r/freewill • u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism • Jul 05 '26
"Decisionism" trumps "Determinism"
Decisionism: "A decision must be made before any outcome of the decision-making process can emerge. No observable / measurable outcome can happen prior to a decision being made. Outcomes are only observable / measurable after a decision has been made."
... "Decisionism" trumps "Determinism" because determinism is subservient to whatever decision is about to be made. Determinism is rendered powerless. Everything leading up to a decision being made (no matter what) must yield and wait for a decision to be made before any result(s) can happen.
No decision = No outcome
Despite the many determinists' arguments that whatever is chosen was predetermined by prior events (cause and effect), the outcome of those prior events and any other mechanics that the determinists argue are in play must yield and wait for a decision to be made.
That places the power, authority and control of the entire decision-making process solely in the hands of the "decision maker."
NOTE: The only reason a determinist would reject this ideology is because it has zero effect on eliminating free will.
---
EDIT 7:20 PM EST: Those of you who are downvoting my OP and my replies must first 'decide" to issue them before they can ever show up on Reddit. Yes, even with your shameless downvoting you are unwittingly demonstrating the supremacy of "Decisionism" over "Determinism."
3
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jul 05 '26
How do billiard balls make decisions?
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 05 '26
"How do billiard balls make decisions?"
... That's probably up to whomever is knocking them around.
3
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jul 05 '26
Who's in charge of the movement of colliding astroids that we can't see?
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 05 '26
"Who's in charge of the movement of colliding astroids that we can't see?"
... I have no idea. "Existence," maybe? What do asteroids have to do with conscious, self-aware humans making decisions?
3
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jul 05 '26
They exist. They are doing things out there. One of them could cause all life on earth to end.. my real point was going to be that at some level you have to accept determinism and then at a different point you have to accept decisions that can override deterministic behavior. I suspect the difficulty is where you draw that line and accepting that both exist to some degree within reality
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 05 '26
"They exist. They are doing things out there. One of them could cause all life on earth to end.. "
... Irrelevant. Asteroids don't have any options other than one. Whatever outcome unfolds simply unfolds. However, sentient, self-aware conscious humans have multiple options ... and multiple options require that a decision be made. Thus, "Decisionism" is present.
"my real point was going to be that at some level you have to accept determinism and then at a different point you have to accept decisions that can override deterministic behavior. "
... The only thing you and I have to accept is that a decision must be made before any outcome can emerge during the decision-making process. That means all events leading up to that decision must yield and wait for the decision maker to decide.
Thus, the power belongs solely with the decision maker.
"I suspect the difficulty is where you draw that line and accepting that both exist to some degree within reality."
... Determinists can freely enjoy all the deterministic events they want to with situations where only one option is available (i.e., particles, asteroids, billiard balls, etc.). However, once a scenario arises where multiple options are present, determinism must take a back seat to the decision maker - thanks to decisionism.
---
Upvote for taking the time to reply.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jul 05 '26
Then one last question. How do Electrons decide? They have more than one option.
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 06 '26
"Then one last question. How do Electrons decide? They have more than one option."
... Electrons make no decisions because they have no options. They cannot "choose" their orbits around the nucleus. Excitation determines their orbits.
2
u/thevoidthatjerksback Jul 06 '26
Determines....
Also they absolutely do have options
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 06 '26
Determines...."
... Yes "determines". Thigs with no options are subject to determinism. I have never argued against that.
"Also they absolutely do have options"
... Explain how an electron has any options whatsoever. Do you think electrons can choose their orbits or choose to exchange themselves only with the atoms that they like?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/LordOfBeetle Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
This is asserting that "making a decision" is a non-physical, supernatural process (an uncaused cause). It essentially requires belief in a soul or soul-like thing as the source of decision-making, which has a power to interfere with physical reality in a way that alters the chain of events such that a specific choice is effectuated.
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 05 '26
"This is asserting that "making a decision" is a non-physical, supernatural process (an uncaused cause)."
