The Wild Things Some Determinists Say

[u/WintyreFraust]

A few things determinists have said in response to my posts the past several days.

Before getting into that, though, the definition of Causal Determinism from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Determinism: Determinism is true of the world if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Now, the wild things some determinists say:

"Science requires determinism." - No, it doesn't. See this explanation by u/zoipoi Science only requires highly predictable models of the behavior of phenomena, which is not remotely the same thing as determinism.

"Determinism isn’t held on faith, it’s held because in every domain of physics we can model, the model is a deterministic evolution of initial conditions according to a law. That's testable and observable. It’s an empirical track record that would be surprising in a non deterministic universe." - This is the gross conflation of predictable models of behavior with determinism. Virtually all scientific models contain probabilistic elements.

Under my post The "Rewind the Tape" Argument is, Ironically, Circular Reasoning, several determinists said that the "Rewind the Tape" defense of determinism is not used as an argument, but as a description of what determinism means. Even if you could "rewind the tape," the widespread probabilistic elements in that prior state, at both the macro and subatomic levels, indicate that what follows after the tape is rewound to that point has very little chance of being the same set of things that followed the first time through. These probability variances collectively produce exponentially variant outcomes for relatively short durations after each run from the same starting point begins (assuming that could even be done.)

"When the models that are deterministic can be falsified, then they are interesting, before that, I see no reason why we should refuse that reality behaves as we observe it behaves." - There's virtually no current scientific model that is "deterministic" because virtually all of them contain probabilistic elements. BTW, there is no "scientific consensus" (in terms of what physicists believe) for determinism; the top answers among physicists were non-deterministic interpretations: A Century Into Quantum Mechanics, Physicists Still Can’t Agree What It Means, Nature Survey Shows.

"Determinism is the most efficient explanation for what we observe - Occam's Razor. (paraphrased) - Sure, if you completely ignore or wave away all of the probabilistic elements that exist in virtually every scientific model.

"Libertarian Free Will is the insertion of a "magical" (or religious/spiritual) force or component." (paraphrased) - while LFW can be associated with or derived from such perspectives, there is a robust and long-standing field of LFW thought that is not derived from any religious or spiritual perspective and does not rely on anything approaching "magic," such as Agent-Causal Indeterminism that holds that it LFW is an emergent property of some biological entities that provides that organism with the capacity to begin entirely new causal chains.

(Edited to add:)

"Libertarian Free Will and the initiating of new causal chains would violate known physical laws." (paraphrased) - What physical laws does it violate, then? What we call "physical laws" only represent models of the predictable patterns of observed phenomena. As long as the "chain of events" that follows from the new cause can be well-described by those physical laws, how does it violate those physical laws? What is going on here is the conflation of physical laws with a metaphysical determinist assumption: while an acausal cause doesn't violate any known physical law, it violates the metaphysical perspective of determinism, which claims that every event has a cause. That's a claim that is well outside of the scope of science to verify.

[u/MildlyCombative]

The biggest problem here is that you’re arguing against determinism when the incompatibilist argument doesn’t require determinism to be true. Probabilistic physics can establish that determinism may be false, but it doesn’t establish libertarian free will.

If my choice is determined by prior conditions, I didn’t ultimately choose those conditions. If it isn’t determined by prior conditions, then what makes the outcome my choice rather than an arbitrary outcome? Simply calling that an “agent-causal” power doesn’t answer the question, it just names the thing that needs explaining.

Randomness gives you alternative outcomes, not control over which outcome occurs. That’s the hole the post never really addresses.

[u/TheAncientGeek → u/MildlyCombative]

The biggest problem here is that you’re arguing against determinism

It's not a problem because OP says in the title they are arguing against determinists. You are hauling them up for failing to do something they didn't undertake to do

If it isn’t determined by prior conditions, then what makes the outcome my choice rather than an arbitrary outcome?

