Determinism

[Young Master Smeet]

DJP wrote:

When we consider what people really mean when they talk about "free will" are they really talking about some proposed freedom from the laws of physics? For the most part it turns out that they are referring to nothing more than the capacity to regulate our behaviour and to act freely, without coercion, according to our desires, beliefs and values. I think this is the only meaningful way to go. Defining 'free will' in this second way might not be as magical as the first but it does allow us to about 'free will' and lets us avoid the silliness of thinking that our thoughts play no casual role in world (what is called 'epiphenominalism).

Absolutely, our thoughts, the algorithms and processes of our mind can cause events in the world, and without immediate external causes, so long as the mind processes keep on running.  Although there is a furtehr question of how much of what we think of as conscious cognition is just retroactive accounting for decisions taken deeper in the nervous system that we have no real control over.

[Young Master Smeet]

robbo203 wrote:

Well no YMS I can't  really go along with this. You talk of "causeless events" as if to rule such a thing out of the question.  Everything that exists must have a cause.  But must it?  The principle of indeterminism is somethimng that is pretty much well established in physics and when we are talking about physics these days we are talking about some pretty weird stuff, stuff  that seems far removed from the mechanical determinism of traditional Newtoniam physics . Like the theory of "entanglement", for example, which I still cant quite get my head around

Well, irrespective of the probablistic character of quantum states, energy cannot be created or destroyed, so for a signal to be transmitted down my nerves to a from a neuron to the fingers of the meatbot requires energy, and that energy can only be obtained by transformation. 

Quote:

It strikes me as a little odd that a hardline materialst like your good self  would rule out indeterminism.  Afterall if everything must have a cause then what "caused" matter. God? .As I see it, determinism and indeterminism coexist as a kind of yin/yang of the cosmos   Mechanical determinism is valid up to a point in the same sense that Newtonian physics is valid up to a point – that is up to the point at which Einsteinian physics kicks in

No, Newtonian physics is wrong, it's just it's wrongness isn't important at a certain scale.  Who cares where the universe comes from, it's always been there. 

Quote:

All this ties up with the question of free will and by extension moral choices.  As John Horgan has noted to argue that all our choices have prior causes and are therefore determined and not free, but "caused",  is to entirely miss the point,  The point is what "causes" them? To reduce an explanation as to why  Joe Bloggs has chosen not to kill a stranger for his money, to the gyrations of subatomic particles, or perhaps not even that,  (which is what physical reductionism boils down to really) just seems to me utterly absurd.

Tha absence of free will does not absolve us from moral choice, since we understand that mental processes are part of causation, and we want to avoid pain for meatbots.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

If 'free will' means the ability to break free from the casual laws of the universe and makes choices regardless of ones past, desires and inclinations then yes there is no such thing. But then the question is, if this where what 'free will' entails would we want such a thing anyhow? What's the freedom in randomly flapping about like a butterfly from one situation to another without any reason for our action?When we consider what people really mean when they talk about "free will" are they really talking about some proposed freedom from the laws of physics? For the most part it turns out that they are referring to nothing more than the capacity to regulate our behaviour and to act freely, without coercion, according to our desires, beliefs and values. I think this is the only meaningful way to go.

[my bold]DJP, you talk about 'the laws of physics' as if they are separate from the consciousness that creates them.Marxists disagree with that ideological belief.

Anton Pannekoek wrote:

Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science. Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

[my bold]The 'laws of physics' have a social origin, and are historical, because they change as society changes.If by 'free will' we mean the freedom to change our understanding of 'natural phenomena' (or, for Marx, metabolise 'material substratum' or 'inorganic nature'), then we have 'free will'. Without this, we cannot 'change', but can only 'interpret'.The 'laws of physics' are the social result of human 'theory and practice'.Unless one starts from the inseparable connection of 'being and consciousness', then one is lead astray, and is forced to depart from Marx and Pannekoek, and ends up with 'materialism', which is 'discovery science', not 'humans making their world'.

[Author]

Posts