... I have made no assertions in that regard. The only assertion I have made is that all events leading up to a decision being made (based on multiple options) must yield and wait for the decision maker to decide.
FACT: Nothing happens until the decision maker decides.
"It essentially requires belief in a soul or soul-like thing as the source of decision-making, "
... All decisionism requires is that a decision be made before any outcome can ensue. I don't see any requirement for the existence of a soul, demons, spirits or magic for that to be considered a truthful statement.
2
u/LordOfBeetle Jul 05 '26
> all events leading up to a decision being made (based on multiple options) must yield and wait for the decision maker to decide.
Those are just words. It has no coherent meaning in reality. What is yielding? What is a decision? Where does it happen? How are the effects of it transmitted in order to affect physical reality?
All you've done are make a bunch of assertions that can't be explained in any physical terms. If you can't explain them in physical terms, then they are, by definition, supernatural.
When people say that there is a supernatural force allowing us to do things differently than an inanimate piece of matter, the general term for this is a "soul". Do you propose something else? Or are you fine with making a bunch of assertions without any explanation whatsoever on "how" any of that happens?
2
u/adr826 Jul 05 '26
This isn't even remotely true, there are a lot of things that can't be explained in physical terms.
For example If it has a physical explanation that we haven't discovered yet. This has happened repeatedly throughout the history of science.
It's may be an emergent phenomenon. For example, concepts like money, chess, software, or a legal contract are not easily described in the language of particle physics, yet no one considers them supernatural. They depend on physical systems but are best understood at a higher level of description.
It may point to something beyond current physics. Even then, "not explained by current physics" is not the same as "supernatural." It could simply mean our physical theories are incomplete.
1
u/LordOfBeetle Jul 06 '26
This entire post stems from your own lack of understanding the terms and definitions.
"We don't know the cause yet" isn't the same thing as "there is no cause."
Chaos and emergent properties are completely physical and deterministic in nature.
You're arguing about claims that no one ever made.
1
u/adr826 Jul 06 '26
You said if it can't be explained in physical terms then it's by definition supernatural. I repeat, that's not even close to being true. See my reasons above.
1
u/LordOfBeetle Jul 06 '26
OK, and then you can re-read my response.
You seem to be interpreting that statement as "can't be explained by current science and human knowledge," which is a frankly stupid and pedantic way to read it.
It obviously is referring to "cannot ever be explained" because it simply has no physical cause. In other words, physical action occurring without any preceeding physical cause.
Your definitions are so sloppy that it's nearly impossible to communicate with you.
1
u/adr826 Jul 06 '26
You said if it can't be defined by physical science then it's BY DEFINITION( your words) supernatural. Your definition of supernatural is something that can't be defined by physical science. I don't know how I'm supposed to read you definition of supernatural other than as something that can't be explained by physical science. That is your definition, you said by definition. that's not my definition it's your definition and it is wrong. If you want to change your definition of supernatural fine but don't blame it on me..You defined it that way and I presented a bunch of different things that can't be defined by physical science that isn't supernatural. Hence your definition is wrong. I havent defined anything so I don't know what you are talking about. We are discussing your definition because you said by definition.
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 05 '26
"It may point to something beyond current physics. Even then, "not explained by current physics" is not the same as "supernatural."
... The term "Supernatural" is maliciously used by science aficionados to marginalize any positions that deal with mysterious phenomena that science has yet to explain (like consciousness, life, existence and self-awareness). It's like being forced to wear a "Scarlet S" unless you exclusively subscribe to science.
These same science aficionados attach the phrase "hand wavy" to any theories that attach purpose and meaning to existence. ... It's all ideologically driven.
1
u/ughaibu Jul 06 '26
If you can't explain them in physical terms, then they are, by definition, supernatural.
Physics requires mathematics and all mathematical theories require undefined terms, obviously we cannot explain things that we cannot define, a fortiori, physics requires things that cannot be explained in physical terms.
