Do we live in a deterministic universe?

MadArchitect

I'm presently reading Daniel Dennett's "Freedom Evolves", which deals at length with issues of determinancy and free will. So I thought I'd ask you guys your opinions.

Below are three explanations of determinism. Let me know which, if either, corresponds to your beliefs about the universe. If neither, try to explain what you do believe, and why.

venusunderfire

MadArchitect · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:52 am Post subject:

Thanks for answering, Venus. I was beginning to think that this thread was going to get passed over altogether.

So would you take that description a step further and say that we're not agents at all, in the sense that an agent is a thing that controls some circumstance, whereas we're completely at the mercy of forces outside ourselves? Do we have even a modicum of freedom? Or is everything about ourselves determined by the physical world?

riverc0il · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:16 am Post subject:

Meh, I don't like any of those quotes. Determinism is essentially cause and effect. A causes B which causes C etc. and suggests that once the ball is rolling there is only one possible outcome from all situations. I boil it down to things are going to happen the way they are going to happen. Not supposed to happen such as that if an ultimate agent knew every detail such an agent could predict the future. I see determinism from the present looking towards the past not the other way around. It is like seeing a math problem with all the signs but without the numbers until something happens and immediately after the answer appears the numbers in the equation appear as well. Quantum Theory in Physics creates some problems for Determinism on the micro level, but on the macro level, it is hard to argue against it on the theoretical level.

Regarding the implications to free will, The Illusion of Conscious Will by Wegner is the best book I have read on the subject from which I will quote my favorite passage:

George Ricker · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:16 am Post subject:

There's an essay on my website that sums up my approach to this issue. It's called "Chance, Karma and the roll of the dice" and is one I've included in the new book.

Essentially, it states "stuff happens." Sometimes we can exert a bit of control over the stuff that happens, but, as often as not, the idea that we have control over much of anything is an illusion.

George

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 9:09 pm Post subject:

riverc0il · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:54 am Post subject:

Wegner cites Dennett often and I have been meaning to pick up Dennett's title on the subject as well. Garicker also cites the word "illusion" in his response below as well which is interesting. Wegner is a Psychologist approaching the problem from the perspective of a researching specifically looking at "conscious will" as opposed to "free will." So much of the book details the discrepancy between how humans consciously feel we are making a decision or the process of doing something consciously and the disconnect from a physio-psychological perspective (I.E. even though we consciously think we are making a decision, the disconnect is that research proves in many cases that the decision was made before we consciously experienced it). Here are my thoughts immediately following my reading of Wegner:
http://www.thesnowway.com/steve/?p=20

Most of Wegner's book is research based and he only draws upon philosophical implications towards the end of the book in the final chapter. You will find research that could be utilized to benefit the deterministic argument that there is no "free will." Personally, I appreciate the distinction between free versus conscious will and I think Wegner makes a convincing argument about a false dichotomy that the essential basis of the question only having two choices is not sound.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:21 am Post subject:

I've enjoyed reading the opinions of each person in this thread, from Mad to Venus to George, but the persons opinion that most closely parallels my own belongs to Rivercoil. I completely concur with everything he is saying with regards to this topic. I'll have to read his essay. And George's too.

Rivercoil makes the point that random quantum events seem to throw a monkey wrench into the idea that this universe is deterministic, but if we differentiate between the micro and macro the theory holds water. Aren't there other laws of physics that break down at the extremes of the minuscule or astronomically large?

What always worries me, in discussions like this, is that we're discussing the validity of the principle of "cause and effect," more or less. Not that any of our members would do it, but I have seen these discussions spiral into the argument that none of us really has complete control of our own lives and destinies. And while this statement is made true, for all practical purposes, or at the macro level, we do indeed have quite a bit of control over our lives and the decisions we make.

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:36 am Post subject:

Rivercoil, I enjoyed the book review on your Blog. why not take advantage of the signature feature and create a signature that is attached to the bottom of all your posts here on BookTalk? You can include your Blog title and a link.

George Ricker · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:17 am Post subject:

Chris: What always worries me, in discussions like this, is that we're discussing the validity of the principle of "cause and effect," more or less. Not that any of our members would do it, but I have seen these discussions spiral into the argument that none of us really has complete control of our own lives and destinies. And while this statement is made true, for all practical purposes, or at the macro level, we do indeed have quite a bit of control over our lives and the decisions we make.

But there is a difference between saying we have complete control over our lives and saying we have no control over our lives.

It really doesn't have to be one way or the other. Each of us exerts a certain amount of control in our lives. Each of us also feels the effects of events that are totally outside our control but have a great impact on our lives nonetheless.

There's a somewhat whimsical example I have used in the past. Think of the man or woman who suddenly decides to eat all the right things, exercise, get plenty of rest, and spend his or her days in pursuits that are productive and rewarding but then walks out the door one day and is run down by a fellow who lost control of his car while juggling a cell phone in one hand and a Big Mac in the other.

The random factor in existence applies to individual lives as well as to cosmic events. That doesn't mean we should live our lives in despair because we have no control over anything. It does mean we need to understand that our idea of being in complete control is an illusion.

