|
|
Determinism Miscellany
By Bruce Barbour - Version 1.14 - July 2024 (Original October
2023)
Introduction
Just a few more idle thoughts on the subject.
The Meaning of "Determined"
A part of the problem with the determinism/free will debate is the
inexactitude of the word "determined". The word is used in different
contexts that have different meanings, not excessively different but
still different. For example (A) Rail lines determine where the
train goes and (B) the situation where what to do on a day is
determined by the weather.
The rail tracks hard determine where the train goes. The weather
determines some of the options that could be done on the day. If it
is an overcast or windy day a person might decide not to go on a
walk. However it is a softer meaning of the word determined. A
person still has a choice. They could still put on a jacket and go
for a walk regardless of the inclemency. The train just goes where
the rail tracks go. The difference is that in the second option
(weather) there is a possibility of choice. In the first option
(train on rail tracks) there is no possibility of choice.
Perhaps for the second option it could be said that the weather
influenced, rather than determined, what was going to be done on the
day. If the weather was really bad, cold, raining and blowing a gale
then determined might be the appropriate word. But if is just cold
and a little bit windy then the weather is an influencing factor on
the choice of whether to go for a walk or not. Some people might
still decide to go on the walk and some wouldn't, so the weather is
not a determining factor. As per my
previous article the weather is a stimuli. And stimuli are not
determining. Whether the walk occurs at all is due to a thought
process, not the stimuli.
Supporters of determinism don't acknowledge any difference between
the different meanings of determined. Consequently they will argue
that because the rail tracks determine where the train goes
therefore the weather determines what the person does. Same word but
a slightly different meaning. In their argument they are both
determined with no consideration of the impact of the possibility of
choice in the second option.
Total Free Will
Some supporters of determinism debunk what they call "total free
will" and then, as a consequence of this, go on and say any type or
scope of free will has no substance. That jump cannot be supported.
I don't think people have total free will. In the extreme total free
will would require the person to have god like powers to be able to
bend and cancel the laws of nature. That is impossible. People don't
even have total free will associated with their own bodies. They
can't will their heart to stop - thank goodness - though some yogis
can slow it down. They can't stop shivering when they get very cold
or perspiring when they get hot. If a person stops breathing through
an effort of will they will go unconscious and then start to breathe
again. A lot of the time people would "run on automatic" without
having to think much.
Total free will does not exist. What concerns me is any instance of
free will. If an instance of free will occurs in any circumstance
then free will exists and universal determinism is broken - though
partial determinism would continue.
Determinism and Religion
An observation that falls out of the determinism hypothesis.
Determinism hypothesis would mean that all religion and every
religious thought that has ever occurred was due to cause and effect
processes in the Universe. This is from the earliest beliefs in
idols and nature worship (e.g sun worship) to the current day
monotheistic religions.
Under determinism religious belief must be written into the
Universe. This is not so strange when you consider that all
scientific belief and knowledge must also be written into the
Universe.
It also means that all wars were written into the structure of the
Universe at the time of the Big Bang*. In fact all of history, all
of the good and evil in the world was written into the structure of
the Big Bang* and the Universe, if in fact those terms have any
meaning in determinism.
That is some mighty fancy billiard ball interaction.
(* In recent times I have seen science reports questioning the Big
Bang hypothesis. Time will tell whether it continues to be the
accepted origin story or whether another model will come to be
accepted.)
Determinism and Philosophy
According
to Wikipedia philosophy has a number of branches. In summary
the main branches are:
- Aesthetics - the study of the nature of beauty, art,
and taste, and the creation of personal kinds of truth.
- Epistemology - studies the source, nature and validity
of knowledge.
- Ethics – the study of values and morality.
- Logic – the systematic study of the form of valid
inference and reasoning.
- Metaphysics – concerned with explaining the fundamental
nature of being and the world that encompasses it.
(Other sources quote different branches or add additional branches.)
One of the aspects that struck me when starting to look at
philosophy was that many of the branches are not applied across some
of the other branches. Epistemology studies what's the nature of
knowledge and how anything can be known for certain. In this branch,
philosophers tie themselves into knots trying to determine what can
be known with absolute certainty. However in metaphysics some
(though not all) philosophers discount the rigid requirements of
epistemology for determining what is true knowledge.
Some philosophers will espouse their metaphysical philosophy, many
times stating it as certainty - true knowledge. While many would
try, with varying levels of success, to justify their philosophy
with reasoned argument, in my opinion their reasoning would never
justify their philosophy being classed as Knowledge, though it may
become (small k) knowledge, personal knowledge, that to the
adherents is true. The proof of this is that the espoused philosophy
is still being debated. If metaphysical claim had been proven as
Knowledge there would be less need for debate.
Perhaps the name should have given it away. Metaphysics means
"beyond physics". In other words beyond science and the scientific
method. Without the proofs offered by science it is very difficult
to achieve the status of knowledge. If human determinism or free
will was ever scientifically proven the Knowledge would go outside
the realm of metaphysics.
Determinism* (or causality), existentialism, free will (often called
libertarianism), all religions and many other philosophies are a
sub-branch of metaphysics. They should not be classed as knowledge.
They are a philosophy or a belief system.
*Some people may believe determinism is not metaphysics but physics
- because of the ubiquity of cause and effect. However this cannot
be supported as per my
earlier article.
As stated religions are a sub-branch of metaphysics. However at
least in some types of religion (some types of Christianity anyway -
I am unsure about other religions) may admit the uncertainty of
their beliefs by saying that ultimately belief in their religion
requires a "leap
of faith". This seems to be more than what adherents of
determinism and some other philosophies seem to be prepared to
admit.
The other area that I found to be particularly bad at proving their
philosophical claims are the existentialists.
Give me solid repeatable scientific proof of human determinism,
rather than fuzzy inconclusive philosophical reasoning that does not
meet the standards of epistemological Knowledge, then I will change
my mind.
Unfalsifiability
Both determinism and free will are currently unfalsifiable.
Unfalsifiable does not mean that because a hypothesis can't be
proven false it is consequently correct. It means the hypothesis
can't be shown to be either false or correct - there is no way of
presently knowing with certainty. The philosopher is left with
arguments from reason.
Some scientists say that a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable is not a
valid scientific hypothesis because there is no experiment that can
be done to prove or disprove the hypothesis. I do not go that far.