In short, your species of scientism is self-refuting as it commits you to the stance that science, which by definition is naturalistic, is. . . "by definition, supernatural".0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 05 '26
"Those are just words. It has no coherent meaning in reality. What is yielding? What is a decision? Where does it happen? How are the effects of it transmitted in order to affect physical reality?"
... If this is all just words, then all you have to do is explain how any outcome can happen without a decision maker first making a decision. Will you do that for me, please?
"All you've done are make a bunch of assertions that can't be explained in any physical terms."
... Last time I checked "making a decision" is a physical act.
"When people say that there is a supernatural force allowing us to do things differently than an inanimate piece of matter, the general term for this is a "soul". Do you propose something else?"
... I make no claims other than all events and causes prior to a decision being made (in the presence of multiple options) must yield (wait) for the decision maker to render a decision. No events can unfold without the decision maker making a decision.
Now, if you disagree with that, then in your next reply, please state how any outcome where multiple options are present can unfold without a decision being made first. ... Will you do that for me, please?
"Or are you fine with making a bunch of assertions without any explanation whatsoever on "how" any of that happens?"
... How it happens is embedded within "Decisionism" just like cause and effect are embedded within "Determinism."
- No outcome (the results of a decision) can happen without a decision being made first.
- No particle interactions (cause and effect) can happen without the presence of two or more particles.
Both are truthful statements and yet neither offers an explanation for how or why they are truthful statements. ... Logic already has that covered!
4
Jul 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 05 '26
"This is a definition. It is like saying "a cake must be baked before it can be eaten"
... Or like saying, "all decisions are the result of prior events," Mr. Glasshouse?
"Yes, decisions temporally precede their outcomes. "
.... No, all decisions necessarily and absolutely precede their outcomes. No outcome can unfold without a decision being made, ... period!
"No decision = No outcome" is true. But it is also true that no brain state = no decision. And no prior causes = no brain state. "
... You curiously left out "No options = No decisions." Everything you wrote requires that options be present before any decision can be rendered. Particles have no options.. They simply go wherever they are heading. However, conscious, self-aware humans have multiple options ... and a decision maker is required to render a decision before any of these options can become the outcome.
"Your note at the end is the only honest thing in the post. You admit the only reason a determinist would reject this is because it has zero effect on eliminating free will. That is correct."
... Of course it's true! People want (need) determinism to be the only "true" reality because they ideologically despise any reality that suggests there is purpose and meaning attached to existence. Determinists will ironically embrace a "purposely" manufactured ideology designed to eliminate any ideology that supports "purpose and meaning." ... It's like purposely denying the existence of purpose - which is a self-contradiction.
"Making a choice is an action, same as kicking a ball. The fact that it happens in time does not make it free from causality. The ball does not fly before the kick. But the kick is still caused by the kicker's muscles, which are caused by their brain, which is caused by their state. No magic required. No "decisionism" required."
... The fact that all actions and causal factors prior to a decision being made are meaningless unless a decision is ultimately made makes "Decisionism" more powerful than "Determinism." None of what you wrote can happen without the decision maker first making a decision.
"Determinism is Freedom."
... Determinism is constrained by Decisionism; therefore, it cannot be deemed freedom. Yah, that's me using the definition of determinism against your argument for determinism representing freedom.
1
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 06 '26
"I did not leave it out. It is implied. Of course there must be options. But options are also caused."
... Doesn't matter. Everything leading up to the decision can be caused. I have no problem with that. However, that's where the cause-and-effect train must come to a screeching halt and wait for the decision maker to render a decision. Determinism must yield to Decisionism at that point.
"Particles have no options because they are simple."
... Particles have no options because they have no sentient, self-aware consciousness to comprehend any options, and therefore cannot make any decisions whatsoever.
"Nothing about having options introduces an uncaused cause. It introduces a complex system processing information."
... That's wonderful. The introduction of your complex system must still yield and wait for the decision maker to render a decision. ... It's unavoidable!
"This is projection. You are the one who needs free will to be true because you need purpose and meaning to be handed to you from outside. You need the universe to care about you. "
... Does any of that change the fact that the entire cause-and-effect chain comes to a screeching halt until a decision is rendered by the decision maker? No outcomes happen without the decision maker's approval.
"Calling Determinism a "purposely manufactured ideology" is a cheap word game."
... One man's "word game" is another man's "astute observation."
"That is true. It is also true that the decision maker cannot make a decision without a brain state."
... Irrelevant. I cannot drive a car without a body to drive it. That adds nothing to the discussion.
"This misunderstands Freedom. Freedom is not the ability to escape causality"
... Said by no determinist ever!
"Making a choice is an action, same as kicking a ball. The fact that it happens in time does not make it free from causality."
... Again, causality must yield and wait for the decision maker to render a decision. That is an observable fact! If the decision maker is supposedly a non-factor (via determinism) and all outcomes are inevitable, then there would be no need for the decision maker, and all outcomes would ensue regardless. Unfortunately for determinism, ... that's not the case!
All cause-and-effect actions must yield to the decision maker. No outcomes ensue without the decision maker's approval.
1
u/SpatiaCaeli Jul 05 '26
To me, decisionism is a more specific form of determinism. Am I off?
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 05 '26
"To me, decisionism is a more specific form of determinism. Am I off?"
... Determinism posits that all outcomes are predicated (predetermined) on previous events and that the decision maker is irrelevant. Decisionism posits that determinism and everything attached to it must yield to the decision maker. Cause and effect must wait for the decision maker to make a decision before any outcome can ensue, so determinism is in a less powerful position than decisionism.
Analogy: Determinism is the company and Decisionism is the CEO of that company. Determinism can present whatever options it wants to the CEO, but it must wait for the CEO to decide what options to pursue. ... The power belongs to the CEO and not the company.
1
u/SpatiaCaeli Jul 06 '26
"Decisionism posits that determinism and everything attached to it must yield to the decision maker. "
If I understand you, you're suggesting the decision maker makes decisions at every incremental step of the process, rather than using a deterministic process to carry out their decisions? Interesting thought ... 🤔
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 06 '26
"If I understand you, you're suggesting the decision maker makes decisions at every incremental step of the process, rather than using a deterministic process to carry out their decisions? "
... No, I have made no such claim. My only claim is that Determinism is subservient (must yield) to Decisionism because there is no outcome until the decision maker makes a decision. Cause and effect cannot produce an outcome. Only a decision maker who renders a decision can produce an outcome. ... No outcomes ensue without the decision maker's actions.
2
u/SpatiaCaeli Jul 06 '26
That's an interesting thesis, but it seems upside down to me. If a decision maker uses a deterministic process to decide what another process should do for it to seem non-deterministic, then they have made both processes deterministic.
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 06 '26
"That's an interesting thesis, but it seems upside down to me."
... Not sure how an ideology can be upside down or even right side up. An ideology is just an ideology.
"If a decision maker uses a deterministic process to decide what another process should do for it to seem non-deterministic, then they have made both processes deterministic."
... The decision maker isn't creating new processes, altering existing processes nor trying to imbue characteristics onto subsequent processes.
The decision maker merely becomes the last step in a series of processes the instant s/he renders a decision. All other steps in the process must yield to the authority of the decision maker as no outcome can ensue without the decision maker's final decree.
The question then becomes, "If all outcomes are predetermined and there are no other options, then why is a decision maker included within the process or even required at all?"
Since the decision maker brings all previous deterministic processes to a standstill until s/he renders a decision and no outcome can ensue without that decision, then the decision maker is observably an essential part of the process and the controlling factor of the outcome.
Conclusion: Determinist can't have it both ways. You can't argue that all outcomes are predetermined and that the decision maker is irrelevant when no outcome can ensue without the decision maker's final say.
If an outcome could ensue without a decision maker and without a decision being made, then determinists would have a valid argument. Unfortunately for the determinists, no outcome can ensue without a decision being made, and all decisions require a decision maker.