George

Chris OConnor · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:22 am Post subject:

George, another fine essay. Smile

I'm not so sure the recent college killings could be classified as an accident or random. There were causes an effects, despite our inability to pinpoint or identify them. For practical purposes this was a random event in that all the factors that led up to that horrible day were not and could not be seen or understood as factors, but there were factors nonetheless.

Using the word "random" or the phrase "shit happens" seems to me to be throwing in the towel and giving up trying to link causes to effects. This is the key difference between faith-based beliefs and science-based beliefs.

Although, shit does happen...but it happens for reasons. Reasons are sometimes impossible to identify because they happen at the chemical or subconscious level, or maybe even the quantum level.

George Ricker · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:51 am Post subject:

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject:

Dennett's book attempts -- or at least claims -- to address the idea that we have no control. The most precise way to express it, actually, might be that Dennett is addressing those who claim that determinism is incompatable with free will. It is possible to hold an incompatibilist perspective without denying that we have some control over our lives, but the traditional solution to that incompatibility is to say that we do no live in a completely deterministic universe. Dennett's argument is simply that free will is not incompatible with determinism -- his explanation of that compatibility is anything but simply, though. And as it turns out, his argument strikes me as flawed in some very important ways.

Since no one else is reading the book at the moment, this isn't really the place to discuss it. I bring it up because Dennett's argument is one of the most prominent in modern philosophy. That it's so problematic illustrates the difficulty in resolving the problem, particularly if, like Dennett, you want to preserve both a deterministic perspective and the notion that humans are free to direct (which is not to say control) their own destinies.

It does seem to me, though, that Dennett is right in pointing out that the apparant indeterminacy at the quantum level isn't much help in resolving the problem, so unless someone has a specific argument as to how quantum indeterminacy could lead to human free will, I think we're safe dropping that qualifier from here on out.

As Chris points out, the real problem begins with the idea of cause and effect. If you take the deterministic position seriously, then our behavior would appear to be overdetermined, in a sense. From a scientific perspective, there is virtually no need for an explanation like "free will". All of our choices can be reduced to Pavlovian response, evolutionary strategy, neurological patterns -- to the extent that we can only really apply the term "choice" in a sense that fails to capture what we usually mean when we talk about free will. We have the "feeling" that our choices are freely made, albeit within certain constraints, but that feeling itself is not proof. If we can suffer from the illusion that we have more control than we actually do, then we can also suffer from the illusion that we have any when we might, in fact, have none.

To be clear, I'm not saying that we don't have free will -- the idea that we do is quite important to me. What I am saying is that there does appear to be a conflict betwee free will and deterministic positions in logical extension, and that no one, Dennett included, seems to have sorted it out as yet.

riverc0il · Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject:

Mad, I think you would enjoy Wegner's book based on your posts so far in this thread. Though if you are looking to reconcile free will with determinism, you won't find it with Wegner who speaks to the namesake of his book... that conscious will is an illusion.

We experience conscious will... that being the experience of having choice and control of our lives. But often times are choices and reactions are completely predetermined by our past experiences and biology.

In the most interesting example, picture yourself having to make a major decision in which no physiological reaction is taken into account. This is pure mental decision making. Despite all your thoughts about the given choice, ultimately, you will probably choose a certain course based on all your past experience, history, and your essential physiological make up. I had such an experience recently when choosing to accept a promotion that involved relocation for myself and my life partner. We talked about it, I thought about it, and ultimately made a choice knowing that ultimately, I will make the choice that perhaps was inevitable. However, that does not lessen the thought pattern involved nor my experience of consciousness.

If we allow the knowledge that determinism is not reconcilable to freewill interfere with our thoughts, judgements, beliefs, or how we conduct our lives we forfeit control. I guess you could say that you are either determined to live your life under the understanding of illusion or not. The choice is yours but your choice is a foregone conclusion Twisted Evil

Silliness, ain't it? Ultimately, it doesn't matter either way. We live our lives the same way and there are no implications unless we want to get into the issue addressed in my previous paragraph of allowing knowledge to guide life. For example, a typical issue raised is that of criminality. If people are determined to do things, is a criminal morally responsible for their actions? Irrelevant question, IMO. If you eliminate the Criminal Justice System on behalf of the criminal determined to commit crimes, then you cause more crime by preventing the deterrent. Do you cease education and crime prevention efforts? No. Determinism is ultimately irrelevant because you can't not change life or society based on whether or not free will can be reconciled.

Ultimately, I have come to the conclusion that cause and effect is reality. There is almost an infinite (from a human perspective) time line involving innumerable events on both the micro and macro scale that lead to events taking place every single micro second. An amazing thing to contemplate even the macro and obvious influences on one human decision let alone the course of history on Earth and the Universe. Free Will is ultimately irrelevant and determinism is a constant by definition and the two are essentially apples and oranges as far as I am concerned. What we experience as humans is an illusion of control via our conscious will and that is enough for me. I think "self, type out a message" and it happens regardless of whether it was determined or what ever.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT