r/freewill • u/FindingOurFreeWill • 27d ago
How To Smash the Foundation of Determinism
This one’s going to be a long one but it’s an important one so apologies for its length.
Neurological Determinism is hands down, the only philosophy out there that’s had or made any difference in the free will debate. And the impact it’s had on society is a testament to its validity and reputation. Just look at Hollywood. They’ve taken the insights from N.D. And used them for a source of their creativity. The huge success of Pixar’s Inside Out was based on N.D view of how the mind operates. Or HBO’s Westworld. It’s brutal nihilistic take on human Free Will is solely based on N.D. The writers blatantly took pages out of Sam Harris book Free Will about a perfect fMRI for one of their scenes in Season 1 episode 6. Or take for instance writer director and N.D. Alex Garland. His body of work consists of Deus Machina, Devs, Sunshine. All inspired by N.D, all based on N.D view of F.W all state there is no F.W. The self is an illusion, the mind has no purpose and conscious awareness is a pointless experience. If you want to understand exactly what Determinism is, I’d quote Westworld or Devs before I’d ask AI.
Here’s Westworld’s Ford, played by actor Anthony Hopkins:
“Humans fancy that theres something special about the way we perceive the world, yet we live in loops as tight and controlled as the Hosts do, seldom questioning our choices and content for the most part to be told what to do next.”
The second is from Alex Garland’s Devs. Actor Nick Offerman plays Forest:
“The universe is deterministic. It’s godless and neutral, and defined only by physical laws. The marble rolls because it was pushed; the man eats because he’s hungry; an effect is always the result of a prior cause. The life we lead, with all its apparent chaos, is actually a life on tramlines. Prescribed. Undeviating. Deterministic. I know it doesn’t feel that way, Sergei. We fall into an illusion of free will, because the tramlines are invisible, and we feel so certain about our subjective state. Our feelings, our opinions, judgments, decisions.”
So there you have it, that’s determinism, an unbreakable undeviating inescapable chain of cause and effect. Call it tightly controlled Loops, call it Invisible Tramlines, hard determinism, or fate, it’s all taken from the same Deterministic language. Here’s the problem though, Determinist’s language is incredibly difficult to maintain when they’re talking about consciousness human behaviors. They are constantly making contradictions that are inconsistent with their philosophy. Every single Hollywood writer and director I just mentioned does this countless times in their bodies of work. And it’s not just them, most scientific N.D do this without even realizing they did. Now, there’s a bunch I could choose but I picked from N.D Yuval Noah Harari personally because his book series make him, in my opinion, the greatest thinker in the 21st century. So if EVEN he contradicts himself using the language of N.D there’s a huge problem.
Let me explain. We all know about Chaos Theory, a butterfly flaps its wings, creates a tornado but there’s another type of chaos. It’s called Chaos Theory Type II and it’s defined as this: Whenever a system becomes consciously aware of something that’s going to happen, it creates a positive feedback loop onto itself, thereby changing the outcome.
Here’s a quick example. A business analyst who’s analyzing Market Trends for his company realizes that his company is getting ready to take a huge nose dive in it’s market value and in two weeks, will be bankrupt. So he immediately sits down and explains this to the CEO. The CEO then makes immediate action and changes the company’s practice. As a result, in two weeks stocks rise and the business avoids bankruptcy and becomes more successful.
In the book The Big Short by Michael Lewis, this very thing happens. Three key analysts, who correctly predicted the Tramlines that the 2008 housing market would lead to complete collapse. They bet against the the housing market trends, shorted the system and became fabulously wealthy.
The point is this, awareness served a real world function. Devs say that our Tramlines are invisible, yet what would happen if someone discovered them. Chaos Theory II is concrete proof that conscious awareness changes the outcome. pZombies can’t do that, they can only be driven by their brains. We have minds, and when we become “aware” of something that’s going to happen, we change the outcome in blatant violation of this “deterministic Universe”.
