Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Bahman]

It seems to me that you agree with the existence of options. My question is how options could be real in a deterministic world in which only one outcome is permissible at any given time.

My answer to the question of how options are real is because human beings are able to make decisions on the basis of reason, which is possible on the basis of language. Other sentient beings, as far as we know do not have linguistic understanding to make such choices, so would make these choices more on an unconscious basis, on the basis of instincts.

Of course, human beings also have physical drives and instincts too, even though they may rationalise them. That is why determinism still has a strong basis on the physical level. However, human beings conscious experience can be thought of by within a bio-psychosocial framework. This entails human beings having the potential ability to think about the range of possibilities, as options.

Some would argue that the specific thoughts people have are beyond choice, but this can become a tangenital knot. As it is, a human being has an active role in the process, through the awareness of the various options of action. So, it does not rule out the underlying basis of determinism itself, but shows that it is not a passive process, with human beings having an active role in the pathways of causation.

Ok, let me ask you this question: Is a human brain a deterministic object?

I am not sure that your question makes sense, especially as you don't seem to see the connection between determinism and free will.

I am not interested in the connection between determinism and free will. I am wondering how all options could be real in a deterministic world considering the fact that only one state of affairs is permissible in the future given the current state of affairs.

The brain Is the wiring mechanism, and, on this basis, could be seen as an 'object' but it is all about processes and systems. There is the whole issue of physicalism and the question of free will, and determinism may be important in both areas of philosophy. But to view the brain as an object may to see it as detached from the imminent aspects of consciousness and the human experiences.

No, I consider consciousness when I argue about options being real. I argue that the experience of options coincides with a delay in our physical activity and this cannot be a matter of chance therefore options are real. Determinists in fact argue that only one of the options is real and the other are illusions even if our experience of options seems real.

[Ranvier]

The "reality" is only deterministic in the sense that it "exists". To "exist" can be defined by the fact that anything that "exists" constantly changes. Therefore, change is part of the definition to "exist", where the change itself is a spontaneously emergent non-deterministic phenomenon of at least two possibilities.

[Bahman]

The "reality" is only deterministic in the sense that it "exists". To "exist" can be defined by the fact that anything that "exists" constantly changes. Therefore, change is part of the definition to "exist", where the change itself is a spontaneously emergent non-deterministic phenomenon of at least two possibilities.

Change can be two sorts, deterministic or non-deterministic. Our world is believed to be deterministic so the existence of options is like magic. What do you mean by non-deterministic?

[JackDaydream]

My answer to the question of how options are real is because human beings are able to make decisions on the basis of reason, which is possible on the basis of language. Other sentient beings, as far as we know do not have linguistic understanding to make such choices, so would make these choices more on an unconscious basis, on the basis of instincts.

Of course, human beings also have physical drives and instincts too, even though they may rationalise them. That is why determinism still has a strong basis on the physical level. However, human beings conscious experience can be thought of by within a bio-psychosocial framework. This entails human beings having the potential ability to think about the range of possibilities, as options.

Some would argue that the specific thoughts people have are beyond choice, but this can become a tangenital knot. As it is, a human being has an active role in the process, through the awareness of the various options of action. So, it does not rule out the underlying basis of determinism itself, but shows that it is not a passive process, with human beings having an active role in the pathways of causation.

Ok, let me ask you this question: Is a human brain a deterministic object?

I am not sure that your question makes sense, especially as you don't seem to see the connection between determinism and free will.

I am not interested in the connection between determinism and free will. I am wondering how all options could be real in a deterministic world considering the fact that only one state of affairs is permissible in the future given the current state of affairs.

The brain Is the wiring mechanism, and, on this basis, could be seen as an 'object' but it is all about processes and systems. There is the whole issue of physicalism and the question of free will, and determinism may be important in both areas of philosophy. But to view the brain as an object may to see it as detached from the imminent aspects of consciousness and the human experiences.

No, I consider consciousness when I argue about options being real. I argue that the experience of options coincides with a delay in our physical activity and this cannot be a matter of chance therefore options are real. Determinists in fact argue that only one of the options is real and the other are illusions even if our experience of options seems real.

