[DJP]

 

robbo203 wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that you have not come across this particular usage.   The SPGB, for instance sometimes criticizes biological or genetic determinism which tries to explain human behavior in terms of genetic endowment .  When the party does this it is not attacking  the idea that “events have a cause” but is attacking what it sees as a simplifcation of reality –  the view that human behaviour is “determined” by our  genes – genetic determinism

Like I said ages ago

DJP wrote:

The problem is not ‘determinism’ per se but ‘economic determinism’, ‘technological determinism’, ‘genetic determinism’ etc which take one factor as the sole explanation of others.

robbo203 wrote:

Changing the subject slightly, there is also something called called “soft determinism” or compatibilism which argues  that free will and determinism are compatible.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism)  I guess that would make me a compatibilist in that case!  The notion that we have no free will whatsoever is just as ridiculous as the notion that we have absolute free will, in my view.   The truth lies somewhere in between…..

Yes there is something called compatibilism and yes your position would be that. But to me this position seems untenable once you follow the logic closely. Either you end up re-defining ‘free will’ as something far removed from what is usually meant by the term, so why use it? Or you have real problems explaining how the will can escape the world of causality and become a self causing cause.

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

Infinite regress problem has to do with connectedness of things successive, like they being caused by the other, or being the foundation of other, not with them simply being successive, like you here enumetaring successive moments of existence of some free will.

Like you say “being the foundation of other” so IF to have free will in the present moment you HAVE to be responsible for yourself in the moment before THEN the moment before is the foundation of the present moment.It is definitly an infinite regress. But you could have undermined the argument by saying that you can have free will but don’t have to be responsible for the moment before.

Quote:

Quote:

At least thats what Galen Strawson says…

Then this Galen guy not only doesn’t understand what the infinite regress problem is concerned with, he doesn’t seem to know what metaphysical libertarianism posits in the first place, because it simply says that the will is free, in the sense of not being determined by anything except itself, to act, and is thus responsible for it’s acts. So metaphysical libertarianism just posits that the will is free and not determined, not that it created itself- and it’s creation is it’s own act, which is assumed in the nonsensical objection to free will that you just put forward.

Galen Strawson is one of the leading figures in philosophy of the mind so I really doubt that it is the case that he doesn’t know what libertarianism is, come on this is all really basic stuff.But if ‘free will’ does not create itself it must be created by something else, so in that case ‘free will’ must be determined, that is caused by something else.

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

There may not be a beginning or an end in some theoretical, untangible things, but otherwise, infinite regress is impossible.

Indeed. But the concept of ‘free will’ leads to an infinite regress also:If you have free will then you must be responsible for your mental states in the present moment. But to be responsible for your mental states in the present moment you must also be responsible for those of the moment before it, and those the moment before that one, and the moment before that one, ad infinitum. So at some point you must be responsible for the creation of yourself. At least thats what Galen Strawson says…

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

Looking for something else, I came across this contribution to a discussion of this same theme on our other forum in 2000:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/1905I don’t think his article did get published in the Socialist Standard.

Any idea what happened to the author? Is he still a member?

[DJP]

I agree that infinite regress is usually held as a problem in philosophy.I think in this case the general ‘first mover’ is usually taken to be the ‘big bang’ but taking this position is not without it’s problems also.The problem may be more to do with humans minds wanting to seek a beginning and end when there may not be one.

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

Quote:

Broadly speaking it just means “the doctrine that every event has a cause”.

Then we could say that metaphysical libertarianism is a type of determinism, being that it is the opinion that people’s thoughts and actions are caused by free will.

You couldn’t because the libertarians would say that ‘free will’ is not caused by anything prior. 

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Perhaps I’m nitpicking

Yes you are!

Quote:

I was saying that determinism implies more than just causality.  It also implies directionality. – some things are causal agents; other things are effects – and hierarchy – some things are more determining than others, etc. So a non deterministic model is not necessarily one that is a-causal.  It’s the pattern of causality that makes it deterministic…

I don’t know where you’re getting this definition from. None that I’ve came across define it so narrowly, or with so many caveats. Broadly speaking it just means “the doctrine that every event has a cause”.But I’m getting the feeling this discussion has passed it’s usefulness now…

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

But the fact that you cannot produce direct empirical evidence for the existence of consciousness does not mean it does not exist.  This is problem with positivism , it precludes all other sorts of knowledge and epistemological approaches such as rationalism and phenomenology

This is not what I said “Harris says that consciousness is the only self evident truth, or something like that.” Can you not read?