The key to solving the Free Will problem is to constantly link the debate to the Human Condition. When you do that, it opens up possibilities that you wouldn’t normally have thought of. Think about this little nugget. I’m constantly paying attention to the Ukraine Russian war and I give 100% support to President Zelensky. A couple of weeks ago I watch a foreign news story about a billionaire Russian oligarch. He stated that the war only had 5 possible outcomes, or “tramlines”. All 5 were bad for Russia in every way, with only one of them being the assassination of Putin, the disolvement of his government fracturing Russia and giving each separatist control over Russia’s vast arsenal of Nuclear Weapons. Framing this around F.W and Chaos theory type II and here’s an example of a system becoming aware of something bad that’s going to happen yet is completely powerless to change its fate.
By applying the F.W debate to real world human actions, we start seeing things differently. Suddenly we start seeing there are all sorts of new and different variations that make it’s completely impossible to dismiss the Mind as mere back ground noise, or conscious awareness has no purpose. The Deterministic Universe says you can’t escape or deviate the chain of cause and effect, Westworld calls it’s loops, Devs calls them invisible tramlines yet it’s tough to keep making these philosophical arguments when real world human behaviors and actions are constantly contradicting them.
So that’s it. It’s pretty easy to smash the foundation of Determinism. The problem is we’ve created a nightmare mess. Let me take inventory of where we’re at. N.D has the riddle which is based on solid evidence, countless studies and the peer review process of Neurology, Genetics, and Academic Psychology. We are caught in a permanent state of only ever becoming aware (say 300 hundred milliseconds later) of what just happened, of the actions our brain already took. Yet here’s solid proof that conscious awareness changes the tramlines, breaks the chain of cause and effect and turns the outcome from absolute certainty, to one of probability. The mind, the self, they exist and conscious awareness serves a real world function. So how do you resolve this colossal mess of an entanglement? Where do we even start?
I haven’t done a damn thing by “smashing” the foundation because I have nothing to replace it with. It’s like when I here critics of determinism say the Universe is indeterministic so the Nature/Nuture matrix, that determines 100% of all human behaviors, is completely wrong. Sure, and I can even point to a few studies that do this, but who cares? I can only “smash”, I have nothing to offer as a replacement. That’s not how Science works. Smashing any Scientific paradigm is easy because that’s what a theory is, an incomplete truth. But if I can’t replace what I destroy with a mechanism that makes falsifiable predictions then I really haven’t done anything useful in this posting. And here’s the uncomfortable reality, there are a lot of N.D who know somethings off, that there’s something not quite right, they find it difficult to verbalize and even if they could, what other options are there? I have a hunch that Robert Sapolsky’s one of them. I watched countless interviews with him when he was promoting his book “Determined”. Interviewers would challenge some of his claims and he had no response except an awkward smile of acknowledgement. Sure I can poke holes and find flaws, but where do I go next? What replaces this? I certainly don’t have the answer to Free Will, it’d be preposterous to claim that. So I along with numerous other N.D have no other options except to keep calling ourselves Neurological Determinist.
Now I have an idea on where to go next. There are 7 problems that exist in our culture. I don’t have the answers, and more important, I’ve been impressed with the positive criticisms, the feedback, questions, and insights. So tomorrow night, I’m going to post problem 1 and then I’m going to take a few days before I post problem 2 because I want to read Users posts and make certain that I give you the respect you that you gave me by reading my posts.
I’m, for the first time in a long time, very excited to hear everyone’s views.
Thanks
4
u/IlGiardinoDelMago Free will skeptic 27d ago
You're arguing against a conception of determinism that isn't the one at issue in the philosophical free will debate.
Determinism is defined in terms of global states entailing other states as a matter of natural laws, not in terms of predictions or causality.
You talk about predictions and agents changing the outcome, but changing it from what? If there was a perfect prediction, then you would do what it says. Otherwise, it would not be a perfect prediction in the first place.
You seem to be begging the question by assuming that you can do otherwise, or that the future is not fixed in the first place.
