Determinism vs. Indeterminism

[sleuth]

Here's a little something we discussed in my philosophy class today that I found rather intriguing. The topic affects every living thing in the universe, so you might be interested also.

Actions are a part of everyday life. Whether it be writing your dissertation or sitting on the toilet, each action has an impact on the universe. It changes the universe, no matter how minute the change, into a state that was different than before the action took place.

An event, defined as a change in the state of the world, can be the result of one or more actions. Events have taken place since the creation of the universe. What do all events have in common?

There are two theories as to why things happen:

1. Determinism: every event is causally determined, meaning, given the cause and given the laws of nature, the event had to occur.

2. Indeterminism: not every event is causally determined.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that the two are complete opposites, and that one cannot exist with the other.

OK, here's where I was going toward...

Determinism:
1. If an action is determined, then the agent couldn’t have done otherwise. (The agent could be anyone who is performing the action.)
2. If the agent couldn’t have done otherwise, then the action wasn’t free. (The action wasn’t free is the same as saying the agent was not free to do as s/he pleased.)
3. So, if an action is determined, then the action isn’t free.

Indeterminism:
1. If an action isn’t determined, then the action is random.
2. If an action is random, then the action is not under the agent's control.
3. If the action isn’t under the agent’s control, then the action isn’t free.
4. So, if an action isn’t determined, then the action isn’t free.

EVERY ACTION IS EITHER DETERMINED OR NOT DETERMINED, BUT NOT BOTH.

CONCLUSION: NO ACTION IS FREE.

If you need me to clarify any of the steps, I'll be glad to do so.

So, my question is, do you agree with any of this? My professor said that the class is going to analyze essays disproving the above argument, yet I myself don’t see anything wrong with it thus far. It is rather disturbing to think that NOTHING is under our control, but nevertheless, I agree with it. My opinion might change as the course progresses. I will keep you posted.

Thanks for bearing with me - that's one long-ass post. I believe it's my longest one.

flame You hit the spot ...

‘If it is your fate to recover from this illness, you will recover, regardless of whether or not you call the doctor. Likewise, if it is your fate not to recover from this illness, you will not recover, regardless of whether or not you call the doctor. And one or the other is your fate. Therefore it is pointless to call the doctor.(cicero)

Cicero just made me feel NOTHING...i was thinking life is so meaningless and I am nothing... I want to critisize Cicero...

determinism and free will are compatible!!!.
The key difference is in the distinction between determinism and fatalism. Fatalism is like time is a four dimensional substance that has already been etched. Determinism is the notion that every cause has an effect.(Denett)

dennett proposes that were just machines, but "deciding machines" in that we pause, delay, think, and then choose. Of course internally its just clockwork moving back and forth, and if one were to trace everything, they could figure out what our decision would be, (and probabilistically through quantum mechanics), but THAT itself IS our free will... the emergent behavior of deciding. Sure, it's pre-determined, but that doesn't mean we don't run our decision-making modules and algorithms.

i found denetts' point of view pretty close to Stoicism.Stoic theaching shows how people can be morally responsible for some of their actions within the framework of causal determinism.

In one word we have real choice in our behavior.

*A major task taken on by Dennett in Elbow Room is to clearly describe just what people are as biological entities and why they find the issue of Free Will to be of importance. In discussing what people are and why Free Will matters to us, Dennett makes use of an evolutionary perspective. Dennett describes the mechanical behavior of the digger wasp Sphex. This insect follows a series of genetically programmed steps in preparing for egg laying. If an experimenter interrupts one of these steps the wasp will repeat that step again. For an animal like a wasp, this process of repeating the same behavior can go on indefinitely, the wasp never seeming to notice what is going on. This is the type of mindless, pre-determined behavior is what people can avoid. Given the chance to repeat some futile behavior endlessly, people can notice the futility of doing so, and by act of free will do something else. We can take this as an operational definition of what people mean by free will. Dennett points out the fact that as long as people see themselves as able to avoid futility, most people have seen enough of the Free Will issue. Dennett then invites all who are satisfied with this level of analysis to get on with living while he proceeds into the deeper hair-splitting aspects of the Free Will issue.

From a biological perspective, what is the difference between the wasp and a person? The person can, through interaction with its environment, construct an internal mental model of the situation and figure out a successful behavioral strategy. The wasp, with a much smaller brain and different genetic program, does not learn from its environment and instead is trapped in an endless and futile behavioral loop that is strictly determined by its genetic program. It is in this sense of people as animals with complex brains that can model reality and appear to choose among several possible behaviors that Dennett says we have Free Will. *

[sSsflamesSs]

Would that be the same David Hume that was making pseudo-scientific justifications for slavery?

