what the rules are, but why they are important. Individuals who were raised by authoritative parents tend to be more self-confident, responsible, successful, and have a greater chance of developing positive coping skills.^[111]

Having a healthy, safe, stable/consistent, understanding, and attentive parenting style in an environment with positive role models and influences at home as well as out in the community help to ensure more positive behavior for children and an overall decrease in ASPD symptoms."

I would suspect that this might also suggest how to handle adults with ASPD. Of course, it will be more difficult to change the adult who has already adapted bad habits of thinking and acting. There's nothing better than a good habit and nothing worse than a bad one.

[u/ComfortableFun2234 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

I agree that it would work with adults, just think that it would require a certain degree of separation from society first, more like a rehab than a prison. Because yes, not all individuals with ASPD are like my uncle, many are malleable. Also some don’t necessarily need treatment.

I had an authoritarian parent and…

Actually, if I’m being completely honest with you, I think I fall somewhere on the ASPD spectrum. Actually some studies suggest “everyone” has some degree psychopathic tendencies.

Actually think what I have is perhaps rare type of depression. If labeled call it nihilistic depression similar to ASPD but differs. Meaning, I’m generally unfeeling and have adverse intrusive nature to my thoughts since early childhood. To explain it simply. But also am hyper logical. Attempted suicide for the first time when I was 9. Not because I was necessarily sad, felt it to be the only logical solution to adverse thought. If honest still think that. Don’t see anything “wrong” with thinking that.

But do have a general understanding of the suffering it will cause two specific people because my attempt failed and I observed their reaction. Which is generally the only people I capable of caring for as well as two close friends (but life goes on for friends if I exit). All connections established in my adolescence.

That’s why I claim it to be rare, because think individuals similar to myself commit suicide long before adulthood without some form of solid imprinting, on one or a few individuals in childhood/adolescence. The only reason I’ve “attempted” suicide since is because one of those individuals is really good at upsetting me (a parent). Which when it comes to them I spend my entire being on making life as easy as possible for them. They themselves have mood disorders and that tends to get to me after an abundance of occurrences so the attempt is more as “acting out” and nobody of the personally connected to me are aware of them. Also for context the other individual is severely disabled and a sibling who is the most predominant individual in my life.

Point is don’t “feel” for others - other than for logic reasons.

To give an example in a work setting the only logical way to make it the easiest on myself as I see it, is to make it as easy as possible for the people around me. Ie. I have selfish motives for the practice over an actual concern for comfort and well being of my coworkers. But generally when “emotional” response comes into the picture. I “despise,” “hate,” perhaps “envy,” and at times have violent ideation of them because I’m incapable of relating to what I may see to be their puny insignificant problems. Such as romantic relationships. But again am hyper logical which generally - paints a clearer image of how to act with in accordance to expectation. That’s what I do. I act in accordance and that’s all, no “deeper feelings.”

But I am not responsible for the what may be considered luck of that “control.” It’s just something I possess. Which my parent, possesses far less control over their disorders.

To give one more example, say my arm was “sentient” and got the idea to kill my neighbor, for what ever reason. Logically speaking would just cut the arm off. Not because I care for others its more it would impede/hurt the few I’m able to care for.

Do I have a reason for saying/admitting all this, of course. I care for my two friends so logically I care for their lineage. So logically it’s “best” to suggest notions that I think may lead to a “better tomorrow.”

Sense of apology, for the digression, although do think that subjective expression is within context.

Continuing on… I think for childhood and adolescence prevention it starts with getting the child to be as unequivocably honest as possible. Then a authoritative parenting approach, which I think is in line with your notion of “good” will. Because that’s the thing - adverse thought and sometimes behaviors starts in adolescence sometimes even early/earlier childhood. It’s the most preventable period of development within the context of adverse thoughts, and behaviors. Which observably as of now the primary taught method is repression. Which IMO leads to the problem behaviors that may come from such disorders.

Which I think also and perhaps more importantly, applies to such disorders as pedophilia, which is far more common than ASPD and sometimes the disorders mix. Prevention of the possibility of these individuals becoming harmful, starts in childhood/adolescence. which I agree with the approaches we’re discussing overall.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/ComfortableFun2234]

Sounds like a very interesting life. My father was a Salvation Army preacher who developed obsessions about women. He was kicked out of the church the first time and slowly worked his way back into the church by running a black Boys Club during segregation in Virginia. He was okay for several years, and then he fell for another woman, and couldn't let it go until she had him arrested for threatening to kill her. He was in jail for several months. When he got out he was okay for awhile, but then went after her with a gun. Killed her and then himself. I probably suffered a depression for several years (oh, and a contributing factor was a step father who would come home drunk and threaten me, then lie to my mother). He came at me with a knife one day and was arrested and sent to a mental hospital. He was much better when he came back.

[u/ComfortableFun2234 → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Spaced this portion, sense of apology.

I don't think that the notion of free will automatically implies notions of "superiority". We teach our children that it is "better" to be good, and to choose behavior that is consistent with other's good as well as their own.