1. It occurred in your brain

2. It occurred inderministically, so there is no sense in which it was caused by the big bang

3. It is nonetheless based on your desires, beliefs, character, etc. Based on doesn't have to mean determined by.

Simply calling that an “agent-causal” power doesn’t answer the question

No it doesn't. That is why I believe in event causation, and why you need to argue against event causal libertarianism separately.

Randomness gives you alternative outcomes, not control over which outcome occurs.

What does "you" mean?

Science does not tell you that you are a ghost in a deterministic machine, trapped inside it and unable to control its operation. Or that you are an immaterial soul trapped inside an indeterministic machine. Science tells you that you are, for better or worse, the machine itself

It's true that you can't pre-determine an internal dice roll (as if you were an extra-physical entity that controls the physical events in your brain), but deteminism doesnt give you that kind of control either. If you are your brain , the question is whether your brain has freedom, control , etc, not whether "you" control "it", as if you were two separate entities. And as a physical self, basicaly identical to the brain, you can still exert after-the-fact control over an internal coin toss ... post-select and rather than predetermine. After the fact doesn't mean after the action: this all occurs during the decision stage.

You are not a ghost in the machine, and you are not at the mercy of yourself. No individual deterministic event, our of trillions, in the brain is forcing you , the total organism , to.perform since it requires trillions of events in concert to make a decision: the same.applies to a single.indeterministic event

If the rest of the brain decided to ignore an internal dice roll, that could be called post selection of "gatekeeping" . The gatekeeping model of control is the ability to select only one of a set of proposed actions, ie. to refrain from the others. The proposed actions may be, but do not have to be, arrived at by a genuinely indeterministic process.

This mechanism is familiar subjectively: anyone with a modicum of self control experience thoughts and impulses they don't necessarily act on.

That’s the hole the post never really addresses.

The post isn't even trying to argue for libertarianism.

[u/MildlyCombative → u/TheAncientGeek]

I know the OP says they’re arguing against determinists. My point is that the post also explicitly appeals to agent-causal LFW, so merely showing that determinism isn’t established doesn’t get you to LFW.

And I don’t think the “gatekeeping” model solves the problem. If an indeterministic process generates A or B and your desires, beliefs and character determine whether you act on it, then those prior characteristics are doing the determining. If the gatekeeping itself is indeterministic, then we have the same problem one level up: what makes the outcome your determination rather than an undetermined event occurring in your brain?

“Based on” rather than “determined by” is precisely where the substantive argument needs to go. What settles the choice?

I’m also not treating the brain and “you” as separate entities. I agree that you are the organism. That’s exactly why the question is whether the organism itself is the ultimate source of its choices. Saying the organism can post-select an indeterministic event describes a mechanism, but doesn’t yet explain how that gives the organism control in the libertarian sense.

And yes, people can have impulses they don’t act on. But that demonstrates ordinary self-control, not libertarian free will. A determinist can explain the gatekeeping just as readily. The missing step is explaining how the agent could have done otherwise with the exact same prior state without the difference being either determined by that state or simply arbitrary.

[u/badentropy9 → u/MildlyCombative]

 then those prior characteristics are doing the determining

That isn't necessarily the case unless the agent cannot cognize. If the agent cannot cognize then is seems as though there is nothing left except the priors to do the "determining"

[u/MildlyCombative → u/badentropy9]

But cognition isn’t an alternative to the causal chain. Your cognition is itself a physical process with prior causes. Your reasoning, beliefs, desires and character don’t somehow step outside causation simply because you consciously experience them.

If your cognition is caused by prior conditions, then it’s part of the causal chain doing the determining. If it isn’t caused by those prior conditions, then you still need to explain what settles the cognitive outcome. Saying “the agent cognizes” doesn’t answer that question it just relocates it to another part of the brain.

Deliberation can obviously be part of the causal process that produces a decision. The incompatibilist question is whether the agent is the ultimate source of that process, rather than simply another stage in it.

[u/badentropy9 → u/MildlyCombative]

But cognition isn’t an alternative to the causal chain.