Quote:

The example it gives of such a cascading event is the 3 domino pieces. Push one and it knocks over the other which knocks over  the final piece .  There is in other words a sense of directionality which is implied in the very idea of a “cascading” event.  A deterministic system implies more than just the universality of causality. It implies a hierarchy or a sense of temporal priority. So the third domino piece tippling over can  be explained by the first domino piece toppling over which affects the second and thus the third.  However the third cannot account for the first toppling over.  To that extent we have a one way deterministic account.

Yes that is because in the example we are moving forward in time, spooky hey? That surely never happens in real life?Again you’re not reading the whole article and quoting bits out of context, look at the other examples given for deterministic systems. Would you be happier if instead of “determinism” I used the word “causality”?

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

Are there party documents that adress these topics?

I would have thought so for most of them. You could use the ‘search’ box at the top right of the page. If any topic is missing let us know.

[DJP]

With regards to marriage, pornography and prostitution these lose there current form if property relations where abolished. Prostitution can only exist in an exchange economy, and so could not exist in a socialist society. Similarly marriage would not take the form of a property relation, though perhaps some people would still like to commit to each other in public ceremonies. Pornography would not exist as a commodity but I can’t see why people would not still produce erotic art.All that said it is not for us to decide in advance how people should live. If socialism is ever achieved it will be up to the people then how they live it.For the present I try not to be too judgmental of other people, after all capitalism is a system in which no one is in control and we are all for the most part products of our environment (though probably not everyone will agree with me)Promiscuity? Well I’m well in favour of that! 

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

Unfortunately I have no audio facility on my decrepit computer so there was no point in me watching the video. 

That’s a shame because I think it’s really rather good.

Quote:

I did however go to the Sam Harris link and to be honest some of the stuff he wrote seems contradictory and incoherent.  For instance, consider this The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6]  Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience.

This point is explained further in the footnote. Has anyone ever held and photographed an intent or a feeling? We might be able to view a brain scan of someone intending or feeling something but this tells us nothing of what the actual experience is like.

Quote:

and this Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves.So what Harris is saying here is that, on the one hand,  there no evidence for consciousness  and on the other  that there are “signs” of consciousness.  Figure that one out if you will….

The only evidence for consciousness is consciousness itself but as consciousness is something that can only be experienced privately it seems hard to know how science can objectively observe it.

Quote:

There then follows a truly astonishing claimNevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle. I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. So what is Harris trying to say here?  If he accepts that there is consciousness (and it would be difficult to see how he could deny that since how else would  be able to apprehend the physical processes and properties he speaks of without consciousness, which is ridiculous) then how would he explain the existence of  this consciousness?  There are only 3 alternatives I can think of assuming we accept that consciousness exists 1) that consciousness and the physical world has always coexisted in a universe that had no beginning 2)  that consciousness was “created” alongside the physical world at some point in time 3)  that consciousness emerged from the physical world Harris’ rejection of emergence theory would there seem to commit him to either 1) or 2)

Harris says that consciousness is the only self evident truth, or something like that. But rejects the ego as a fiction.You’re right he is committed to options 1 or 2 or maybe some other ones you haven’t thought of. His answer is probably “we don’t know” which at this moment in time would be the correct one.If you cannot admit the problems with emergence as an explanation of consciousness then that’s your problem not mine.There’s some good stuff of Harris’s site you should give it a read to get the full gist of his argument before prematurely accusing him of being inconsistent.

Quote:

No that is not a deterministic model that you are describing – quite the opposite. It is an a-deterministic model. If everything happens because of everything else then you cannot pin down anyone thing as the cause of anything else.  A deterministic model implies that some components of the universe exert a causal influence and other do not and that the latter can be explained in terms of the former

Well I just checked and there’s nothing in the standard definition of a deterministic system which says that effects do not go on to be causes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(philosophy)The problem is not ‘determinism’ per se but ‘economic determinism’, ‘technological determinism’, ‘genetic determinism’ etc which take one factor as the sole explanation of others.