To my mind free will and determinism should still be classed as
scientific hypothesis. They need to be subject to scientific and
other research investigation.
While the hypotheses are not falsifiable at present, and this should
be acknowledged, they may be in the future. Researchers have to be
looking for proof one way or the other, otherwise the hypotheses
will never get past being unfalsifiable.
I am agnostic on both free will and
human determinism but currently lean (significantly) towards free
will due to the many factors stated in this article and the other
articles I have written on the subject.
Culture
Another favourite argument of the some of the supporters of
determinism is that a lot of people's decisions and actions are due
to the country and the culture the people are brought up in - and
they had no choice in this. I agree culture does impact on the
decision making of a person regardless of whether they are fully
determined or have free will. It is still only one factor that is
considered in decision making.
However some people can and do reject their cultural upbringing.
Youth can rebel against their upbringing. People can reject the
religion that they were brought up in or reject the culture in
total. A person can go overseas and decide to fully adopt much of
the culture of their adopted country, adopting the new language and
even to the extent of changing their religious beliefs. Cultural
beliefs are not set in stone.
Culture is a factor in decision making. But a person's inculturation
is not set over a lifetime. It can change during a person's life and
therefore its impact on decision making will also change.
The Problem with Over Extrapolation
An example of an instance where over extrapolation of a concept has
proven to be problematic is where Newtonian mechanics was
extrapolated into the sub-atomic.
The first model of the atom that was taught to me in school was pure
Newtonian. It was the classic solar system style model. That is a
nucleus, consisting of little balls of matter called protons and
neutrons at the centre of the atom with little electrons (different
little balls of matter) orbiting, on nice simple circular paths the
much larger nucleus, like little planets in a solar system.
Needless to say it was wrong. Atoms
are not structured like that. We were subsequently taught the
non-Newtonian model later in secondary college (high school).
This is an example where extrapolation into the very small did not
work. Yet determinism in humans requires that cause and effect be
extrapolated into the very small, into the very complex (the brain -
the most densely complex structure in the known Universe containing
over 80 billion neurons) and into the consciousness (a process which
is undoubtedly complex and is not presently fully explained or
understood).
Maybe the extrapolation is true. Maybe it is not. I want proof,
scientific proof, before I commit to a hypothesis like human
determinism which would have far reaching significance for humanity
and which goes against lived experience.
Causality Revisited
Not a Law of Nature
In my opinion universal cause and effect (causality) is not a
law of nature, but rather a concept that describes the
observed relationship between two consecutive interacting events.
Some references disagree and include cause and effect in the list of
the laws of nature. But this list is somewhat like the list of the 7
(or is it 8) wonders of the ancient world - they vary depending on
which source is consulted. It is not like the ten commandments
handed down on stone tablets from God - according to some religions.
And even the ten commandments vary depending on the translation, the
source and the time.*
I claim this because in most instances cause leading to effect is
derivative. Most often if describing the actions in a system cause
and effect need not be considered. Instead all the information on
what happens in the system can be fully described using the laws of
nature. For example the billiard ball interaction. A ball strikes
another ball and it moves. This interaction can more than adequately
be explained by considering the energy and momentum transfer process
in which some of the energy and momentum of the first ball is
transferred to the second ball. The total amount of energy of the
two balls is the same as the total energy of the first ball before
it struck (discounting frictional and other losses). This is the
principle of conservation of energy. Momentum (which also considers
the vectors - or directions - of the motion) is also conserved in
the system. These two laws, conservation of energy and momentum,
tell you so much more than what a causality "law" tells you.
Causality just tells you that when a billiard ball is hit by another
billiard ball it will cause the hit ball to move. It doesn't say by
how much or in what direction. Neither does it say what happens to
the causing ball. In fact in reality it doesn't even tell you that.
If it is a bowling ball being hit by a billiard ball then it is
quite possible that the bowling ball will not move or barely move.
The effect might be just the sound of the collision.
If a billiard ball was to suddenly shoot off by itself that would
violate the laws of conservation of energy. Where did the energy
necessary to accelerate the ball to speed come from? Consequently
this doesn't happen. Cause and effect would have also been violated
but this is a secondary consideration.
The causality observation does not just apply to mechanical
interactions but also electrical and chemical. Put a voltage across
a light bulb (cause) and the light bulb shines (effect). Mix two
chemicals together and apply heat if necessary (cause) and provided
the chemicals are reactive a chemical reaction will occur and new
molecules formed (effect). Laws of nature do not generally cross
boundaries like the causality observation.
Causality - including mechanical, electrical and chemical - can't be
expressed in a mathematical formula, unless other laws of nature are
invoked. Causality is just a general observation about what usually
happens in normal space time. It is like observing that the Sun
rises in the East in the morning, goes across the sky during the day
and sets in the West. On the surface it might appear to indicate
that the Sun goes around the Earth but deeper investigation reveals
that the answer is more complicated.
Whether causality is a law of nature or not is important. If it is
not a law of nature then if causality happens to be broken it is not
a law that is being broken but an observation on how things usually
behave in "normal" space time.
* As an interesting aside while investigating causality I asked the
Bing search engine, which runs a version of the ChatGPT AI, "Is
causality a law of nature?" the answer came back as No. Some time
later I thought I should actually read the reference sites the AI
consulted to come up with the answer so I went back and asked the
same question. And the answer I got was - Yes causality is a law of
nature.
A week or so later I went to the direct ChatGPT 3.5 website and had
a "conversation" on causality and the laws of nature. This time
ChatGPT agreed with me. "Cause and Effect" is NOT a law of nature.
ChatGPT also listed the laws of nature relevant to physics. (ChatGPT
indicated the list was not exhaustive and that there are also other
Laws that are not related to physics.) It is interesting that it
said "scientific understanding evolves, and new laws or revisions to
existing ones may occur as research progresses." As with all science
even the so called "Laws" are open to potential review if knowledge
changes. This is one of the things that make science so great - in
pure science there is no dogma, though this might not be the case in
the science practiced by some.
It is a pity that religions don't also openly have the provision of
being able to change beliefs when knowledge advances. Although some
religions aren't completely set in stone. In some versions of a
religion they may quietly "forget" to read and incorporate aspects
of their holy writings, or they radically change the interpretation
(e.g. "Its not meant to be taken literally. Its allegorical") when
it too much offends modern logic. And there have been significant
reformations in the past. See
transcript of "conversation" here.