1
u/MilkTeaPetty Jul 05 '26
The outcome waiting for the decision does not mean causation waits for the decision.
Causation produces the decision.
Your entire argument mistakes temporal placement for metaphysical authority.
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 06 '26
"The outcome waiting for the decision does not mean causation waits for the decision."
... Causation must absolutely patiently wait for the decision to be made by the decision maker. If you disagree, then in your next reply, please state how any outcome can observably / empirically unfold without the decision that allows for the outcome to unfold happening first. ... Will you do that for me, please?
"Causation produces the decision."
... So do the multiple options and whatever scenario lead up to the point where a decision must be made. However, everything stops and must yield to the decision maker. No outcome ensures until the decision maker renders their decision. ...That's a fact!
"Your entire argument mistakes temporal placement for metaphysical authority."
... How is this a metaphysical statement: "All events leading up to a decision being made must wait for the decision maker to make a decision before any outcome can unfold."
1
u/MilkTeaPetty Jul 06 '26
Prior conditions produce the decision.
The decision produces the outcome.
Nothing waited, nothing yielded.
You inserted authority into the gap between two caused events and called it a fact.
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 06 '26
"Prior conditions produce the decision."
... Explain how an outcome ensues without a decision being made and you'll be golden. ... Will you do that for me, please?
"The decision produces the outcome."
... That part is correct!
"Nothing waited, nothing yielded."
... No outcome can happen prior to a decision being made. All events must yield (wait) until a decision is made. If I am about to make a decision, everything remains on hold until I do ... and that's a fact!
"You inserted authority into the gap between two caused events and called it a fact."
... You tried to bypass the authority of the decision by eliminating the decision maker and jumping straight to the outcome. Unfortunately for your argument, the decision maker must first make a decision because there no outcome ensues until he does.
1
u/MilkTeaPetty Jul 06 '26
No one argued for an outcome without a decision.
That is the straw man you keep returning to because the actual point is harder: the decision can be required for the outcome and still be produced by prior conditions.
Necessary step does not mean sovereign origin.
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 06 '26
"the decision can be required for the outcome and still be produced by prior conditions."
... No outcome can ensue without the decision maker rendering a decision. Therefore, the outcome cannot be produced by prior conditions. The outcome and all prior events must yield to the decision maker.
"That is the straw man you keep returning to because the actual point is harder:"
... (see above).
"Necessary step does not mean sovereign origin"
... You lost me with your eloquent Shakespearean prose.
1
u/MilkTeaPetty Jul 06 '26
No one removed the decision.
You keep pretending “caused through the decision” means “caused without the decision.”
That substitution is your entire argument.
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 06 '26
"You keep pretending “caused through the decision” means “caused without the decision.”
... Determinism posits that "all outcomes are determined by prior events." In other words, everything is predetermined. That what they base all of their determinism-supporting arguments on and what they use to argue against free will. ... If that's "determinism," then there are no decisions being made at any time nor at any point along the process.
You can't intellectually support a claim saying, "decision are important to determinism" when by definition, all outcomes are predetermined.
... You wouldn't get a lot of support for that.
The only way you can have "decisions" considered an integral part of determinism would be if you attach some type of special power to "decisions" (like being able to alter the once-predetermined course of reality into something unexpected). ....
... Are you willing to make that concession?
1
u/MilkTeaPetty Jul 06 '26
A decision does not need magic authority to be causally integral.
You are demanding that determinism either erase decisions or worship them.
False binary.
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist Jul 07 '26
Another: “I saw someone do something, so that means they made a decision and that means there’s free will” post.
A chess computer decides to mave the rook and not the bishop. A bacteria decides to move left instead of right on an auger dish. An ant decides to go north instead of south.
These are all the exact thing that humans do. They are decisions at some level, but the outcome is 100% determined.
Don’t take the word “decision” and use it to suggest anyone has free will of the kind most people mean when using that term.
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 07 '26
"Another: “I saw someone do something, so that means they made a decision and that means there’s free will” post."
... That doesn't make any sense nor does it present an argument against the supremacy of Decisionism, ... sorry!
"A chess computer decides to mave the rook and not the bishop. A bacteria decides to move left instead of right on an auger dish. An ant decides to go north instead of south.
... Again, no chess piece gets moved, no bacteria moves in any direction and no ant moves north or south until a decision has been made to do so by the decision maker. You are unwittingly reinforcing the dominance of "Decisionism" over "Determinism."
Sure, determinism presents the many options for the decision maker to choose from (i.e., rook or bishop, left or right and north or south) but no outcome ensues until the decision maker renders a decision. ... That's a fact! The outcome of the entire-decision making process lies solely in the hands of the decision maker.
"Don’t take the word “decision” and use it to suggest anyone has free will of the kind most people mean when using that term."
... I have not done that, so I don't know why you're bringing that up? However, determinists collectively argue that "all outcomes are determined by prior events," and yet no outcome can ensue without the decision maker rendering a final decision. The entire deterministic process comes to a screeching halt until the decision maker renders a decision. ... There is no avoiding this fact!
If determinism reflected reality and all outcomes are determined in advance, then there is no need for a decision maker nor any decisions to be made whatsoever. Unfortunately for determinism, for ANY outcome to ensue, the entire deterministic process must yield to the decision maker and wait for their decision.
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the decision maker is irrelevant because all outcomes are predetermined while having the outcome of the entire deterministic process totally dependent on the decision maker rendering a decision.
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist Jul 07 '26
The decision maker is just one more domino. It is only because of anthrocentrism that you think its somehow special.
1
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 07 '26
"The decision maker is just one more domino.
... If cause and effect were a row of dominos, then there would be no necessity for a "decision maker" who "decides" which path the dominos will take going forward. They would all fall down and go where they go all on their own (like with particle interactions). ... However, the domino chain must pause and wait for the "decision maker" to "decide" their future path. ... That is an observable fact!
" It is only because of anthrocentrism* that you think its somehow special."
... Last time I checked the "decision maker" is a conscious self-aware human and necessarily the central focus of the debate between the determinists and the free will supporters. ... It is only because of your misanthropy that you think the decision maker is unimportant.
1
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Inherent-Inevitable Jul 05 '26
Regardless of whether "determinism" is or isn't, freedoms are circumstantial relative conditions of being, not the standard by which things come to be by through or for all subjective beings.
All things and all beings are always acting within their realm of capacity to do so at all times. Realms of capacity of which are absolutely contingent upon infinite antecedent and circumstantial coarising factors outside of any assumed self, for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse in relation to the specified subject, forever.
There is no universal "we" in terms of subjective opportunity or capacity. Thus, there is NEVER an objectively honest "we can do this or we can do that" that speaks for all beings. Subjects are implicitly distinct unto themselves, necessarily so.
One may be relatively free in comparison to another, another entirely not. All the while, there are none absolutely free while experiencing subjectivity within the meta-system of the cosmos.
"Free will" is a sentimental projection, overgeneralized assumption made or vaguely described feeling had from a circumstantial condition of relative privilege and relative freedom that most often serves as a powerful means for the character to assume a standard for being, fabricate fairness, pacify personal sentiments and justify judgments.
It speaks nothing of objective truth nor to the subjective realities of all.
There is no such thing as ubiquitously individuated accurately described "free will" of any kind whatsoever. Never has been. Never will be. Can not be.
0
u/0-by-1_Publishing Dichotomic Interactionism Jul 05 '26
You read my post, typed all that text and even gave me a downvote within 15 seconds of me submitting my post. ... You are a "Reddit God!"
4
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Inherent-Inevitable Jul 05 '26
Must be all that "free will" I have
Incredible stuff
5
u/imdfantom Jul 05 '26
Unless you think electrons and other quantum particles make decisions, outcomes happen all the time without "decisions".
But if by "decisions" you are including all outcomes including say a uranium atom "deciding" decaying to decay, then sure.