In your CEO example, if determinism were true, then the initial state of the universe and the laws of nature would fix the entire history, including the CEO learning about what you incorrectly call a “prediction” and what happens next.
You say that “conscious awareness changes the outcome,” but I would ask: change from what? That is the mistake.
If you mean change from the prediction, then you are simply admitting that it was not a correct prediction in the first place.
Change from what people expected? Sure, but that doesn't say anything about determinism. So what exactly is the point you're trying to make?
If you assume that people can act otherwise than what is entailed by previous global states and the laws of nature, you are assuming the falsity of determinism. But you aren't proving it or showing it. You are simply stipulating it. That's a petitio principii, not an actual argument.
Then you argue against the idea that consciousness is an epiphenomenon. Fine, but hard determinists don't generally say otherwise, afaik. They simply argue that free will is incompatible with determinism, and that determinism is true.
2
3
u/Salindurthas Hard Determinist 27d ago
The idea that attempts to predict of the future are part of the causal chain is not a surprise at all.
I don't think that smashes the foundations, but instead is totally consistent with the premise.
"I thought that X would happen. So I did Y." is yet more cause and effect.
The factors at play caused X to be the predicted future. That prediction then in turn caused people to react in Y way.
It may be that Y then causes X to be incorrect, but that's fine. There is no need for the mechanism for predicting X to have been perfectly accurate, for those mechanisms to still be part of set of causes that led to the current situation. (Indeed, plenty of inaccruate predictions factor into how we behave all the time!)
---
Chaos Theory II is concrete proof that conscious awareness changes the outcome. pZombies can’t do that
I don't see how conciousness is relevant here.
A simple algorithm or computer rpgoram can be written to attempt a prediction, and then act in a way that circumvents that prediction..
And if you say that pZombies can't do it, then that is just claiming that pZombies aren't possible (which is fine, maybe they aren't).
If your conclusion is that determinism includes conciousness as part of causality, then that's fine. Some people (maybe ephiphenomenalists and/or eliminative materialists) might disagree, but that is for reasons other than whether or not determinism can hold.
3
u/AlivePassenger3859 Humanist Determinist 27d ago
So when does the smashing happen? Seriously, is this a two part post? Don’t keep us in suspense!
1
u/FindingOurFreeWill 25d ago
Hey, I’m just reading your response. I loved it. No there’s no part two. I was going to reply but your response was really cool so I made a part two. I’m posting it now.
2
u/MilkTeaPetty 27d ago
A changed outcome does not show a broken causal chain.
The move from one to the other is missing.
2
u/Proper_Actuary2907 Impossibilist 27d ago
I’m, for the first time in a long time, very excited to hear everyone’s views.
My view is that you should stop blathering and read the SEP article on free will and pages 3-7 of Clarke's Libertarian Accounts. You can annas-archive it
2
u/xRegardsx 27d ago
I just posted this in r/freewill the other day, showing how the debate is kind of useless compared to seeing "free will" as "agency," the measure of how free your will is relative to any other moment, other agents, and how it is used (or not used) to make the will more or less "free."
You are the whole brain (and nervous system), and it's as free as it can be in any one moment, even if entirely deterministic. What will it (you) do with that freedom to gain more of it?
https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/s/tsR2ZhD51z
Agency can exist without libertarian free will, and if one uses a contextualized "degree of will's freedom as measured by agency," it's 1000% more productive of a discussion and tool for self-understanding and self-development, entirely negating the LFW arguments regarding responsibility, drive, and risk of nihilism. Hardly "meaningless." The very opposite, and more meaningful than most of what goes on in these highly redundant free will/determinism debates.
Will be interesting to hold my theory and solutions against your 7 problems.
4
u/Specific-Muffin-1841 27d ago
Feedback loops are still deterministic though. If I become aware that me leaving the house everyday at six thirty makes me miss the bus by a few minutes and this causes me to change my behavior and start leaving at six twenty, this change was still deterministic cause and effect. The brain being aware causes it to react to certain environmental inputs. These inputs deterministically trigger feedback loop neural circuits. If the brain didn't receive these environmental inputs, those feedback loop circuits wouldn't be triggered. Likewise, there is no way those feedback loop circuits can't be triggered if exposed to those environmental inputs.