Double Slit Experiment
In not "normal size" space time, i.e. this sub atomic space,
causality seems to be broken a number of times in quantum mechanics.
One example is the famous double slit experiment.(1 & 2) Monochromatic light shone
through a barrier with a double slit in it will show through on the
other side of the barrier as, not two discrete points of light but,
an interference pattern. This indicates the wave property of light.
However when equipment is set up to measure the light as it passes
through the slits the pattern of light now becomes two discrete
points (or bands) of light which indicates that the light is now
behaving like a stream of particles instead of waves. The act of
measurement changes what is observed! (This also works with
electrons and atoms fired at the double slits provided the slits are
of the right size and spacing.) So what does this mean for cause and
effect?
A partial explanation of this is that photons of light are
effectively timeless or only have one instance of time. Because they
travel at the speed of light no time passes for them. Their time is
still the same as the time at which they were generated. There is no
before and no after, there is no future nor past - and because cause
and effect relies on things at an earlier time affecting things at a
later time - cause and effect may not apply in certain circumstances
with electromagnetic radiation. Though lasers can burn and
scientists propose innovations like electromagnetic "sails" for
space ship propulsion which does indicate effects.
Still what can be made of the astonishing outcome of the double slit
experiment? What is observed is changed by an act of measurement!
Humans can measure. Perhaps other life on Earth can measure in a
more rudimentary way. Aliens may be able to measure but we don't
know whether aliens exist. What else in the Universe can measure? I
know of nothing. For something to be able measure surely by
definition it needs to be conscious to some degree - a rock or a
tree can't measure. Measurement and observation are part of
consciousness. To me it indicates consciousness is a distinct
property and not just an illusory artifact of complex cause and
effect. It also shows that measurement (part of observation and
consciousness) can itself be a cause of an effect. Observation can
cause the quantum
wave function to collapse. There is no known physical contact
(including electromagnetic radiation) between the cause and the
effect. So what is the mechanism that links the effect to the cause?
No body knows. But I hesitate to draw further conclusions from this
experiment. Such conclusions would be highly speculative. However
what this does show is how much science is yet to work out. The
project of science is a work in progress that may take a long time
to conclude, if ever.
The other comment that I will make is that some scientists
researching in the field of the brain/mind/consciousness
investigation may argue that this and other quantum indeterminacy
and frankly quantum weirdness should not affect how the mind works
as the brains neurons are not working at the quantum level. While I
am not qualified to judge that, it is still an unproven claim.
Quantum Mechanics
Random action, that is action that is not caused by an effect, and
also probabilistic effects ares found at the quantum level
frequently. Some free will advocates argue that this quantum
randomness and probability leads to free will. Supporters of
determinism will argue that it is unlikely that quantum effects come
into play in human action and even if they did it would cause random
actions. A person exhibiting random actions is not acting in
accordance with their decisions and is therefore not acting in
accordance with their free will.
However what random action and probabilistic at the quantum level
does show is that case and effect does not rule supreme in all areas
of the Universe. Therefore it may be possible for cause and effect
to be circumvented in other areas of the Universe, giving rise to
the possibility of free will. As pure speculation perhaps the
apparent quantum randomness and probability may be able to be
interfered with by some unknown human process, probably related to
consciousness, whereby the quantum action effect is no longer random
but directed. But as I said - speculation.
Supporters of determinism seem to suggest that quantum effects can
have no impact on systems at larger scale. It seems they are
suggesting that there is some type of barrier between the quantum
scale and larger realms that quantum effects can't cross, that
quantum randomness/probability effects can only have impact in the
quantum realm. I don't know whether this is the scientific view of
quantum physicists or whether it is just the assumptions of some
philosophers thinking about free will/determinism. A simple thought
experiment - which I anticipate could actually be done to confirm it
- would show that there is no such barrier. Consider the double slit
experiment discussed in the previous section. When the light through
the slot is measured it forms two lines, when it is not measured it
forms an interference pattern with multiple lines of less intensity.
Clearly quantum effects are in play. The proposed thought
experiment is simple. The light shines onto a sheet which is
flammable at a certain intensity of light. Say that flammability is
chosen so that it bursts into flame when the light is measured and
forms two lines. When not measured the intensity of the light in the
interference pattern lines does not get to the level necessary to
cause the paper to burn. That shows an impact. If you don't want
flames you may be able to use a switch that changes when the
intensity of the light gets to the right level but otherwise doesn't
(unless that could be thought of as some form of measurement). This
switch could switch on any piece of equipment you wish to nominate.
A large effect due to quantum processes! And as I have said in other
sections, measurement is a consciousness process.
Humian Causality
It is interesting that in Humian
causality (the form of causality considered by philosopher
David Hume) one of Hume's requirements for causality was "the cause
and effect must be contiguous in space and time". In humans the
cause of an event would often not meet that requirement. Often
learnings are used which can be decades old to decide on which event
the human decides to carry out after a stimulus - which, as
discussed, is not itself causative. If the cause is the learnings
the event could not be described as contiguous in time to the cause.
And a stimulus itself may not be contiguous with the effect. For
example an advertisement comes on the internet urging the purchase
of a certain item (the stimulus). A person may not act on that at
all or they may decide to act on it days later - not contiguous in
time. As I have mentioned in other articles this shows how different
causality in humans would have to be compared to causality in the
rest of the Universe - if causality were to exist in human decision
making.
If the cause is not the external stimulus nor the learnings then
what is the cause? It must be the self. For the supporters of hard
human determinism the "self" is merely a brain mechanism which gives
the illusion of a self and an illusion of the free will of the self.
But I can't see how this mechanism in deciding the effect is easily
explainable by prior cause. And certainly not a cause which is
contiguous in time. For an autonomous self the issue does not exist.
Some of the other Humian causality requirements are also suspect.
However there are other definitions of causality which may not have
this issue.
In any case Hume was skeptical about what we can know for certain about
causation.
There have been various experiments (e.g. the
Libet experiments) that seem to suggest that some decisions
are made in the subconscious and it is only after the decision has
been made that the conscious mind becomes aware of the decision. The
argument is therefore made that the subconscious decision was not
free because it was not a conscious choice. On the surface this
sounds a persuasive argument. Is it or is there another possible
explanation?
This hinges on the questions of firstly whether there is a "self"
and secondly what constitutes that "self".
Supporters of determinism would deny the existence of the self,
arguing that like free will it is just an illusion. People are
simply highly complex mechanisms behaving solely in accord with
cause and effect.
Most supporters of free will would argue that there is something
like a "Self" that is responsible for making free will decisions.
Some may believe in dualism but others would
say that the Self is due to the complexity of the brain and the
emergent property of the mind which has been called consciousness.
It is part of the person - not separate. I am in the second camp.
Let us consider what this "Self" might be. Freud proposed a model of
the mind that was composed of the conscious, pre-conscious and
subconscious. Often an analogy to an iceberg is used - the conscious
being the part above the "water", the part that is people are aware
of, and the other two parts submerged, not easily visible beyond
simple awareness, but still playing a vital part of what makes up a
person. The "Self", if it exists, would comprise all three parts.
Next I would like to propose that if free will exists in the
conscious mind then it may well exist in the other parts of the mind
as well. I propose this because some of the other parts of the mind
are structured the same way as the conscious part of the mind. Much
of the conscious and pre-conscious would co-exist in the same parts
of the mind. I would propose that as well as the conscious mind
having the structures that allow free will perhaps either the
subconscious or pre-conscious (or both) also have the structures
that allow free will. However of course this would require a rethink
of what free will means when there is not a choice being made by the
conscious mind. It sound contradictory. In this case "free will"
would have to be redefined. The "free" part of free will is OK. It
is free in that it is not bound by cause and effect. The "will" part
would be defined as comprising both conscious and unconscious
aspects both also not being bound by cause and effect. These aspects
are expressions of the Self. In this view of free will, "will" can
not be thought of as simply a conscious thought process.
(If supporters of determinism are able to define "will" as solely a
conscious thought process then their arguments, such as expressed in
the cascading thought explanation - see below
- would probably win. But it would be an empty win based on
semantics and a wrong understanding.)
An alternative way of thinking about this that the pre-conscious and
subconscious were formed by two aspects - genetics and earlier
learnings. Genetics are largely determined from conception and these
would impact on the processes of the pre and sub conscious. However
many of the learnings aren't determined. They are formed from
conscious thought processes over time. Sure some early learnings are
very influenced by parents (who are behaving in some part in
accordance with their free will choices) and other unchosen
environmental factors. But many subsequent learnings aren't. As a
supporter of free will I argue that the later learnings are largely
free. Therefore the contents of the sub and pre conscious might in
some ways be considered determined by those earlier learnings, those
learnings themselves are as a result of the free will choices of the
person choosing the learnings to undertake and adopt at an earlier
time. So subsequent choices of the sub and pre conscious (even if
not consciously undertaken) may also be considered the outcome of
free will processes and an expression of the Self.
In summary, the self is comprised of elements from the whole mind -
conscious, pre-conscious and subconscious. This is what makes up
what we are or what the self is. It is fundamental. The self is more
than solely the conscious mind. Decisions made in the subconscious
are still decisions of the Self. And these decisions are guided by
who we are in total. And because as I argue these other parts of the
mind are also not bound by cause and effect they are also choices
which are free. Free from the absolute binds of cause and effect.
Decisions guided by the true Self.
Is this just speculation or hypothesis which is not proven by
science? Absolutely. But at least I acknowledge this.
One final point I will make about the Libet and associated
experiments is that they take a supposed explanation of a simple
inconsequential decision - when to press a button or which button to
press - and try to extrapolate it into
an explanation of how all human decisions are made. The way human
decisions of consequence and / or complexity are made are
fundamentally different to the experimental set-up. In these types
of decisions consciousness processes do play a significant part.
Human Determinism Argument Flaws
Supporter of determinism often used flawed arguments to support
their cause. I have already highlighted some in this article. The
following are a few additional examples.
Argument 1
In the article "Determinism
and Freewill" I mentioned that one of the methods used was to
not acknowledge that the decisions of a hypothetical person that has
free will (a free agent if you like), will on most occasions, be
exactly the same as a hypothetical person without free will. A
person with free will on most occasions will use their free
reasoning to make the decision which is most advantageous to
themself. This will most likely be the same choice a determined
person would make.
A person making a decision for a reason is in no way an indicator
that the person does not have free will. A free agent makes a
decision which is not bound by cause and effect. A believer in
determinism will reject this interpretation and will say the person
was acting for a reason which was determined by their prior
experience, learnings and their current situation. A supporter of
free will will say that while the prior experience, learnings and
current situation was taken into account by using their conscious
reasoning there was another element included in the process which
was their unbound free agent choice.
Supporters of determinism have attempted to co-opt the act of
reasoning as a justification of their cause.
Another example in the same vein is the unquestioned assumption by
supporters of determinism that thoughts cannot be a initiated
without further cause. A person has a thought (T1 we will call it)
which seems to come out of nowhere. The supporter of determinism
then says that person did not have conscious control of what that
thought (T1) was. Therefore they argue the person did not chose that
thought. Therefore that thought was not consciously controlled by
the person. Therefore that thought was not free.
This is an example
from Sam Harris (made in the video time zone 1 minute to 1
minute 30 seconds). If that is the requirement it definitionally,
though not actually, rules out free will. If there is a requirement
for the person to have a thought (we will call it T0) to control the
subsequent thought (T1) then the supporter of determinism would
argue that the initiating thought (T0) was also not free because the
person would need to have a thought (T negative 1) to control the
thought (T0). And so on back. The logic is fundamentally flawed.
In contrast supporters of free will say that the thought (T1) was
initiated by (or caused by, if you like) the autonomous Self. There
is no need for prior thought or prior cause beyond the Self. The
thought (T1) is initiated by the Self and is the expression of the
choice of the Self. The supporters of determinism do not explain or
provide any arguments as to why this is not a viable explanation of
what happens. Except for their mantras of "the self is an illusion"
and "all effects have a cause". These mantras are not sufficiently
proven for the human mind and consciousness.
The other issue with this argument is that it creates just as many
issues for the supporters of determinism. They claim it is all dumb
cause and effect. So in the supporters of determinism view what
caused thought T1? They have rejected the idea that it is an earlier
thought. And anyway that would just lead to the same cascading
thought issue as previously discussed - what was the cause of
thought T0 and then thought T negative 1 - and so on. In either
argument, determinism or free will, a some point you are going to
have non-thought cause of a thought. Why can't that non-thought
leading to thought be initiated (caused) by the free willed (not
bound by cause and effect) self instead of being initiated by an
unconscious (unthought) cause from an infinite cause and effect
chain?
