Determinism Is Self Defeating

[Inigo]

Both arguments have a premise in common. So if you agree with that premise - namely that we have free will - which argument we should buy is a function of the comparable plausibility of the other premises. So, which is more plausible: that free will requires indeterminism or that determinism is true? I'm not sure. But at the moment I don't think free will requires indeterminism because I'm unclear exactly what indeterminism would contribute apart from some inexplicability.

[pocaracas]

"High-level" lol.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that we cannot know precisely both the speed and position of any given particle....
But... just because we can't measure it, it doesn't mean that the particle can't be at a given location and with a given velocity... does it?
Well, all particles must have some length, so a precise position is a strange concept, unless you go for the position of the center, where QM gives you the maximum of the wave function... which tends to be the same.

However, on a slightly less nanoscopic level, these uncertainties become a bit less pronounced and statistics takes over... the averaged wave function gets interpreted as a probability distribution and you get a very accurate (as far we've been able to measure it) probability for each state of the particle.
And, armed with those probabilities, you can determine the what's going to happen and how often.

But what do I know? I'm just a low-level physicist...

Great news!

Okay, given the starting position of the balls in a lottery machine, and their tumbling time in milliseconds before being dropped down their little chutes for display, tell me the winning numbers. Or tell me what the weather will be like on my next birthday.

You will say, "If I had accurate enough information, and enough computational power, I COULD tell you those things." But that's like saying, "If I could go faster than the speed of light, I could . . ."

The reality is you can't calculate the individual particles of even a simple system, and probably will never be able to. You can calculate ONLY on the statistical level, and in many cases not accurately. This is hardly a strong enough foundation on which to establish an absolute philosopy like that of determinism.

First semester of college: the set of natural numbers, N.
They are infinite, I can't count them.
But we all know that they are countable.

Just because something is so complex that I , pocaracas, a mere human, even if aided by a super-computer, can't determine it's outcome, that doesn't mean that the determinism of that outcome isn't there.

---

My brain works based on the laws of physics.
Everything that happens in my head is then deterministic... highly complex, I'll grant you that, but determined by the laws of physics... even if we may have missed some of them.
My brain sends electrical impulses which cause my body to move and type these things on this forum.

Do you have any reason or evidence that states that the brain works non-deterministically?

Show the rules by which physics manifests as subjective awareness-- and not just the appearance of it.

This whole thread is basically a process of begging the question-- "Well, we know that everything is dictated by the rules of physics, including the brain. Therefore, the mind is deterministic." I have a serious problem with this, for three reasons:
1) Nobody has created a physical description of mind, or interacted directly with one. Nobody has measured one, created one, or even provably destroyed one. Nor have you explained in a sensible way why the subjective perspective exists at all in a universe which could function perfectly well without it.

2) You are assuming that because the mind is supervenient on the brain, it cannot offer anything beyond the function of the brain. That's like saying "Casablanca is just a complex interaction of QM particles, and doesn't offer anything beyond the function of a movie projector"-- it doesn't actually explain how something like Casablanca exists, or describe its symbolic importance to the human minds watching it.

3) You ( and by this I mean you and the other physical monists ) keep asking people to furnish evidence that any competitor to the physical monist determinism you take as the default is wrong/incomplete. However, at no point have you actually established the truth of determinism, particularly with regard to mind. Instead, you point to brain function. However, this begs the question-- kind of the point of non-determinism is that mind on some level transcends the pure physical mechanism of the brain. As for evidence, I take as evidence the existence of the subjective perspective, aka sentience, itself. Why should a purely objective physical process manifest as subjective awareness? So far, Dennett has made the most famous attempt at this, but I find it pretty unconvincing.

Now, go back and tell me where I used the concept of "mind"... -.-'

But if you're so eager to use it, here: to me, mind is the high-order perception we have of brain functions.

Think of this "order" as programming classes.
You start with the basics: integers, floats, strings, functions. Build a class with them. Then build another and another, and another.... Then you start building classes that have these other classes in them. And then go up an order.
Keep going up and, at some point, you have no notion of the basics and everything seems to work as if by magic.

A human brain has billions of neurons arranged in a highly complex network. How does that network work? no one knows... although new models keep popping up.

No brain scan has detected an external energy floating by...
Missing parts of the brain represents missing parts of the person's psyche, the person's mind.
So, as far as I see it, the brain is the source of the mind and that should be the default position.

[bennyboy]

Now, go back and tell me where I used the concept of "mind"... -.-'

You didn't. You used the word "brain." You wouldn't use the word mind, because while it's central to our reality, it's not something that can be either seen or manipulated with any mechanical means.

Why is this important to this discussion? Because determinism is the argument that: 1) any physical system can only have one possible outcome; 2) the universe consists of nothing but physical systems.

Until you can adequately explain WHY brain function is experienced as sentience, then I consider that the elephant in the room.

But if you're so eager to use it, here: to me, mind is the high-order perception we have of brain functions.

Think of this "order" as programming classes.
You start with the basics: integers, floats, strings, functions. Build a class with them. Then build another and another, and another.... Then you start building classes that have these other classes in them. And then go up an order.
Keep going up and, at some point, you have no notion of the basics and everything seems to work as if by magic.

Okay. So lets say you came across Windows, and had no knowledge of the culture that made it. Would it be useful to say, "I don't know exactly what makes Windows work, but it's just a bunch of mechanical processes"? You might say yes. I'd say, there's something else going on, which is much more important than the specific mechanism upon which Windows supervenes. I wouldn't use the existence of Windows to prove determinism; if anything, I'd use it to demonstrate that behind apparently deterministic process, you may find mind.

No brain scan has detected an external energy floating by...
Missing parts of the brain represents missing parts of the person's psyche, the person's mind.
So, as far as I see it, the brain is the source of the mind and that should be the default position.

No brain scan has detected the existence of mind, either. You show me a magic Mind-o-meter 2000 that beeps when it detects "mind," and I'll show you a machine that measures brain function, and accepts the philosophical assumption that where function X occurs, mind has occured.

I don't want to derail the thread with mind/matter discussion exclusively, but I think it's important to determinism, as well. For most of us, I think determinism is really about whether we have free will, and the moral and social consequences if we arrive at a model in which we do not. It is my position that ideas have a kind of life of their own, supervient on SOME mechanism, but independent in nature of any particular mechanism.

[Angrboda]

Why is this important to this discussion? Because determinism is the argument that: 1) any physical system can only have one possible outcome; 2) the universe consists of nothing but physical systems.

No, the notion that any physical system can have only one outcome is pre-destination, not determinism. Determinism is the view that future physical states are determined by past physical states; nothing more. This is why substance dualism is a challenge to determinism because if substance dualism is correct, and the mind is beyond the physical, then future states are determined by past physical states plus whatever contribution the non-physical mind makes to the outcome.

This whole thread is basically a process of begging the question-- "Well, we know that everything is dictated by the rules of physics, including the brain. Therefore, the mind is deterministic." I have a serious problem with this, for three reasons:
1) Nobody has created a physical description of mind, or interacted directly with one. Nobody has measured one, created one, or even provably destroyed one. Nor have you explained in a sensible way why the subjective perspective exists at all in a universe which could function perfectly well without it.

2) You are assuming that because the mind is supervenient on the brain, it cannot offer anything beyond the function of the brain. That's like saying "Casablanca is just a complex interaction of QM particles, and doesn't offer anything beyond the function of a movie projector"-- it doesn't actually explain how something like Casablanca exists, or describe its symbolic importance to the human minds watching it.

3) You ( and by this I mean you and the other physical monists ) keep asking people to furnish evidence that any competitor to the physical monist determinism you take as the default is wrong/incomplete. However, at no point have you actually established the truth of determinism, particularly with regard to mind. Instead, you point to brain function. However, this begs the question-- kind of the point of non-determinism is that mind on some level transcends the pure physical mechanism of the brain. As for evidence, I take as evidence the existence of the subjective perspective, aka sentience, itself. Why should a purely objective physical process manifest as subjective awareness? So far, Dennett has made the most famous attempt at this, but I find it pretty unconvincing.

All valid points, until you get to the bolded part. Here you appear to be making an argument from ignorance, and that is not valid. Another person's inability to furnish a physicalist explanation for subjectivity counts as zero evidence in favor of other explanations.

Until you can adequately explain WHY brain function is experienced as sentience, then I consider that the elephant in the room.

Indeed.

[genkaus]

Right but whatever you are saying right now is to convince people to change their minds for determinism, so you are a thousand times more illogical than anyone that believes in free will by your own definition.

Only if he believes people changing their minds is a matter of choice - which he has in no way indicated is the case.

Doesn't that make you way more illogical than me then? I believe in free will, so I have an actual reason for trying to convince people to accept the position. But you think people are like rocks, so you don't actually have a reason for interacting with anyone, you failed your own test of logic.

If you know I am a rock, what are you doing talking to that rock? Surely you are wasting your own time and my time.

You do realize that living in a deterministic universe doesn't automatically make people rocks, right?

Even if your utterly ridiculous conception of determinism was true, his position would still be logical. The reason for his trying convince others to accept his position is that due to the past events of his life, he is hardwired to do so. He is hard-wired to try to change your wiring through debate and discussion so that your position closely matches his.

---

My evidence is simple, by the sheer fact that people are trying to convince me that determinism is true is testament to the fact that they themselves accept that I have choices. They do the argument for me.

As said before, that is ridiculous. As demonstrated earlier, I can try to convince you without accepting that you have a choice in the matter.

---

Want an argument for the compatibility of free will and determinism? Here's one (it is very simple)

1. Determinism is true
2. We have free will.
3. Free will is compatible with determinism

Given that both 1 .and 2. are yet to be proven - no.

[Red Celt]

Free will is a delusion. A very attractive delusion, but a delusion nonetheless. Of course, we don't like the idea that everything we do was pre-determined as an inevitability at the point of the Big Bang... but if you can't accept that conclusion, you'll have to find a source for your alleged free will.

We are but billiard balls rolling across a green baize - magnified by several levels of complexity. As a materialist, I'd like to see some evidence of the ghost that alters the paths of those balls.

Right but whatever you are saying right now is to convince people to change their minds for determinism, so you are a thousand times more illogical than anyone that believes in free will by your own definition.

---

I am attempting to do no such thing. Live in whatever reality bubble that you wish to inhabit. I was just stating some facts - or, more accurately, my interpretation of the available evidence. I may well be wrong. If I am, that hasn't been shown by you... because you clearly don't understand what determinism is.

Falling rocks changing brain chemistry? WTF?

Think of all living entities as machines. Because that's basically what we are. Machines that have evolved, crafted and shaped due to the environments that they (and their ancestors) inhabited.

Now explain where free will comes from.

[bennyboy]

Why is this important to this discussion? Because determinism is the argument that: 1) any physical system can only have one possible outcome; 2) the universe consists of nothing but physical systems.

No, the notion that any physical system can have only one outcome is pre-destination, not determinism. Determinism is the view that future physical states are determined by past physical states; nothing more. This is why substance dualism is a challenge to determinism because if substance dualism is correct, and the mind is beyond the physical, then future states are determined by past physical states plus whatever contribution the non-physical mind makes to the outcome.

I'm not familiar with this refinement of the word "determinism." To me (and in philosophical discussions I've seen with Dennett and others), it refers to the idea that what is could not have been other than it is. Dennett likes to talk about things being inevitable and "evitable."

3) You ( and by this I mean you and the other physical monists ) keep asking people to furnish evidence that any competitor to the physical monist determinism you take as the default is wrong/incomplete. However, at no point have you actually established the truth of determinism, particularly with regard to mind. Instead, you point to brain function. However, this begs the question-- kind of the point of non-determinism is that mind on some level transcends the pure physical mechanism of the brain. As for evidence, I take as evidence the existence of the subjective perspective, aka sentience, itself. Why should a purely objective physical process manifest as subjective awareness? So far, Dennett has made the most famous attempt at this, but I find it pretty unconvincing.

All valid points, until you get to the bolded part. Here you appear to be making an argument from ignorance, and that is not valid. Another person's inability to furnish a physicalist explanation for subjectivity counts as zero evidence in favor of other explanations.

I don't accept the idea that "substance dualism" (I'll use that word from now, though I just call it dualism) is an explanation of mind. It is a description of observation: I have a mind, and this mind perceives things. Any candidate for Master of the Universe (Theory) has to explain to me in meaningful terms why there is mind, and why there are objects for the mind to perceive.

I'm not bothered if you call this an argument from ignorance, as I'm not positing a theory about what mind is. I'm just saying that my experience of the thing called mind doesn't accord well with the theory which people are demanding be considered the default position. BOP goes on those with the theory, not on those who are describing their direct experience.

[Red Celt]

The mind is effectively the software running on the hardware of the brain. They are both physical.

A question to dualists: how does a ghost drive a car?

[pocaracas]

[Angrboda]