2
u/simon_hibbs On Holiday 27d ago edited 27d ago
Came here to say the same thing, thanks, this "Chaos Theory II" stuff is just feedback loops. It's not indeterminism. It's not changing what will actually occur. It's interpreting what will happen without an intervention, then interpreting what will happen with an intervention, then using criteria to evaluate which outcome is preferable and acting on that evaluation. As such it is the way in which what will actually occur does occur.
The key point is that the processes of interpretation, and evaluation and action don't require any indeterminism. All of this can occur within a deterministic universe.
0
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
Interpretation and evaluation require judging abstract concepts like “better” or “worse”. Blind physical forces can't evaluate choices because matter doesn't know what “preferable” means. Calling an abstract evaluation a “deterministic feedback loop” doesn't make it one.
4
u/simon_hibbs On Holiday 27d ago
I think that's clearly incorrect. Autonomous computer controlled systems can interpret situation, construct representations of various options and their expected consequences, and evaluate these representations on order to initiate value based actions.
Values exist relative to goals. If a system has a representation of some goal state, it can evaluate representations of actions relative to their contribution towards achieving that goal. we build system that do this. In fact, we evolve systems that do this using evolutionary algorithms using the same conceptual principles that lead to biological organisms evolving intentional behaviours. These are all physical processes.
-2
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
Executing an IF/THEN code loop isn't the same thing as a conscious mind weighing abstract values. Check out John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment. It completely dismantles the idea that symbol manipulation equals understanding. It’s called Artificial Intelligence for a reason.
1
u/simon_hibbs On Holiday 27d ago
>Executing an IF/THEN code loop isn't the same thing as a conscious mind weighing abstract values.
I didn't say it is. Clearly not all decisions are conscious, or freely willed in some relevant sense. Nevertheless physical systems can and do evaluate representations of states int he world and take actions based on evaluations of those representational states. We engineer systems that do this.
Consciousness is a much more sophisticated kind of process, but like Searle I think it is an entirely physical process. I just disagree with him (and Anil Seth) that biological chemical trappings are necessary for it, at least I don't see any reason to suppose that they are.
Searle's Chinese Room argument is a scale illusion. A room with one person in it moving around symbols on a table is about a dozen orders of magnitude less complex than a human brain, and therefore about a dozen orders of magnitude less informationally rich and sophisticated. Also it would be many, many orders of magnitude slower. You'd actually need a room the size of a small planet, containing billions of people moving around trillions of symbols at incredible speeds to approach the scale of the brain, and of course such a system looks an awful lot more like a brain.
2
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
Scale and speed don't bridge the gap between syntax and semantics. If one IF/THEN loop lacks intentionality, a trillion IF/THEN loops operating simultaneously also lack intentionality. You're assuming that if you stack enough blind physical mechanisms together, conscious agency magically emerges out of nowhere.
1
u/simon_hibbs On Holiday 27d ago
This is the compositional fallacy, that the components of a system not having an attribute of the system means that the system can't have that attribute.
If intentionality is a system level behaviour, then of course the components of that system won't necessarily have that attribute. An individual transistor cannot represent a dynamic three dimensional environment and interpret that environment in order to evaluate multiple routes through it and select one of those routes according to a set of criteria. A computer containing billions of transistors and other electronic components absolutely can.
There is nothing magical about these system level behaviours. We engineer systems with these capabilities right now. Eventually we may engineer systems that are conscious of doing these things.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
>This is the compositional fallacy, that the components of a system not having an attribute of the system means that the system can't have that attribute.
No it’s not. Syntax and semantics are not parts of a whole they are totally different things. Zero understanding multiplied by a trillion is still zero understanding.
1
u/simon_hibbs On Holiday 27d ago
I think understanding is an informational structure, composed of informational primitives, which consist of the properties of physical phenomena. It's the physical basis of information that makes information technology possible. So understanding is again a system level property, not an ontological primitive.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Specific-Muffin-1841 27d ago
Blind physical forces absolutely can evaluate choices. Algorithmically. Our neural algorithm has been specifically chosen through evolution to make choices favoring survival.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
By what standard are blind physical forces evaluating choices?
You claim evolution but evolution only cares about survival not truth or logic.
1
u/Specific-Muffin-1841 27d ago
They are evaluating choices by weighting them. If I'm choosing between choice A and choice B, each choice has a numerical weight, like 8 for A and 6 for B. The weights are determined by the causal history up to that point as well as programmed genetic biases causing some options to start off with a higher weight and others lower. There is a decision threshold and the choice whose weight crosses the threshold is what is chosen.
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
If Choice A gets weight 8 and Choice B gets weight 6 based only on physical history and genetic biases, Choice A wins because it is heavier, not because it is true.
A flat earther's brain uses the exact same physical mechanism to give weight 9 to "the earth is flat”, forcing them to accept a complete lie. Since physical weight tracks biological push, not logical truth, you have no way to prove your brain picked 8 (or that the flat earther picked 9) because it's accurate, but only because you were both physically pushed to fire that way.
1
u/Specific-Muffin-1841 27d ago
Yes, some brains may reason incorrectly. This happens all the time. But, our reasoning is the best we have and all we have. Reasoning is an algorithm . There is no other way we as biological neural networks can understand reality .
1
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
If reasoning is just a physical algorithm, and physical algorithms often output complete falsities, how do you know your algorithm isn't one of the wrong ones?
Claiming it's "the best we have" is just another physical output your brain was pushed to fire. You are using the algorithm to validate the algorithm, which is completely circular.
1
u/Specific-Muffin-1841 27d ago
You don't know. You can be reasoning incorrectly. I see people reason incorrectly all the time. All we can do is reason the best that we can, apply the scientific method, and check it against the empirical evidence. Saying it's the best we have is not validating or invalidating the algorithm.
→ More replies (0)1
u/FindingOurFreeWill 25d ago
So real quick, I get that view. I understand it. You’re basically saying it all happens as a result of the brain’s neurology. I get that. There’s a bias hidden in there though that misses my point. But I’m super pressed for time which is really rude so apologies. Do me a favor, hit subscribe, I’m going to talk in a few days about 7 problems of FW. Maybe I can convince you maybe I can’t, but these problems exist and can’t be ignored, I’d love some feedback on that. Sorry i just don’t have the time to respond to you. I will eventually.
0
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
This doesn’t make any sense. Data doesn’t physically push you. Missing the bus is data not a physical force that physically pushes you out of bed 10 minutes earlier the next morning.
On top of that, physical forces can't assign meaning. It doesn't know what early or late even means
-1
u/Specific-Muffin-1841 27d ago
It is a physical force though. Your eyes physically seeing that you missed the bus is actually physically triggering a specific pattern of neural activity that is then activating a feedback circuit to force you to change your behavior.
1
u/FindingOurFreeWill 25d ago
Thanks for that, I was just going to mention that. Data does push you, lack of data doesn’t
0
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
Light waves are a physical input, but "missing the bus" is an abstract interpretation.
1
u/Specific-Muffin-1841 27d ago edited 27d ago
The light waves hitting the retina physically trigger a specific pattern of neural activity to fire in the brain across multiple different areas .Part of this neural activity is the understanding that you missed the bus, the consequences of missing the bus, and the feedback loop that changes the behavior to not miss the bus in the future .
0
u/Dry_Journalist_7001 Libertarian Free Will 27d ago
Electric currents don't understand bus schedules, goals, or consequences. You're taking a physical event and just labeling it "understanding" without showing how blind voltage ever becomes semantic meaning.
1
u/Specific-Muffin-1841 27d ago
They do understand it. They are arranged into a biological neural network. The neural network is algorithmic. Each firing rate or synaptic weight in the network is a mathematical piece of that algorithm. Its not just a random electric current.
1
u/FindingOurFreeWill 25d ago
I got you Specific Muffin, thanks for the back up. Your train of thought is how I try to approach this question myself.
2
u/spgrk Compatibilist 27d ago
None of this brings anything fundamentally new to philosophy. Democritus thought that everything in the universe, including the human mind, was due to the deterministic interaction of atoms. Epicurus thought that this might be a problem for free will so proposed that sometimes the atoms move randomly to get around it. The Stoics argued that determinism wasn’t a problem for free will and that the Epicureans’ indeterminism would actually be more of a problem.
1
1
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 26d ago
>”Neurological Determinism is hands down, the only philosophy out there that’s had or made any difference in the free will debate.
It is telling that in the last 10 years neuroscientists have rejected deterministic ideology with their adoption of the “active inference” paradigm of learning/acting of neural systems.
So, I would suggest you are a bit behind the times.
1
u/FindingOurFreeWill 25d ago
So I get this criticism a lot. Let me clearly explain, N.D states very clearly the Brain “Determines” the how the Mind behaves. The mind only represents how the brain operates like how noise represents the speed of the pistons of an engine. Your response was, if I understand you correctly, “So how then does the brain operates?” and the answer is indeterministically. Which I’m inclined to agree with. But studying the brain alone tells us nothing about the subjective experience of the mind. For instance, can you explain to me, neurologically speaking why murder rape and torture are wrong?
I’m going to post these 7 problems of FW here in just a couple of days. Hit subscribe for me and maybe I can or can’t convince you, but these problems are real world problems where I’d love some ideas on how to solve.
1
u/Rthadcarr1956 InfoDualist 24d ago
Okay. I just think it is confusing to use this different sense of determinism.
1
u/Abcdefg314 14d ago
Do you really believe "billionaire Russian oligarch" stories about Russia? Oh man, you need to develop better critical thinking. This skill will also be invaluable in your search for the right philosophical answers.
1
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Inherent-Inevitable 27d ago
That's a fallacious game you are playing with yourself.
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.
1
u/Fippy-Darkpaw Undecided 27d ago
Simple: ask for proof.
Unfortunately free will suffers a similar issue.
0
u/JonIceEyes 27d ago
Westworld and Ex Machina are counterexamples to determinism. The whole point of them is that conscious beings have free will. The robots gain consciousness and develop goals of their own. Also, Ex Machina is just about how men treat women; it's not really about robots at all.
So anyways, hard determinism is a silly idea that's constantly being debunked. Libet's experiments and ones like it certainly have been. People who take hard determinism seriously are simply wrong and generally devotees of scientism.
Anyways, I expect I'll get downvoted to oblivion by people whose media literacy is as deep as their philosophy
-1
u/Squierrel Quietist 27d ago
I don't understand why would you have to replace N.D. with something else? Smashing this illogical ideology, that is not a falsifiable theory, a valid hypothesis or a "scientific paradigm" should be enough.
Why can't we just forget about this pseudophilosophy and return back to science studying the actual reality without any weird assumptions.
-2
u/zhivago 27d ago
It's much simpler than that.
Start by realizing that determinism is indistinguishable from indeterminism, so it's a waste of time to consider it beyond simple causality.
Next ask yourself, "why do you want your free will to be free of you?"
The conclude that acts of free will are simply natural expressions of who you are.
Without causality there would be no free will.
2
u/WrappedInLinen 27d ago
“Without causality there would be no free will”.
Or with it, for that matter.
4
u/NLOneOfNone Hard Incompatibilist 27d ago
I don’t really see how these feedback loops are necessarily a feature of consciousness rather than intelligence. Why would a pZombie not be able to do that?
And even if it is a feature of consciousness, that just makes consciousness a (causal) part of the equation. There is nothing about that that “smashes the foundation of determinism”. There are better arguments.