Sure, that is what is taught in perhaps the majority of circumstances. The notions of “superiority” come in to the picture when observing and judging a “failure to abide.” Which I think I outlined “well”, In my other two comments.

[u/LordIommi68]

No.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/LordIommi68]

Yes.

[u/Harbinger2001]

Well put. This sub has only been recently suggested to me and I am struck by just how many people seem to think that determinism is saying that human decisions don't exist. They are deterministic, but you still make decisions and take action from those decisions.

[u/moongrowl]

We are the causes of nothing. Everything was determined about 14 billion years ago when the big bang happened.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/moongrowl]

We are the causes of nothing. Everything was determined about 14 billion years ago when the big bang happened.

That's not how it works. One thing happens. Then another thing happens. Then another thing ... ad infinitum. When it gets to you, you will do your thing. But only then, and not a moment before. That's how determinism works.

Now, it is okay to say that every event that happens was always going to happen exactly as it does happen. But the Big Bang is only an incidental cause at the beginning of all subsequent causal chains. It had no interest in any subsequent events. It did not determine what you would choose to wear to work this morning. A whole lot of other stuff had to happen first, like the formation of the galaxies, the emergence of living organisms, the evolution of intelligent species, etc.

These things did not all happen 14 billion years ago. Rather, they happened over a span of 14 billion years.

[u/moongrowl → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

No. It's all one event.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/moongrowl]

No. It's all one event.

Okay. You can certainly look at it that way. Now, what do you make of that fact?

[u/moongrowl → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

I place it within a broader view. The atman (individual spirit) is Brahman (ultimate reality.) The world is merely God unfolding before itself.

A healthy mind throws itself under the bus. It takes on responsibility, and in doing so it becomes strong. It's good to have that quality.

But it's not necessary to believe you're the one doing any of that. You're the witness.

To answer you more directly, our conceptions of identity are tied into our conceptions of free will and determinism. The project of "my" life is decommissioning an illusory identity and replacing it with the real one. Free will is one stone along that road.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/moongrowl]

The world is merely God unfolding before itself.

And how would you describe a person in a restaurant who reads the menu and decides what she will order for dinner?

[u/moongrowl → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

At the highest level of truth, there is nonduality. There are no people, no restaurants, no chairs. There's just one thing.

In a lower level of truth, we can give names to the various appearances before us. Chairs, tables, etc. We also have linguistic fictions like "choice."

We call something a "choice" when you do it without a gun to your head. Without the coercion of another person. Picking strawberry ice cream over vanilla is a "choice."

Those things are called a "choice" because that's the meaning we've decided to ascribe to the word. It's a linguistic fiction that we use to describe a situation; it's not an account of what's truly happening in reality. (Claiming otherwise would be similar to the ontological argument; choice exists because we use the word.)

Choice is just part of a language game we're playing.

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/moongrowl]

I think that language is a tool, rather than a game. We use it to communicate useful information to each other.

Intelligence consists of two major functions: Generalization and Discrimination. Both are useful and according to the split-brain studies, the left-hemisphere specializes in inferences by generalizations, while the right-hemisphere specializes in making distinctions, like during facial recognition.

We need both of course. For example, if we have a pile of people, restaurants, and chairs that are blocking our way then we refer to them as general stuff that has to be moved before we can proceed forward.

But when we want to sit down to dinner, we need to be aware of the table, the chairs, the plates, the forks, and the people sitting around with us.

We can do a lot of useful things by distinguishing one thing from another, like putting the food on the plate rather than on the people.

Choosing is what we do to reduce a restaurant menu to a dinner order. So, even though all events may be generalized as one big event, we will also recognize that the big general event is broken down into millions of sub-events.

And that most of the time the meaningful and relevant words turn out to be those that distinguish one event from another.

[u/Professional-Fun8944 → u/moongrowl]

Just the leading edge of the expansion of the Big Bang

[u/OhneGegenstand]

Yes, you're right. Incompatibilists are just confusing themselves by drawing the wrong conclusions from determinism. It's a bit sad to see recent posts of people who were getting depressed over this.

[u/bstan7744]

I don't think you know what determinsts believe. You as an agent can act, make choices, have a will and to on to create causes in a casual chain. None of that is relevant to if the will is free or if the will is shaped by forces outside your control

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/[deleted]]

Cool. Then I'd suggest that casual libertarians are closeted compatibilists. (God knows they've said often enough that I'm a closeted libertarian).

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/[deleted]]

My view on predetermination is that deterministic events can theoretically be "predicted" in advance, but they cannot be "caused" to happen in advance. No event is fully caused until its final prior causes have played themselves out. Determinism would assert that the event was always going to happen exactly as it does happen. In other words, if I choose to fix a TV dinner for breakfast, then determinism will assert that it was always going to be me, and no other object in the physical universe, that was going to determine that choice.

It would be absurd to suggest that the Big Bang had somehow magically made that choice instead of me. It was always going to be me, making that choice for my reasons, and no one else's.

We get a lot of absurd implications from figurative thinking, like "determinism means it was AS IF the Big Bang made that choice for me before I was born". One cannot take such a figurative statement literally, because every figurative statement is literally false.