I simply don't understand where you are coming from if you don't see any connection between the issue of determinism and free will. I simply don't understand how you approach philosophy or whether you have read any philosophy at all. As it is, your thread for last month and this month are the most popular. I would certainly not wish to undermine your contributions but I feel so despondent when the thread of this month on a philosophy site appears to see determinism and free will as not related. I am not wishing to dismiss your ideas and endeavours, because it is likely that people find your views as far more interesting than mine, But, I do think that you need to read a little in philosophy in order to see how the relationship between determinism has a relationship with the philosophical issues of free will.

[Sculptor1]

No it is exactly on topic, and your answer reveals that you have not thought through why it might be the case.
You cannot "chose freely" since all your answers have to be determined by your current state of being.

As I said I am not discussing free will here. I am discussing the existence of options in a deterministic world.

This is a bit like saying I'm not discussing water, I am discussing seas, river, oceans, and stuff you drink.

So what do you think "free will" implies?

Free will is the ability of a free agent to unbiasedly (by unbiased I mean without any inclination) choose between two options.

1. You said you were not going to talk about free will.
2. You cannot make a choice without bias. Bias is the basis of your opinion. With no opinion there is only indecision.

My question is not how a person can choose one of the options but how options could be real in a deterministic world.

It's the same thing. Choices are always present moment by moment, and each moment determines the next pathway. As long as no one is pointing a gun at you, you are free to chose according to your self determination.
Thus in a deterministic world we can all freely make choices providing we have not collected too many obligations or we live in a society where others are free to determine and guide out actions.
If we are slaves, or enter into employment contracts we loose our freedom to determine our own pathways. Yet the choice remains. Get up put your socks on, go to work. Or not as we chose.

[Gertie]

To understand the issue, first you have to consider what it is that people think makes the universe deterministic.   Whether that is correct or not, and whether there can be exceptions.

Many assume the universe is deterministic because we see predictable patterns, which Physicalism has modelled as laws, or forces, acting on matter. QM introduces an underlying probabilistic element, but that isn't really what we mean by options, choices, or mentally willing our behaviour in contrast to  physicalist determinism.

In your post you point to pausing for thought, mentally weighing options and making choices based on mind somehow intervening in these physical processes when it comes to brains.

As far as we know, there are no physical brain processes which are in principle not following physicalist deterministic laws in response to physical stimuli.  The pause then could reflect the complex physical brain processes taking time, or perhaps never, hitting the threshold to instigate motor neuron behaviour.

But - we don't understand the relationship between mind and body.  And we can just as easily point to the evolutionary utlitity of being able to mentally reason through decisions, weigh options, imagine the consequences of different decisions, etc. Not to mention the obvious evolutionary  utility of  feeling hunger, satiety, lust, care, comfort, pain, memory, etc. There's an obvious functional (evolutionary) account of the role of our mental states which makes sense of our behaviour too.  And creates room for options which at least escape physicalist determinism, but perhaps raises an issue of psychological determinism - my psychology is such that it is inevitable I will make specific choices, that I will prioritise this over that option, just like I will remove my hand from a burning fire. (Some see a 'compatabilistic' approach to options making sense here). Never-the-less, this raises the possibility we can in effect mentally intervene in the physical brain processes, mind over matter.  And if mental experience is simply causally redundant epiphenomenal baggage, why does it look so well attuned to utility...

These two explanatory accounts, the mental and physical, run in parallel.  And as far as we can tell are closely related through our observations of neural correlation.  Raising  the additional problem of over-determinism.  

Without understanding the mind-body relationship, which we don't, the question and apparent paradoxes remain unanswerable.

The mind becomes important when it comes to making a decision when there is a conflict of interest in options. That is an interesting but different problem. My point however is how options could possibly be real in a deterministic world. I have an argument for the realness of options though. The heart of my argument is the coincidence of subjective experience of options and the pause in our physical and mental activity. I am arguing that this coincidence can not be due to chance so we can trust the subjective experience and be sure about the existence of options.

