Determinism

[flyingpants]

Hello. Neat forum.

I am a determinist. I believe that everything, including every human action, is predetermined (resulting from a preceeding chain of cause and effect) and that there is no (magic) libertarian free will. I also believe this can play an important role in the creation of a new society, but that's a topic for another day.

Please leave your comments. I'll answer any questions.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Welcome, but I have bad news for you, on several threads here, this traditional theory has been subjected to no little refutation.

As has its alleged opposite, 'freedom of the will'.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...13&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51313&hl=free+will)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...03&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=54203&hl=free+will)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...67&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=57667&hl=free+will)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...44&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=63044&hl=free+will)

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...45&hl=free+will (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62845&hl=free+will)

The good news is that no one (here) was able to answer my objections to both.

[apathy maybe]

Not that I'm going to disagree with you (I have my views, but I'll share them later), but if everything is determined, then so is your post to this forum. If everything is determined, then it doesn't matter what we do. I could kill or rob and should not expect consequences, because I didn't choice to do those things.

Which is a major problem that I do have with determinism.

(Determinism also discounts the existence of randomness.)

[flyingpants]

I already searched "determinism" using the forum search function and found nothing relevant - should have searched more, I suppose. Those threads seem to be a bit old, so I suppose there's no harm in making a new one.

I'll defend the determinism thesis here if I'm challenged.


Not that I'm going to disagree with you (I have my views, but I'll share them later), but if everything is determined, then so is your post to this forum.
Absolutely.



If everything is determined, then it doesn't matter what we do. I could kill or rob and should not expect consequences, because I didn't choice to do those things.
This is the argument from morality/appeal to consequences. It doesn't change the truth. It reminds me of Sam Harris's bit about a man who wishes to believe that there is a giant diamond buried in his backyard.

Furthermore, I don't think you can follow that just because everything is caused, we shouldn't punish anyone for crimes, reward them for accomplishments, etcetera. I think it's still important to do these things in service of creating something that resembles a just society.

[blake 3:17]

But what are the determinants? The Prime Mover? Biology? Physics? The Inivisble Hand of the Market? God's will?

[MrDoom]

Not that I'm going to disagree with you (I have my views, but I'll share them later), but if everything is determined, then so is your post to this forum.
And if it is? It is the sum of all previous states of the universe.


If everything is determined, then it doesn't matter what we do.
Yes it does. Determinism isn't nihilism.


I could kill or rob and should not expect consequences, because I didn't choice to do those things.
But you did choose. Your choice of action, however, was determined by cause and effect; similar to how a ball falling through a series of pegs follows a path which is only the sum of the paths already taken.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Indeed, there is no harm, but there is little point.

[You will not have come across these arguments before -- they are unique to me.]

The problem with this metaphysical theory (as with many others) is that you have to anthropomorphise nature to make it work.

Hence, you will notice that you have to use a word ("determine") that suggests that causes actually think, and plan ahead, and impose their will on subsequent events.

Now, there are other words you could use in its place, but they will merely acheive the same result: nature has to be attributed with a 'will' (it has 'laws', and can make things 'obey' these 'laws', it can 'necessitate', etc., etc.), while we are denied one.

So we do not decide things, nature does.

To be sure, you could be using 'determine' in a new and as yet unspecified sense, but any attempt made by you to re-define it so that this theory works will merely make it conventional, and hence trivial.

Now there are very good ideological reasons why ancient thinkers invented this doctrine (and why it has been adopted by subsequent ruling-class thinkers), but they are not ones that Marxists should allow to influence them.

What these are I outline at my site, specifically here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

[flyingpants]

Originally posted by blake 3:[email protected] 24, 2007 05:29 pm
But what are the determinants? The Prime Mover? Biology? Physics? The Inivisble Hand of the Market? God's will?
The common view is that whatever happened at the "beginning", if that term can even be used accurately, has determined all future action. We don't quite know what that is yet. I hesitate to say it was the big bang, because I don't know if anything (this plane of existence or otherwise) existed before then.

Physics, yes. You don't even need to say biology, because biological phenomena are predictable by the laws of physics.
Some say it's God, I believe these are called Calvinists and I think it's a load of crap.

Personally, I don't think about the beginning - I think it's outside our logical scope at this time. I take it a step further and simply say that there is nothing that can exclusively be called human action, because human beings are just part of the flow, so to speak. Liken it to watching water fall over a waterfall.

[MrDoom]

The problem with this metaphysical theory (as with many others) is that you have to anthropomorphise nature to make it work.

Hence, you will notice that you have to use a word ("determine") that suggests that causes actually think, and plan ahead, and impose their will on subsequent events.

Now, there are other words you could use in its place, but they will merely acheive the same result: nature has to be attributed with a 'will' (it has 'laws', and can make things 'obey' these 'laws', it can 'necessitate', etc., etc.), while we are denied one.

So we do not decide things, nature does.

To be sure, you could be using 'determine' in a new and as yet unspecified sense, but any attempt made by you to re-define it so that this theory works will merely make it conventional, and hence trivial.

That just sounds like a lot of wordplay that doesn't really refute the idea behind determinism. It just attacks the etymology of the word.

[flyingpants]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:43 pm

The problem with this metaphysical theory (as with many others) is that you have to anthropomorphise nature to make it work.

Hence, you will notice that you have to use a word ("determine") that suggests that causes actually think, and plan ahead, and impose their will on subsequent events.

Now, there are other words you could use in its place, but they will merely acheive the same result: nature has to be attributed with a 'will' (it has 'laws', and can make things 'obey' these 'laws', it can 'necessitate', etc., etc.), while we are denied one.

So we do not decide things, nature does.

To be sure, you could be using 'determine' in a new and as yet unspecified sense, but any attempt made by you to re-define it so that this theory works will merely make it conventional, and hence trivial.

That just sounds like a lot of wordplay that doesn't really refute the idea behind determinism. It just attacks the etymology of the word.
I agree with this MrDoom. I don't claim that nature "decides" anything at all. It just happens. I mean, I don't claim that the laws of physics are consciously conspiring against me. I think the idea of "deciding" is a human one, anyway.

As for determinism being a doctrine of the ruling class, that's an interesting point - the ruling class has often used the power over thoughts and ideas to manipulate human action. If leaders can influence the population to think a certain way, doesn't that at imply (or at least remind you of) determinism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mr Doom:


That just sounds like a lot of wordplay that doesn't really refute the idea behind determinism. It just attacks the etymology of the word.

Not so, it challenges you to find words that do not suggest that you think nature has a will, and can make decisions, whereas human beings cannot.

So, it is you that will have to stop playing about with words in the same loose and sloppy manner we have witnessed over that last 2400 years of traditional thought.

Or, try to say what you think without using any words....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FlyingP:


I agree with this MrDoom. I don't claim that nature "decides" anything at all.

Fine, but I challenge you to say what you mean by 'determine' that does not brand you as either a conventionalist, or as a mystic.


As for determinism being a doctrine of the ruling class, that's an interesting point - the ruling class has often used the power over thoughts and ideas to manipulate human action.

And not just this lamentable theory, but the whole of traditional thought -- it is indeed part of the ruling ideas that rule --, even the thought of those posting here, it now seems.

[flyingpants]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 24, 2007 05:49 pm
FlyingP:


I agree with this MrDoom. I don't claim that nature "decides" anything at all.

Fine, but I challenge you to say what you mean by 'determine' that does not brand you as either a conventionalist, or as a mystic.


As for determinism being a doctrine of the ruling class, that's an interesting point - the ruling class has often used the power over thoughts and ideas to manipulate human action.

And not just this lamentable theory, but the whole of traditional thought -- it is indeed part of the ruling ideas that rule --, even the thought of those posting here, it now seems.
I'll try.

First, let's isolate what we mean by "decision". A decision is a course of action in the universe, "selected" by some kind of life, from two or more (supposedly) possible ones. But normal things can't decide. Normal things behave deterministically. Physics does not "decide" to confine rocks or water to a specific course of action, it just happens. Am I anthropomorphising nature by saying (? ) water or rocks act deterministically? I don't think so.

What, then, makes it possible for life to "decide"? How is life any different from inanimate matter? I'm sure the atoms look the same.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FlyingP, nice try (but you are doomed to fail; no one has succeeded in the last 2400 years of being able to explain this theory without implying, as you do once more, that nature has a will):


Normal things behave deterministically.

So, you do think nature has a will.

If not, how do you understand this word in a way that does not imply this.

Using it to explain itself, as you do, is, as I am sure you will agree, somewhat circular.


it just happens

So it is random?

Let us see how we use the word 'determine': you can be a determined person (i.e, someone who does not give up easily); you can determine the times of the trains by looking at a chart; you can determine what to do next by considering the options, etc.

So, in what way does nature do any of these?

If it does none of them, why use this word?

If you intend this word in a new sense, you need to say what that is (without also using it again!).

Hence, my earlier claim that you will have to use it in a new and as yet unspecified sense to make this theory work, but then you will merely be a conventionalist (or you will no longer be a classic determinist, for, in your universe, things will just 'happen', as you seem to be conceding anyway).

All of these points were thrashed out in those threads I linked to -- and comrades there tried to say the sorts of things you are now trying to say.

Alas, to no avail, as you will see if you look them up.

[flyingpants]

Normal things behave deterministically.

So, you do think nature has a will.

First things first: "Normal things behave deterministically". Do you agree or not? The words "deterministic" or "determined" do not mean that someone set it up that way on purpose. You might say instead "predictably" or "according to natural laws" or "caused".

If one pinball hits a second pinball, I say that the second pinball acts deterministically, or predictably, having been acted upon by a force. This does not imply that nature is consciously conspiring against the pinballs. It "just happens" and when I say "just happens" I mean according to the laws of physics, instead of because of some magical cosmic will.

[apathy maybe]

Thanks a lot flyingpants. You have once more unleashed the Rosa. Now there will be no peace in this forum until you go away.

:P



Furthermore, I don't think you can follow that just because everything is caused, we shouldn't punish anyone for crimes, reward them for accomplishments, etcetera. I think it's still important to do these things in service of creating something that resembles a just society.If everything is determined though, we don't have a choice in what we do. Therefore, it is pointless to talk about trying to create a just society, because it will just happen (or not).
So why even bother? And if you are determined to bother, then you are made to think that you care, in which case, why does determinism matter?
(My thoughts on free will can be found http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/dev/index...showtopic=55047 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/dev/index.php?showtopic=55047) )

[apathy maybe]

Oh, and for a discussion on "Laws of Nature", I just finished reading http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lawofnat.htm

Quite interesting, and seeing as "the Rosa" has already been unleashed, I'd be interested in her position on it. Do you take one of those positions Rosa?

[flyingpants]

If everything is determined though, we don't have a choice in what we do.
Therefore, it is pointless to talk about trying to create a just society, because it will just happen (or not).
So why even bother? And if you are determined to bother, then you are made to think that you care, in which case, why does determinism matter?

I don't think you're correct, but I can't really refute you at this time except to say that your argument reminds me of a religious argument saying that if God doesn't exist, or there is no afterlife, then life is pointless, and so is morality, etc, etc. Finding out the truth about the universe shouldn't make it okay to kill eachother.
Also, I still think this is argument from consequence (eg. I don't like it, so it can't be true).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FlyingP:


First things first: "Normal things behave deterministically". Do you agree or not?

How can I if you won't tell me what you mean by this word?


You might say instead "predictably"

Well, that would either commit you to the view that nature itself can predict, or to the view that we merely predict things on the basis of theories we have about it, but that nature does not 'determine' them, since it is not intelligent.

Which?


"according to natural laws"

Well laws are linguistic items, so unless you believe that nature is run by a secret code, this too is a dead end.

And 'caused' is far too weak a term to build classic determinism upon.


If one pinball hits a second pinball, I say that the second pinball acts deterministically, or predictably, having been acted upon by a force. This does not imply that nature is consciously conspiring against the pinballs. It "just happens" and when I say "just happens" I mean according to the laws of physics, instead of because of some magical cosmic will.

But once again, you have to use terms drawn from our mental life to make your theory work.

And forces are not intelligent, they cannot control things -- indeed, modern physics has edited these mystical things out of nature (preferring now to talk about 'exchange of momentum')

The 'laws of physics', once again can make nothing happen -- they are linguistic items with no intelligence or power at all.

As I said, we thrashed all this out in those earlier threads

You are merely repeating dead old ideas that won't work.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


You have once more unleashed the Rosa. Now there will be no peace in this forum until you go away.

Yes, I am far too hot for you to handle! :)


Quite interesting, and seeing as "the Rosa" has already been unleashed, I'd be interested in her position on it. Do you take one of those positions Rosa?

I linked to this site in our previous 'embrace'.

May I remind you that I take no poistion on this, since I hold all philosophical theories in contempt.

And rightly so.

[flyingpants]

Well, that would either commit you to the view that nature itself can predict, or to the view that we merely predict things on the basis of theories we have about it, but that nature does not 'determine' them, since it is not intelligent.

Yes, we predict things on the basis of theories we have about nature. Nature does not need to be intelligent to determine anything. "Determined", in english, does not imply that someone or something knows what's going to happen, or caused it consciously. Google search for "determined by" or "was determined by".

Example:
Fossil order was determined by the Flood

Let's say that it was. This doesn't mean that the flood actually knew what was going on. Near as I can tell, this is a matter of nomenclature.

We're still debating my sentence: "Normal things behave deterministically." (remember, deterministically means predictably, according to theories we can make about how the universe works). If you don't believe that normal things (eg, rocks, water, pinballs) behave predictably and according to laws, what do you believe?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

FlyingP:


"Determined" does not imply that someone or something knows what's going to happen, or caused it consciously

Then why use this word?

And what then is the content of your 'determinism'?

It seems to me that on your 'revised' theory, nature is no longer 'determined', we just use our ever changing theories to predict things (much of which we get wrong).

This is not 'determinism', whatever else it is.

Indeed, libertarianism is entirely compatible with it, as far as I can see.

And what about things we cannot predict? Are they 'uncaused'?

[apathy maybe]

Actually Rosa love, you linked to a possibly related, but different page. http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm


The term "natural law" is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe.

And just to clarify, if you don't take a philosophical position, do you in fact think that one of these positions is more logical then other?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


And just to clarify, if you don't take a philosophical position, do you in fact think that one of these positions is more logical then other?

Ah, well I certainly intended to link to the site you linked to since I used this guy's ideas in my Essays.

You ought now to read his book.

[By the way, I do know about 'matualr law' theories of morality and jurisprudence. But thanks for sharing.... :P ]


And just to clarify, if you don't take a philosophical position, do you in fact think that one of these positions is more logical then other?

I reject all philosophical theories as nonsensical. Every last one.

So, they are all on a par with one another.

[Hit The North]

Rosa writes:


I reject all philosophical theories as nonsensical. Every last one.

So, they are all on a par with one another.

In other words, she has no position at all.

And these ideas are unique to her. :rolleyes:

[flyingpants]

Then why use this word?
Because that is what the word means. Try the Google experiment, above.


It seems to me that on your 'revised' theory,

It isn't revised. I was just explaining that nature and physics don't "think" anything because they aren't conscious and.. can't. All determinists (except maybe the hand of God guys) believe this. It's important to note that if you read literature on this topic, they also refer to predictable, cause-and-effect phenomena as "deterministic". It's not just something I made up. And they don't believe that nature/physics "think" anything, either.


nature is no longer 'determined',
Yes, it is. According to the latest studies, quantum particles behave unpredictably. But, as far as we know, atoms and larger phenomena behave deterministically.


we just use our ever changing theories to predict things (much of which we get wrong).
Yes.


This is not 'determinism', whatever else it is.
Yes, it is.


Indeed, libertarianism is entirely compatible with it, as far as I can see.
No, it isn't, because libertarianism implies that man is truly free to choose because of some magic mechanism of will, outside of the influence of his environment. This is impossible.


And what about things we cannot predict? Are they 'uncaused'?
Things that are totally unpredictable, like quantum events, might well be called "uncaused", but I don't know. Other things seem to be predictable, with the right technology and knowledge.

Before we go further, please reply to my earlier post:


Google search for "determined by" or "was determined by".

Example:
Fossil order was determined by the Flood

Let's say that it was. This doesn't mean that the flood actually knew what was going on. Near as I can tell, this is a matter of nomenclature.

We're still debating my sentence: "Normal things behave deterministically." (remember, deterministically means predictably, according to theories we can make about how the universe works). If you don't believe that normal things (eg, rocks, water, pinballs) behave predictably and according to laws, what do you believe?


Near as I can tell, my flood example proves that you were using the word "determined" wrong. Please concede if so.

Also, if you don't believe that normal things (rocks, water, pinballs, potatoes, everything except life) behave predictably and according to laws, what do you believe?

As for all this talk about rejecting science and physics, I do not understand.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


And these ideas are unique to her.

Well spotted!

I have only been saying this for a well over a year here, but if it takes that long for the penny to drop with you, I am not surprised you still believe in dialectics.

Although I suspect the latter is the cause of the former.

But, I note once more your incapacity to argue against me.

Not much of an advert for the 'beneficial' affects of mysticsm on the brains of comrades, are you?

Let me know when that sinks in, there's a good boy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Flying pants:


Because that is what the word means. Try the Google experiment, above.

Well, if you have looked this up in a dictionary, you will merely have found that it records the metaphysical use of this word (as it does many others), but that does not tell you/me how you are using it.

Dictionaries will also tell you lots of facts about God, but that does not mean you have to accept them. They record ideology as much as they do synonymity. And, since the ruling ideas of the ruling class rule, you'd expect them to do this.

But that does not mean you have to swallow all they say -- especially if no material sense can be derived from them, as here.

Now, I gave you a few examples of the use of 'determined' in connection with human beings, how we can plan ahead, and make things happen, etc. [You notice, I did not appeal to a dictionary, but to familiar events in the material world to explicate myself, ones you readily understood.]

But, your use of that word, you now say, is not like this.

It is, well what?

We have yet to be told.

Initially, you seemed to be using it in the above sense: to inform us of your belief that events were somehow controlled by other events, and they had no choice but to obey. Or that is how it seemed to me (when you called yourself a 'determinist').

Now, you have thrown that away (or so it seems, too), and we no longer have an account of what you think about the controlling effect or otherwise of prior causation.

You now seem to be a rather tame regularist.

So, this word is mere ornamentation. It does no work, and you are using it only because a dictionary has confirmed your unwitting adherence to its quasi-mystical connotations (for that is where the metaphysical meaning originated -- fatalistic ideas inherited from the Greeks).


It isn't revised. I was just explaining that nature and physics don't "think" anything because they aren't conscious and.. can't. All determinists (except maybe the hand of God guys) believe this. It's important to note that if you read literature on this topic, they also refer to predictable, cause-and-effect phenomena as "deterministic". It's not just something I made up. And they don't believe that nature/physics "think" anything, either.

So this word does no work at all, as I said -- and your ideas are compatible with libertarian beliefs (on this see below), for they can say the same things as you.


Yes, it is. According to the latest studies, quantum particles behave unpredictably. But, as far as we know, atoms and larger phenomena behave deterministically.

[You need to note that scientists are always changing their minds, so l'd not rely too much on this latest gem if I were you.]

So, it now seems you are saying that nature is determined because we can predict, but that this isn't a fluke (a bit like me, say, totally guessing next week's lottery numbers, and being coincidentally right) because of the controlling influence of prior events on later events. Is that it?

If so, then your use of the word 'determine' is once more parasitic on the anthropomorphic sense after all.

Hence, just as I can determine the times of trains because they are on a chart and are controlled by some mind (the train company, etc), you can do the same with nature.

Is that how you intend to use this word now?

If not, what work is it doing in your explanation of the course of nature (not of our attempts to foretell the future)?


Yes, it is.

Well, no it is not. Classic determinism is connected with the controlling influence of certain laws, and how later events can do no other than they do, not that they just so happen to do what they do.

If you think it has, you have confused a regularity theory (a mere description of nature) for an explanation of why things happen the way they do.

And, since determinism attempts to explain why things go the way they do (partly to deny space for the libertarian), it has to argue this way, or libertarians could steal this ground.

So, a libertarian could claim that free will 'just so happens'.

You have to show that things could not be otherwise, or spontaneity would be allowed back in (which was the point of my reference in my last post to the fact that we often get our predictions wrong -- something that you seem not to have noticed).


No, it isn't, because libertarianism implies that man is truly free to choose because of some magic mechanism of will, outside of the influence of his environment. This is impossible.

But you can only deny this ground to him/her by transferring this controlling 'influence' from the individual to the environment, as I said you would have to do -- in an earlier post, too.

So, you do think events ('the environment') control us, rather than the other way round, after all.

As I said, you are committed to the idea that nature has a will, but we do not.

That is the only way you will be able to deny space to spontaneity in free choice.

[Once again, all this was covered in recent threads, the ones I listed. You are continually running down a series of blind alleys.]

I am sorry, I missed this earlier post of yours:


Google search for "determined by" or "was determined by".

Example:
Fossil order was determined by the Flood

Let's say that it was. This doesn't mean that the flood actually knew what was going on. Near as I can tell, this is a matter of nomenclature.

We're still debating my sentence: "Normal things behave deterministically." (remember, deterministically means predictably, according to theories we can make about how the universe works). If you don't believe that normal things (eg, rocks, water, pinballs) behave predictably and according to laws, what do you believe?

Well, then in what way is the fossil record so 'determined'?

You say nature cannot plan or control things, then what is it that does the controlling?

God?

If nothing does, then the use of this word is empty. It does no work. And it/you might as well have said that the fossil record is a total accident.

[You cannot solve philosophical problems by relying on dictionaries (Googled or not) -- you'd end up believing all manner of odd things if you tried -- as here: that nature has a mind, and controls events like we do the trains.]

And once more, you refer us to 'laws'.

Does this mean that you think a written code, passed by a democratically elected (or otherwise constituted) legal authority, runs nature? And that events 'obey' these laws like the good citizens they are?

If not, what work does this word do?

If it does none, then stop using it.


Also, if you don't believe that normal things (rocks, water, pinballs, potatoes, everything except life) behave predictably and according to laws, what do you believe?

As for all this talk about rejecting science and physics, I do not understand.

I am quite happy for scientists to tell us about nature, but they are no more qualified to do amateur philosophy than anyone else is. They cannot show that nature is 'controlled' by 'laws' any more than you can. The best they can do is confirm regularities.

[The rest is speculation (based on earlier mystical beliefs).]

And where do I say I reject science?

I might not fetishise it, but I do not reject it.