Can you elaborate on this? I mean, what were his justifications (not that there should be any)?

[loseyourname]

"If the action isn?t under the agent?s control, then the action isn?t free."

What it should say is the agent isn't free. No one speaks of an action as having free will, as will entails the ability to make a decision, and actions do not make decisions.

dennett proposes that were just machines, but "deciding machines" in that we pause, delay, think, and then choose. Of course internally its just clockwork moving back and forth, and if one were to trace everything, they could figure out what our decision would be, (and probabilistically through quantum mechanics), but THAT itself IS our free will... the emergent behavior of deciding. Sure, it's pre-determined, but that doesn't mean we don't run our decision-making modules and algorithms.

The problem with Hume's definition of freedom here is that it cannot possibly exist. A correct definition cannot define a concept in such a way that it has no possibility of existing. We would not speak of "freedom" if this was the case. W.T. Stace reformulates the definition, in much the same way as Dennett, but in laymen's terms, as "an action the cause of which originates within our psyche." That is, any action that is not externally compelled. It matters not if the actions are pre-determined, that is, the molecules were in motion well before we became conscious. The point is that when we speak of "freedom," that is really what we mean. We do not mean an action with no cause. We mean an action whose cause is internal to us.

[sleuth]

What it should say is the agent isn't free. No one speaks of an action as having free will, as will entails the ability to make a decision, and actions do not make decisions.



The problem with Hume's definition of freedom here is that it cannot possibly exist. A correct definition cannot define a concept in such a way that it has no possibility of existing. We would not speak of "freedom" if this was the case. W.T. Stace reformulates the definition, in much the same way as Dennett, but in laymen's terms, as "an action the cause of which originates within our psyche." That is, any action that is not externally compelled. It matters not if the actions are pre-determined, that is, the molecules were in motion well before we became conscious. The point is that when we speak of "freedom," that is really what we mean. We do not mean an action with no cause. We mean an action whose cause is internal to us.

ok.. let me make this clear.

*No action is free* assertion is true.I agree with this one,simply because every action or reaction is controled by someone...cause of an action can be internal or external...it doesn't matter..in both cases it has control over it...someone or something is RESPONSIBLE for an action.

I was refering my above post to this statement...

*It is rather disturbing to think that NOTHING is under our control*(flame)

If action is not free (which is true)...It doesn't mean agent is not free ...if cause of an action is internal agent doesn't have control over it and doesn't take resposibility for an action ,which means agent is free...

doesn't matter if action is determined or undetermined....agent is free

AGENT IS FREE... my point is * NOTHING is under our control *statement is wrong...

[loseyourname]

If action is not free (which is true)...It doesn't mean agent is not free ...if cause of an action is internal agent doesn't have control over it and doesn't take resposibility for an action ,which means agent is free...

doesn't matter if action is determined or undetermined....agent is free

AGENT IS FREE... my point is * NOTHING is under our control *statement is wrong...

I'm sure what you're thinking makes sense, but what you typed out is just jibberish. You just said that if an agent has no control over his own actions and is not responsible for them, then that agent is free. Please clarify that.

[sleuth]

I'm sure what you're thinking makes sense, but what you typed out is just jibberish. You just said that if an agent has no control over his own actions and is not responsible for them, then that agent is free. Please clarify that.

it's not jibberish it's gibberish

but then again u didn't grasp it

if indeterminism is true, then those events that are not determined are random. How can you blame or praise someone for performing an action that just spontaneously popped into his nervous system?in this case agent is free.

[sleuth]

I don't understand flame jan how did u come up with this

Quote:
Originally Posted by sSsflamesSs
It is rather disturbing to think that NOTHING is under our control,


Seems to me agents' freedom of act is very limmited.

Dennett thinks that, because we do think we are free, and because we act in our own minds as if we are free, at least some of the time, then for all intents and purposes we are free. The omniscient observer who might be able to predict every one of our "choices"or "decisions" based on his complete grasp of all the causes that exist has a point of view that, as far as our lives go, doesn't make the slightest difference.


"We can externalize anything if we make ourselves small enough." By this he means that we can rid ourselves of every kind of responsibility for any of our actions (if we want to do so) by making our "selves" so small and uninfluential that we seem to ourselves utterly determined.


question: can we determine????

[sSsflamesSs]

I don't understand flame jan how did u come up with this

Quote:
Originally Posted by sSsflamesSs
It is rather disturbing to think that NOTHING is under our control,


Seems to me agents' freedom of act is very limmited.

Dennett thinks that, because we do think we are free, and because we act in our own minds as if we are free, at least some of the time, then for all intents and purposes we are free. The omniscient observer who might be able to predict every one of our "choices"or "decisions" based on his complete grasp of all the causes that exist has a point of view that, as far as our lives go, doesn't make the slightest difference.


"We can externalize anything if we make ourselves small enough." By this he means that we can rid ourselves of every kind of responsibility for any of our actions (if we want to do so) by making our "selves" so small and uninfluential that we seem to ourselves utterly determined.


question: can we determine????

Seuth, it goes like this. Either all our actions are merely reactions, or they are all random. Please provide me with exceptions if you can think of any.

1. If an action is determined by another event, then it is merely a reaction (which means it is not original). For an action to be considered free, it has to have an original origin...and a reaction does not. So that makes an action that is a reaction, not under our control.

2. If an action is not determined, then it can go in a number of different ways. Each outcome is as likely to occur as another. No one outcome has more of a chance of occurring than another. So, the action is random.

In both cases, it seems to me that our actions are not under our control.

Did that clear anything up, or did I confuse you even more?
________________________________________

About Dennett: If we think we are free, when really we're not, does that make us free? I don't see the logic in that.

I am not making myself small as to avoid responsibility for my actions. Heck, I have advocated free will time and time again. I, personally, do not like to place my blame on others if it is meant to be placed on me. I am the one that created a whole rant-ridden thread about a stupid bumper sticker that said, "Why worry? God's in control!" I am just trying to make sense of this little arguement, that our actions are not under our control.

[loseyourname]

if indeterminism is true, then those events that are not determined are random. How can you blame or praise someone for performing an action that just spontaneously popped into his nervous system?in this case agent is free.

Okay, you didn't answer my question. How can an agent have free will if his actions are not under his control? Free will entails the ability to make a decision. If there is no decision being made, then the agent is no different from a roulette table. We do not call a roulette table free.

[sleuth]

Seuth, it goes like this. Either all our actions are merely reactions, or they are all random. Please provide me with exceptions if you can think of any.

1. If an action is determined by another event, then it is merely a reaction (which means it is not original). For an action to be considered free, it has to have an original origin...and a reaction does not. So that makes an action that is a reaction, not under our control.

2. If an action is not determined, then it can go in a number of different ways. Each outcome is as likely to occur as another. No one outcome has more of a chance of occurring than another. So, the action is random.

In both cases, it seems to me that our actions are not under our control.

Did that clear anything up, or did I confuse you even more?
________________________________________

About Dennett: If we think we are free, when really we're not, does that make us free? I don't see the logic in that.

I am not making myself small as to avoid responsibility for my actions. Heck, I have advocated free will time and time again. I, personally, do not like to place my blame on others if it is meant to be placed on me. I am the one that created a whole rant-ridden thread about a stupid bumper sticker that said, "Why worry? God's in control!" I am just trying to make sense of this little arguement, that our actions are not under our control.

U didnt confuse me,more than that you made my point even more valid.

*The agent can be anyone: you, me, your neighbor. Although it is rather general, once the agent is "picked", it is rather specific. For example, say you are at a bar. You get your drink, and while holding it in your hand, you accidentally trip on someone's foot and spill your drink on your date. Now, was it you that spilled the drink: yes. Was spilling your drink under your control: no. In this example, you are the agent, and everything else outside of you/your mind is the outside force. In this instance, the action was not under the agent's control but under the control of an outside force. Does that make it any clearer?*( flame)

Why u see only one agent????

*I am just trying to make sense of this little arguement*

ok. let me persuade you...person sitting in a bar is the agent_reaction and outside force is the agent_action (in philosophical terms AGENT_CAUSALITY)

* all our actions are merely reactions, or they are all random. *

action and reaction are equal and opposite....

Life is a chain of action and reaction...reaction depends on action.There is no reaction without action.

We act and We react...

are we free agents? Can we be morally responsible for what we do? philosophers distinguish these questions and have all the answers. Some say YES and YES (we are fully free, and wholly morally responsible for what we do).
Let put it in this way: the agent -causality ( in above example the outside force) is totally responsible for its action. agent_reaction ( the person sitting in a bar) is totally free to react ,or choose not to react.The agent-reaction MUST react ,thats the only limitation,but how to react its totally up to him.(in both cases agent is free).

free will is defined literally, as the ability to choose freely any one of several different actions, based on the conscious experience of a single given situation. A human intuition is that we are free to decide our own actions.

but then again the interpretation of quantum mechanics was strong evidence that the universe itself was deterministic.

compatibilists think free will is just a matter of not being constrained or compelled in certain ways (threats to the life of your loved once,chains violations) that have nothing to do wheather determinism is true or false.

arbitrary assertions.

the truth is life goes on and show must go.

*smashes Hume's face with organic ketchup*