In the context I gave I don't think noting one type of correlation is enough to draw conclusions from. And Libet and subsequent similar experiments offer a different perspective on a 'readiness potential' pause you might want to check out.

I am aware of Libet experiment. By pause I don't mean the readiness potential but the time between facing options and making a decision.

I also disagree that there's a pause in physical brain activity or mental activity when we consider options - did you really mean to say that?

But anyway I gave an alternative possibility to that point within my post -

As far as we know, there are no physical brain processes which are in principle not following physicalist deterministic laws in response to physical stimuli. The pause then could reflect the complex physical brain processes taking time, or perhaps never, hitting the threshold to instigate motor neuron behaviour.

My question is why the brain processes should take the time or perhaps never end if options are not real. Why do these two phenomena, the pause and the subjective experience of option coincide? It could not be a matter of chance.

I assume the pause you refer to is the pause in behaviour - I might stay sitting for a few seconds while I decide if I fancy a coffee or tea, before I go to the kitchen and make a cuppa? 

If we assume neural correlation holds, then the time I mentally mull the options is mirrored by correlated neural activity.  Physicalist determinists would say the neural interactions make the 'decision', based perhaps on the strengths of previously established neural patterns of connections.  These neural interactions being re-sparked in slightly different circs take a bit of time before they in turn spark the motor neurons which get me to the kitchen. Libet (controversially) claims on top of that, there's a pause between the physical neural processes (in quick decisions at least) becoming conscious, the neurons have made the 'decision' before I'm consciously aware. But there was never really an option or decision, just neurons physically reacting to physical stimuli. The correlated conscious experience being useless epiphenomenal baggage.

The case of a complex choice which takes a long time is similar in principle I'd think.  Say I'm thinking of changing career because I don't like my job, but it has a lot of perks and I'm not sure I should. I might think over the pros and cons for weeks on and off.  That thinking over is similarly correlated to neural interactivity, which physicalist determinists say will make the actual 'decision'.  But it takes weeks for a pattern of neural activity to be strong enough to spark the motor neurons to tell my boss I resign.  Perhaps it took a final straw argument at work, or particularly bad day to strengthen the required neural connection to instigate the behaviour of resigning.  And again Libet-arians might say I don't consciously know I've told my boss until very shortly after I've done it.

So for physicalist determinists at least, the pause in the behaviour of enacting a choice which coincides with mentally considering options doesn't make the options real. I would always do the same thing, behave the same way, if the same physical stimuli caused the same physical neuronal activity.


Of course physicalist determinists don't understand the mind-body relationship any better than anybody else, so they could be wrong.  And many physicalists believe they can mentally choose options and mentally will their actions. It certainly feels that way. They just don't know how that could work.  And neither do you when you claim options exist.

[Ranvier]

The "reality" is only deterministic in the sense that it "exists". To "exist" can be defined by the fact that anything that "exists" constantly changes. Therefore, change is part of the definition to "exist", where the change itself is a spontaneously emergent non-deterministic phenomenon of at least two possibilities.

Change can be two sorts, deterministic or non-deterministic. Our world is believed to be deterministic so the existence of options is like magic. What do you mean by non-deterministic?

How can change be "deterministic"? In order to change, there must be at least two possibilities: change & no change. From that point on, you have divergence of those two possibilities, which will very quickly "explode" in a chain reaction of divergence<>convergence between duality of "choice" (particle-wave).

[JackDaydream]

The "reality" is only deterministic in the sense that it "exists". To "exist" can be defined by the fact that anything that "exists" constantly changes. Therefore, change is part of the definition to "exist", where the change itself is a spontaneously emergent non-deterministic phenomenon of at least two possibilities.

Change can be two sorts, deterministic or non-deterministic. Our world is believed to be deterministic so the existence of options is like magic. What do you mean by non-deterministic?

How can change be "deterministic"? In order to change, there must be at least two possibilities: change & no change. From that point on, you have divergence of those two possibilities, which will very quickly "explode" in a chain reaction of divergence<>convergence between duality of "choice" (particle-wave).

One problem on this thread may be that no one has tried to give a working definition of determinism, especially what it involves, or does not involve, especially in relation to the idea of' free will'. There are concepts and aspects of science which may be worth disentangling to make the discussion more tangible.