The supporters of determinism's other approach could be to say that
all thought is secondary. That is,
unconscious cause and effect causes the action and then thought
basically follows along to explain the action. The first issue with
that is often (I would say on most occasions) thought clearly comes
before the action (sometimes a longtime before action) so a thought
can't be in response to the action on all occasions. The second
issue is that they are allowing determinism cause and effect to be a
sub-thought process but reject that the free willed self (not bound
by cause and effect) may be able to instigate a non-thought cause
(also not bound by cause and effect) leading to thought and to
action.
Argument 3
Another argument in the same vein as Argument 1 is that supporters
of determinism will cite an example of a person developing a brain
tumor and their personality changes radically. An example they may
cite is that someone develops a brain tumor and suddenly becomes a
fire bug* where previously they had no such tendencies. Then the
brain tumor is surgically removed and lo and behold they cease to
have any urge to light fires. This is meant to show that people do
not have conscious control over their thoughts and actions. Again
this seems to be a strong argument for determinism. But is it?
Supporters of free will (some anyway) may accept that human decision
making and the "self" is impacted by:
- genetics and brain structure which, while are largely
determined**, do allow the emergent property of consciousness
and free will;
- learnings
which are in part:
- determined by the general environment - at least some of
which may be chosen by another agent working with free will -
e.g. a parent;
- determined by other people who are to an extent operating as
free will agents themselves - parents, teachers, etc. - and
can therefore also be considered part of the total human free
will realm; and
- chosen by the person's own free will.
As noted in the first dot point in the list above free will depends
on structures in the brain. If some structures in the brain are
damaged from a brain tumor or from an accident then this can effect
a person's ability to make free will choices. It can also effect
their personality - also formed under the processes in the dot
points listed above.
It is unreasonable for supporters of determinism to demand that for
a person to prove they have free will they have to be able to
somehow dismiss massive brain damage as if nothing happened and
continue to have the same level of free will functionality as they
did before the damage. Supporters of determinism do not demand that
other impaired functions, physical and mental, should not have been
impaired due to the brain damage from any source. As I said, free
will depends on structures of the brain, which can be damaged and
can be functionally impaired. (The argument may be more challenging
for the dualism view of free will - but I don't support that
hypothesized mechanism for free will anyway.)
The fire bug example is extreme. We don't know what the person's
proclivities were before the brain tumor. Perhaps they had fire
bugging tendencies that were being kept in check by the undamaged
brain and mind. The damage from the brain tumor may have been
sufficient to remove the ability to keep the urges in check. This
applies whether the brain is fully determined or has free will.
Another way of looking at the issue is that I admit that some of the
aspects that are considered in the human decision making process may
be determined. Refer to the dot point list in this section (above).
This is not a new position for me. Genetics and brain structure are
determined. Some aspects of learnings may be determined. In normal
decision making these may be balanced against or counteracted or
perhaps overridden by the aspects that are not determined. The free
agent takes account of all factors, including proclivities driven
largely by their genetics and brain structure. If a brain tumor
develops that changes these brain structure based proclivities then
this change will be incorporated into decision making and could
result in changed decisions from previous situations. And if
structures supporting free will are also damaged this will doubly
impact.
While I am speculating here it would not surprise me that there
could also be cases in the past where a brain tumor develops in a
person and they might start to feel an interest in lighting fires.
However this changed interest could be resisted by the person.
Perhaps by their free will agency. They then have the operation and
the changed interest disappears. Even if they had reported this to
their doctors and surgeons it is unlikely that this would end up in
medical journals. It is not noteworthy enough compared to an actual
fire bug.
Also remember that, as stated previously, for free will to exist
there only has to be instances of free will - not total or
continuous free will. Perhaps the fire bug could still display free
will in other circumstances - who knows. It would depend on the
extent of the brain damage.
If the supporters of determinism are claiming that the fire bug's
actions are determined it means they are claiming that the whole
process, the whole causal chain, is determined. The person is born
grows up "normal", gets a brain tumor, becomes a fire bug, tumor
removed by a highly skilled brain surgeon whose scalpel did not
slip, reverts back to not being a fire bug - all determined not just
from the start of the person's life but right back to the Big Bang,
13.7 billion years ago. I find this explanation a stretch.
* some quote cases of people becoming pedσfiles (sic) instead of
fire bugs. I use the fire bug example.
** while I concede they may be determined over the short term I am
not conceding that they are determined from the Big Bang. There is a
significant possibility that quantum effects, probability, chaos and
free will interventions could change something over the course of
13.7 billion years.
In the article "Determinism and Freewill" at note 5 I wrote that
according to the determinism hypothesis:
"The development and diversity of all life and the creativity of
that life intrinsically arises from the cause and effect processes
occurring from the beginnings of the Universe. The Universe itself
is the ultimate cause and the source of everything that occurs in
the Universe."
Then as nearly a throwaway line I wrote: "For a person that believes
in this form of Determinism it is a short step to pantheism."
How short a step it is to pantheism is the question?
A supporter of pantheism sees the Universe as god.
The sentence "The Universe being the ultimate cause and the source
of everything that occurs in the Universe" does sound very god like.
A religiously inclined person could very easily swap out the first
use of the words "The Universe" with "God" and the sentence becomes
a religious statement.
However I am sure many supporters of determinism would reject the
notion that the Universe is god. Is this reasonable?
The difference between the Universe as just a material entity or a
god may be whether the Universe was in some way conscious or not. A
second factor may be intentionality. People in the past (and perhaps
currently as well) have worshiped wooden and stone idols. It is not
because of the material they are made out of. They would general
ascribe a number of additional non-material properties to the idol.
One of those properties would be a form of consciousness as well as
other metaphysical powers. Consciousness would be a fairly universal
requirement of a god.
People in the past have also worshiped natural entities such as the
sun. It is easy to understand why. The sun is the "giver of life".
Life would not be possible without the sun. If it stopped shining
life would die out shortly afterwards. Without having asked any sun
worshipers why I would speculate that they would ascribe some form
of consciousness to the sun. They would worship the sun to beseech
it to keep shining, as if it had a choice.
Could there be a concept of a god which does not have consciousness?
It would be different to other gods but the concept of the Universe
as a whole as god would not be the worse thing to pick. The Universe
has many god like properties. Everything comes from the processes,
the rules, the laws of nature, the materials and the energy of the
Universe. As discussed in my article on "Determinism and Freewill"
these laws of nature make a Universe which is creative or at least
allows or demands the subsequent creativity of the evolution of life
and all of the creativity made by humanity (but not,
according to determinism, ascribed to humanity). The Universe
will inspire awe, its size and magnificence, if a person cares to
think about it enough. This may be the type of god that even an
atheist could live with. However this would be a very particular
interpretation or belief. As discussed usually consciousness is a
required property of a god.
Some
philosophers have suggested, as a hypothesis, that all
material has a property of consciousness. For a rock the amount of
consciousness (or qualia)
would be very small. The amount in a human would be very much
larger. And life in between would have varying levels of
consciousness. Unprovable of course. But people need to be able to
suggest speculative ideas as hypotheses (but not fact). The idea may
seem outrageous or ridiculous but it may prompt others to
investigate further - to prove or disprove the hypothesis - and thus
advance total human knowledge.
Another argument that is used by some supporters of pantheism is
that the the Universe is conscious because we humans are conscious
and we are part of the Universe. However human consciousness has
only been around for, say, 100,000 years, a mere nothing compared to
the 13 billion years plus of the universe. The processes of creation
by the Universe were occurring long before humanity's existence.
Even if you consider the consciousness of other animals or the
consciousness of ancient aliens, if they existed, it does not
address whether the Universe was conscious in some form from the
beginning or early on in the Universe's development. Nor does it
address how the spark of consciousness on one small planet could
have significance in a Universe with billions of galaxies and
trillions of planets - unless alien consciousness is also pervasive
through out the Universe.
The implications of a conscious Universe would be far ranging. What
it could mean, in what manner was it conscious, is a topic far too
large to cover in this short section. The models possible would
probably be as many and as varied as there are currently religions
in the World.
A material entity Universe (whether it is considered a god or not)
behaves in accordance with the laws of nature somehow embedded into
it. It just happened, as a matter of brute fact and chance, that
these rules lead inevitably, in accordance with cause and effect, to
a small planet called Earth in a seemingly insignificant galaxy
which spawned life which was capable of looking out into the
Universe and question how and why.
So when I wrote that a belief in universal determinism is but a
"short step" to pantheism that was probably an over simplification -
except if a non-conscious god is considered. For a god with the
property of consciousness the step may be a bit bigger and more
significant than might have been implied.
Existentialism and Determinism
Can a person be an Existentialist and a believer in human
determinism at the same time?
Existentialists
believe people have full freedom and choice, and have
responsibility for their choices. Determinism says people have
neither freedom, choice nor responsibility.
Sartre
said (though he may not be the first) " Existence precedes
Essence". Determinism says a lot of your "essence" come from
your genes and the rest is determined by the processes of cause
and effect though out your life - which, according to determinism,
are not free.
Logically it would be difficult to hold both views at the same time.
However there are a couple of possibilities to try to reconcile the
two philosophies.
Some supporters of determinism say that even if it is accepted that
everything is determined a person should still live their life as
though this was not the case and that the person did have free will.
In which case one approach to living life is the adoption of an
existentialist approach. A bit of mental gymnastics but it might
work.
Another closely related possibility is if the person believes in Compatibilism.
Under Compatibilism, while still accepting full determinism, a
person believes they have apparent free will and therefore apparent
choice and responsibility. Perhaps they could then consider
themselves to be a Compatibilist Existentialist! Though I have never
heard anyone call themself that.
As for other philosophies, only those philosophies compatible with
determinism would be seen as having the potential to be valid.
Determinism trashes the whole field of normative ethics and many
other areas of philosophy.
The Science of Human Determinism
For free will to exist there needs to be something that is causing
the free will effects that itself is not caused. That something is
the "self". However science has great difficulty with fitting the
"self" into its scientific World view.
Part of the reason why science has been so effective is that it
reduces all processes and matter down to smaller and smaller parts.
This is known as reductionism.
Science is then very effective in explaining how the small parts
operate and interact with each other. A big part of that explanation
is cause and effect. Science then takes those small parts and builds
systems back up to their real size. In carrying out this process
there is no way of fitting a "self" and consciousness into this
World view.
If there is no "self" to cause the actions that humans carry out
then the only other possible process is non-conscious cause and
effect. In other words human determinism. No free will because there
is no "self" to be free or to have a will.
This is an error in over extrapolation. It is also an error because
the science project is far from complete.
It is an error because science believes the negative - there is no
self - does not have to be proven to be able to accept the negative
as true. As I have written in
another article there is virtually no difference between the
requirement to prove a negative claim and the requirement to prove a
positive claim.
There is also the claim that it is incumbent upon the maker of the
claim to prove the claim. I
accept this. But I have also said that if the claim is not
proven it cannot necessarily then be said that the claim is false.
Rather it falls into the category of the unknown. And in any case
because the subjective experience of the self and consciousness and
the existence of free will is so wide spread if supporters of
determinism want to prove there is no self or free will and that
consciousness is an illusion* it is incumbent upon them to do so. It
is not incumbent on the supporters of free will and the self
to prove they exist - though they can if they want to. And the proof
provided by the supporters of determinism has to be more than
providing a unproven hypothesis formulated from the extrapolation of
their reductionist hypotheses.
The emergent property and processes of life and the associated
evolutionary processes, are accepted as real because science thinks
they can explain them within their reductionist model. They are
saying that if they knew the position, property and velocities of
all particles and radiation soon after the Big Bang it would be
possible to predict with certainty that life would emerge and the
processes of evolution would occur on a little planet to be known as
Earth 13 billion years latter. This is doubtful to me but maybe
possible. Anyway, it is just another unprovable hypothesis among
many thrown up by science and supporters of determinism.
Can a Machine Have an Illusion?
Just a little thought problem for the supporters of determinism to
ponder - if consciousness, the self and free will is an illusion
then who or what is having those illusions? As determinism posits
that humans are complex machines are they saying that a machine can
have an illusion?
If a machine such as a computer was having an illusion (whatever
that would mean) we would think that machine was defective and would
either try to fix it or throw the machine away. It would not be
functioning properly and its output would not be able to be used.
This is not what we do with most humans. No machine that man has
made can have an illusion. Therefore the machine analogy breaks
down. Or to put it another way the machine analogy is an over
extrapolation. In terms of how humans process and interpret data and
interacts with the environment humans are so far different from
machines that they are in fact in a different class for this
function - something beyond a machine as we know it.
The output of recent AI developments is occasionally called illusory
when the AI basically makes something up if it can't find the
information. However this description is just what is used to
describe erroneous output. It is not analogous to the way humans
would have an illusion. Human consciousness (or illusion as
supporters of determinism would say) is largely an internal process
and is not comparable. The meaning of the word "illusion" used in
relation to AI or other machines is different to its meaning in
humans.
The experience of consciousness and associated free will is entirely
an internal process (at least according to non-dualists) and is
subjective, though objective evidence of it occurring - but not what
the experience is - may be able to be seen in brain scans. Being a
subjective experience consciousness cannot be determined
scientifically to be an illusion. It is another one of these
unproven hypothesis that the argument for human determinism entirely
relies.
What happens when humans do have an illusion. It could be called a
dream, a day dream, or imagination. Or a trick of our senses. Or if
beyond the bounds of "normal" then a psychosis. No normal
functioning machine can have any of these.
One final point. In order to explain our experience of
consciousness, the self and free will, supporters of determinism
argue that the "human machine" can have illusions. This is something
non human machines can't have. Thus supporters of determinism
recognise that the "human machine" is very different to a non human
machine. It is so much more complex than even the most complex non
human machines. What other functions can this highly complex human
machine have that are not functions of non human machines?
Complex Decision Making
As argued in my earlier
article on free will and determinism, supporters of
determinism have co-opted the act of reasoning as an argument for
their cause. Any decision that arises out of an act of reasoning is
thought by the supporters of determinism to be determined. They
would say "See, you admit there is a reason you did that. It was
therefore determined."
Reasoning uses learnings,
current and old, to solve problems, come to conclusions and make
decisions. If the problem is simple then I can see why it could be
argued to be determined. However consider a complex problem. There
are a large numbers of learnings and facts to be taken into account.
Some learnings would be newly acquired through research and some may
be decades old. Some of those learnings and new facts researched
might contradict. There might be parts of the problem where the
facts and learnings are incomplete. If the problem is urgent
sometimes a decision still needs to be made as there isn't time to
get more complete information. There are choices to be made about
what weighting or credence to give to different pieces of
information which may contradict and what to do about missing
information. Sometimes the decision process could take days or
months or longer as various options are thought through. Two people
looking at the same set of facts might come up with different
decisions. Sometimes decisions are made by a group of people, each
working through the issues, researching and discussing
possible solutions and other options with their colleagues.
While I am sure the supporters of determinism would still argue that
the decision was determined it is less than clear to me. It is
another case of the unfalsifiability of determinism. Supporters just
claim its all determined without offering further proof. If they are
further pressed they might mention the ubiquity of cause and effect
in the Universe at large without entertaining the possibility that
extrapolation of cause and effect into the complexity human
consciousness and brain is risky without substantial proof.
Supporters of free will would say it is just another example of a
human free agent doing what a human does. And yes - again without
further proof. And supporters of free will will also say that they
use reason and it in no way impinges on their free will. In fact
reason enhances their free will experience because it allows them to
make logical choices rather than random choices. It allows them to
control the direction of their life, to decide on goals, instead of
just being tossed around in the sea of life.
Minimal Likes, Desires and Goals
A couple of days ago (actually in January 2024) I went out for a
walk. It was a lovely day. Temperature of 22 or 23 degrees, blue
skies with the a few small white cloud dotted around. There was the
faintest of breeze. The walk was through a large parkland area,
mainly native Australian bush land. Halfway through the walk I sat
on the seat thoughtfully provided by the parks authority. I just sat
there for say ten minutes, enjoying the sun and the environment.
Then I got up and continued the walk, returning home.
The supporters of determinism would tell me that this is all
determined. The initial decision to go on the walk, the decision to
sit and then to get up and continue the walk after 10 minutes, not 9
minutes or 11 minutes but 10 minutes. I just can't see it. I had the
feeling that I could have sat there for half an hour at least, but
didn't. What is the determined causality. I made the decisions
regarding the walk. I had nothing planned for the rest of the day. I
could have watched TV or read a book. On the walk, just before I got
up from the seat to continue I would have had the thought that I
will get up now. Just having that thought is sufficient for the
supporters of determinism to say the action was determined by that
thought. But what determined that thought? As a supporter of free
will hypothesis I say that I initiated that thought. There was no
prior cause to that. Even though supporters of determinism can not
tell me exactly, or even inexactly, what the prior cause of that
thought was they will still say there was a cause for the thought,
initiated somewhere deep in the brain, uncontrollable by me. That
thought mandated my action. The idea that the thought could have
been initiated by free will agency is heretical to them.
A person with free will will utilise reasoning to decide on actions
to be taken. A person that is leading a fully determined life will
also act in accordance with reason. For a lot of the time how they
act would be exactly the same. It is in situations like that
outlined in this section where free will, through the process of
self direction, may be seen more clearly to operate. There are many
of these types of situations in life.
For example a person browsing a book shop without any clear idea of
the book they are after, though they may have a genre or subject
matter in mind. They pick a book after browsing a few from the
hundreds that were of the right genre. That book could change their
life - it has happened. The life change could be massive or small.
This is self direction. The supporter of determinism's explanation
is that the choice and ultimately that the particular life changing
book was even in the store and found by the person was all prior
determined.
Self direction can arguably also be seen in complex decision making
- as discussed in the previous Section.
The Difference between Compatibilist Free Will and Actual Free
Will
Compatibilsm argues that free will is compatible with determinism.
This is not a intuitive concept. How can free will, which says a
person has choice, be in any way compatible with determinism, which
says a person have no choice. It all depends on what the definition
of a person is.
The best way to look at it is to investigate what each side think is
happening at the point where an option (from 2 or more options) is
taken by the person.
A person that is a supporter of free will would say that at the
point of taking an option the "Self" would make a decision on which
option to chose. In doing this they will use their reasoning and
their likes, dislikes and preferences. It is the free choice of the
Self.