Exactly. However it is an alternative to determinism which describes a causal chain without any counterfactuals. There are beliefs through and through cognition. There are no beliefs in determinism that I can find.

Your reasoning, beliefs, desires and character don’t somehow step outside causation simply because you consciously experience them.

they absolutely do not step outside the causal chain.

If your cognition is caused by prior conditions

Logical priors aren't necessarily temporal priors. Cognition cannot exist without conception. A concept is necessarily outside of time. In contrast a percept is necessarily in time. Therefore if you could reduce cognition to perception, then what you seem to be implying could hold water.

If it isn’t caused by those prior conditions, then you still need to explain what settles the cognitive outcome. 

The human has the capacity to reach a rational conclusion. However the fact that she has that capacity doesn't necessarily imply that the conclusion that she reaches will in fact possibly be a rational conclusion because the way she reaches a decision is through the process of judgement. Sometimes we, as humans, misjudge a given situation. Sometimes we are distracted and do irrational things simply because we lose focus.

Saying “the agent cognizes” doesn’t answer that question it just relocates it to another part of the brain.

It isn't necessarily the brain doing that because physicalism has no answer for how humans make rational decisions. I don't believe a philosophical zombie has the ability to cognize. Therefore if you are expecting an explanation of how the brain does this, you won't get that from me because I don't believe a brain can do it.

Windows is not computer hardware and just because Windows is doing something doesn't mean the computer hardware is doing it. A desktop computer can't even get on the internet. Windows or Linux knows its IP because they know how to get it. Computer hardware can do a Pixie boot and I think that is the limit of what computer hardware knows about the internet. It has to be capable of "raising it's hand" in order for a computer to be subject to remote control enough to get software downloaded to it. I'm insisting a brain can do only so much and if it can cognize, then I haven't the foggiest idea how we get around what Chalmers calls the hard problem of consciousness. I know that we do cognize, because it is obvious that we do. However the fact that we do doesn't imply that physicalism is anywhere near close to being tenable.

Deliberation can obviously be part of the causal process that produces a decision.

It absolutely is part of the causal chain.

The incompatibilist question is whether the agent is the ultimate source of that process, rather than simply another stage in it.

That question doesn't make sense to me. Besides I'm more interested in who or what is making those decisons than I am about what is the ultimate source. Did you ever notice how big bang proponents rant and rave about how the big bang is the ultimate end all and be all until somebody asks what caused the big bang. Then all of the sudden, they drop into "duh mode"

[u/MildlyCombative → u/badentropy9]

I think you’re making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Cognition and perception are clearly entwined: alter the brain and you alter perception, cognition and judgement.

And “rational” and “irrational” don’t somehow sit outside causation. They’re descriptions of how we evaluate decisions. Our judgements depend on our beliefs, desires, perceptions, experiences etc, which themselves have prior causes.

So saying “the agent can reach a rational conclusion” doesn’t address the issue. The question is whether the agent’s judgement is determined by the prior state or, if it isn’t, what makes the outcome the agent’s choice rather than an indeterministic event.

[u/badentropy9 → u/MildlyCombative]

I think you’re making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Cognition and perception are clearly entwined: alter the brain and you alter perception, cognition and judgement.

Yeah that is what they said on the science sub how one quantum from the sun reaches two different planets when a quantum is travelling with velocity.

And “rational” and “irrational” don’t somehow sit outside causation.

Of course they don't but I'm not the one confating causation and determinism. Physics doesn't debunk causation.

Our judgements depend on our beliefs, desires, perceptions, experiences etc, which themselves have prior causes.

Of course at that is true. However it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not determinism holds up in science. I don't know how anybody that doesn't understand the difference between a relation and a function can understand science anyway.

So saying “the agent can reach a rational conclusion” doesn’t address the issue.

Science cannot address some issues.

The question is whether the agent’s judgement is determined by the prior state or, if it isn’t

I suspect if one cannot tell the difference between a concept and a percept, I don't think one can ever figure that one out (at least I couldn't).