[Gj3030]

There is no option in deterministic world. As majority of our action are pre designed based on past gathered information. Means our decisions are the outcome of prior experiences and information. Only option we have in deterministic world is to be more conscious and alert on data we accumulating through all the senses.
Other option is memory less observation. Which is practically impossible.
To sum up, as long as we have acquired functioning memory, options in deterministic world is an "illusion". Admissible to both mental and physical.

[Ranvier]

One problem on this thread may be that no one has tried to give a working definition of determinism, especially what it involves, or does not involve, especially in relation to the idea of' free will'. There are concepts and aspects of science which may be worth disentangling to make the discussion more tangible.

Good point. Although it would be nearly impossible to try to describe "determinism" of "something" in infinity between 1 and -1 but not quite at speed of light or gravity of a black hole. It's similar to trying to describe the precise location of an electron in 3D space, which constantly changes approaching infinity and negative infinity as I'm attempting to describe it... it's no longer True. Best I can do is think in terms of probabilities, not very "deterministic".

[Gertie]

Flower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower–but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.

It's a rhyme sandwich  ACEFBD, Tennyson determined man is rhymes with crannies lol. 

I like half rhymes and asonances. Rhyming "man is" with "crannies" sounds nice, and draws the reader's attention. The master, of course, was Emily Dickinson, perhaps America's greatest poet.

Yes she writes beautifully. I like the cheeky crannies - man is rhyme too

[JackDaydream]

One problem on this thread may be that no one has tried to give a working definition of determinism, especially what it involves, or does not involve, especially in relation to the idea of' free will'. There are concepts and aspects of science which may be worth disentangling to make the discussion more tangible.

Good point. Although it would be nearly impossible to try to describe "determinism" of "something" in infinity between 1 and -1 but not quite at speed of light or gravity of a black hole. It's similar to trying to describe the precise location of an electron in 3D space, which constantly changes approaching infinity and negative infinity as I'm attempting to describe it... it's no longer True. Best I can do is think in terms of probabilities, not very "deterministic".

My own working definition of determinism would involve a consideration of causality, especially in the nature of external causes. So, one of the biggest questions may involve the role of intentionality. I guess that as intentionality is a manifestation in itself, even though within the inner world, it could be asked where does intentionality arise from? Is it an aspect arising in conjunction with the processes of external causality?

[Ranvier]

My own working definition of determinism would involve a consideration of causality, especially in the nature of external causes. So, one of the biggest questions may involve the role of intentionality. I guess that as intentionality is a manifestation in itself, even though within the inner world, it could be asked where does intentionality arise from? Is it an aspect arising in conjunction with the processes of external causality?

Beautiful questions! Yes, I agree but what does it mean? Probability, causality, "intentionality", I call "reason"... What is it indeed and where does it come from? What was the first "cause" of "time" (change)? What was the [Reason]? The problem is with our "language" of mind, which can only operate in "words" of that which "exists" in 3D space (matter) but the question of "cause" can only be deciphered by "consciousness" outside of the 3D space + spacetime, most likely beyond these four dimensions. The "cause" or [Reason] are not aspects of that materialistic language of physical matter. "Determinism" is simply an "image" of a "marble" in 3D space, an illusion.

[Ranvier]

In our "consciousness", we have the power to augment the "reality" of "existence" or what "exists". In that sense, we have the power of "determinism" from "reason". The greater the "consciousness", the greater the power to augment (determine) the "reality". In my imagination I can create entire new solar systems. What if I could actually make them "exist" on the "canvas" of universe? Perhaps that would be too much power, I perish this thought as I type.

[Ecurb]

Could you please provide a link to the post? You wrote several posts.

If I knew how to provide a link, i would. However, here's what I wrote:

"I opted to have lunch at McDonalds yesterday."

I cannot, of course, opt otherwise at this stage of the game. Nonetheless, the sentence is coherent, descriptive, and meaningful. If we can "choose" in the past tense, surely we can choose in the present tense. "Options" is a meaningful word whether or not they are determined.