A person that is a supporter of determinism would say that at the
point of taking an option there is no "Self" to take the option. The
self is an illusion. It does not fit into their world view, which
most of them would call scientific (which I would question). In
scientific reductionism the self does not exist. In rebuilding
humans after they have been reduced to the smallest parts by
scientific reductionism they have not worked out how any entity like
the Self could emerge. They would say the option taken by the person
depends on the functioning of the brain which is operating solely on
cause and effect. Like a computer. Like a machine. There is no
choice because there is no Self to make the choice. The option that
is taken was always going to be taken because of an effectively
infinite chain of cause and effect all leading up to that point.
A person that is a supporter of compatibilism would largely agree
with the supporter of determinism. The Self may be an illusion, the
"choice" may be an illusion, but practically it doesn't matter. A
person's "choice" is based on their reasoning, likes, dislikes and
preferences - like the free will supporters would say. All of the
person's life, experiences and earlier "choices" has lead up to this
point and has contributed to selecting which option is taken, just
as it has for a person with free will. The difference is that the
option taken is claimed to be from a cause and effect machine and
not the "Self". However regardless of this there is still the
feeling that it is a free choice. Supporters of compatibilism say
the difference between what is happening and actual free will is not
important. Because it is indistinguishable by the person from what
free will would feel like and it is based on a person's life
experiences to that point this is sufficient for it to be classed as
free will.
Compatibilism - Can You Want What You Want
Supporters of hard determinism often use the argument that "you
might be able to want something but can't want (or will) what you
want". They just leave it at that. So where did the "want to want"
come from? Supporters of hard determinism in humans would say the
"want to want" and the want itself it is just part of the chain of
cause and effect that is currently occurring in you brain but can
be traced back to the start of the Universe. Supporters of
Compatibilism would nuance it a bit more and say that the "want to
want" and the want itself comes from a person's earlier experience
and learnings.
For example you may want to save money. Your "want to want" to
save money comes from your experiences and learnings in earlier
life. For example perhaps you were broke at some stage, didn't
like the experience and you swear (i.e. you want) to never be in
that position again. So saving money becomes part of what you do -
it is the reason behind your want to save money. If you had
different experiences and learnings your response may well be
quite different. For example, if you had a near death experience
or read some influential book then your learning may well be "you
might as well spend it today because tomorrow you might not be
here". Not saving for tomorrow would then follow. Either way it is
an internal process.
This is the supporters of compatibilism's argument. The want to
save money is all internal to the person based on THEIR learnings
and experience. External factors are all just stimuli that lead to
learnings, experience, action (or some combination of those) or
even nothing. Even if the learnings and experience are ultimately
determined they are still theirs - it is all internal to them.
Back then and now, they had the (apparent) choice, a choice that
felt like a free will choice and was in fact indistinguishable by
them, or anyone else, from a free will choice.
This soft determinism (compatibilism) approach should not be
dismissed lightly. It provides a way of thinking about determinism
in humans - if you want to believe in that - that is more
palatable than hard determinism - hard determinism that can lead
to nihilism and a number of other undesirable outcomes.
The Scourge of Nihilism
If people believe that they have no free will this opens up the
possibility of nihilism. If people believe that everything is
predetermined then they also believe it does not matter how they
will act on a day to day basis. They can have no impact on how their
life will turn out in the longer term. It is then very easy for them
to fall into a way of thinking that basically says "Why bother
trying?". This can lead to nihilism - the idea that life is
meaningless and therefore worthless. Depression will often
follow.
It takes a lot of sophisticated thinking to be able to work through
the issues associated with a perceived lack of free will and to come
out the other side thinking that life is still worth living. Living
in the face of a perceived lack of objective meaning and the
possibility of associated nihilism is what the entire existentialism movement
addresses. Unfortunately the determinism and anti free will
hypotheses are usually not accompanied by the information that may
allowed the person who first learns of these hypotheses to work
through and overcome the nihilism and associated depression. It can
be disastrous if the person hears and takes on board the hypotheses
when they are already depressed.
This reason is sufficient in itself for philosophers and others to
not promote these potentially harmful ideas as facts - which many of
the believers in their ranks openly do. If they must present the
hypotheses then present them as what they are - unproven. And give a
bit of nuance by at least indicating the free will hypothesis is not
dead and buried. Or explain it in a compatibilist framework, where a
lack of free will becomes less significant or impactful. People may
be able to live with apparent free will.
It may well be proven in the future that we have free will, in which
case all the angst and tremendous damage that can be caused by
believing in the human determinism / no free will hypotheses will
have been for no reason. If human determinism is proven in the
future then humanity will have to handle it rationally - most likely
with a compatibilism framing.
The recently (2024) deceased noted philosopher
and "cognitive scientist" Daniel Dennett has urged his
colleagues to
not go around telling people they have no free will. He, along
with many other philosophers, can see the many social and personal
problems - not just nihilism - that arise from that approach.
My Best Guess at How Free Will Operates
Scientists do not know what consciousness is let alone how it
operates. However by common experience human consciousness /
conscious thought can cause action. To demonstrate this make a
conscious decision to do a physical action. For example you might
decide you are going to raise your hand - though don't use that
action as the supporters of determinism will say that it has been
caused by my writings - as if I had magical powers to compel you to
do anything. So any physical action of your choosing - and then do
it. The supporters of determinism would say my writings have caused
an action - I reject that too - what I did was to provide a stimulus
for an action - but I will have had no input into what that action
was. It could have been one of a hundred things. The action you took
came from your consciousness.
My best guess is that consciousness is not bound by cause and
effect. Consciousness can initiate an action seemingly without prior
cause beyond the consciousness - though supporters of determinism
would dispute this. If you have adopted the dualist position this
raises the question how can something which is not material effect
what is material - but that is a different philosophical question
and besides I am not a dualist.
I contend that consciousness is not bound by cause and effect
because consciousness is not matter and it is only matter (and to a
degree electromagnetic radiation) that may be impacted by cause and
effect.
However consciousness does use reasoning, incorporating past
learnings and current circumstances in helping to decide what
actions to take. Because it is going to take actions which are in
its best interests. It would be illogical to do anything else. This
can give the appearance that the action was caused by something
beyond consciousness. It can give the appearance of determinism if
you have that mindset but it is only the appearance.
* * * * * * *
On Not Knowing
Determinism and Freewill
Oversite Home Page.
|
|
|