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

DJP wrote:

I think the main thing that would stop you joining is your Anarcho-communism, do you know our position on the use of parliament? What do you think about it?

Yes, I’ve read it, and I do agree with use of parliament, but maybe not with, as I understood your position was, a rejection of preparation for a violent aspect of revolution.

One of the reasons we say that the working class must gain control of the state is so that the armed forces cannot be used against us. Since the transition to socialism can only be bought forth by a majority revolution the only violence would be that of the minority trying to defend its former position. We are not a pacifist party but on the same accord it would be foolish to encourage a violent conflict with the state before a revolutionary majority has been reached. “Peaceably if we may, Forcibly if we must”

Quote:

I think that a socialist (as you define it) / anarcho-communist party should be active in parliament and work to dismantle the state from there, also secondly- socialists/ communists should be active in organising unions and workplace direct action, and also as much as the revolution approaches proportionally work on a preparation for violent conflict with the master class that, IMO, will initiate physical conflict to try and remain in power, of course, fourth (or first) activity of would be spreading class consciousness; so, I’m for a revolutionary organisation working on all fronts.

Again we do not appose socialists acting within unions upon sound lines. But the setting up of socialist unions before a socialist majority has arisen is rejected as a futile tactic.If you’d like to discuss these issues on the forum please feel free to start as many topics as you’d like.

[DJP]

robbo203 wrote:

The attempt to dismiss free will, human intentionality and human creativity as  mere idealism is utterly misplaced and is itself a form of hyper-idealism.  It reduces us to the status of tiny cogs in a vast machine whose purpose is impenetrable to our mortal minds

Well that might be what you think but I disagree. I have dismissed the notion of free will, in fact now more strongly since I started this thread but I am not denying human intentionality, creativity, love, hate etc. Neither have I accused anyone of idealism (which may also turn out to be incompatible with free will). Sorry to keep quoting Sam Harris, but I’m supposed to be finishing off my diploma in capitalist economics right now 

Quote:

Recognizing that my conscious mind is always downstream from the underlying causes of my thoughts, intentions, and actions does not change the fact that thoughts, intentions, and actions of all kinds are necessary for living a happy life—or an unhappy one, for that matter.I haven’t been noticeably harmed, and I believe I have benefited, from knowing that the next thought that unfurls in my mind will arise and become effective (or not) due to conditions that I cannot know and did not bring into being. The negative effects that people worry about—a lack of motivation, a plunge into nihilism—are simply not evident in my life. And the positive effects have been obvious. Seeing through the illusion of free will has lessened my feelings of hatred for bad people. I’m still capable of feeling hatred, of course, but when I think about the actual causes of a person’s behavior, the feeling falls away. It is a relief to put down this burden, and I think nothing would be lost if we all put it down together. On the contrary, much would be gained. We could forget about retribution and concentrate entirely on mitigating harm. (And if punishing people proved important for either deterrence or rehabilitation, we could make prison as unpleasant as required.)Understanding the true causes of human behavior does not leave any room for the traditional notion of free will. But this shouldn’t depress us, or tempt us to go off our diets. Diligence and wisdom still yield better results than sloth and stupidity. And, in psychologically healthy adults, understanding the illusoriness of free will should make divisive feelings such as pride and hatred a little less compelling. While it’s conceivable that someone, somewhere, might be made worse off by dispensing with the illusion of free will, I think that on balance, it could only produce a more compassionate, equitable, and sane society.http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-will

[DJP]

Fabian wrote:

Let’s take me as an example, philosophically / religiously I’m a deist pythagorean / neoplatonist, so I think souls exist, and find metaphysical materialism / determinism a sort of performative contradiction. I guess that a non-materialism view of history to some degree follows from that, so that would be an obstacle for me from joining the party, right? Politically / economicaly, I’m an anarcho-communist, which, as I far see from glancing at world socialism, is pretty similar.

I think the main thing that would stop you joining is your Anarcho-communism, do you know our position on the use of parliament? What do you think about it?Do you live near to where any branches meet? If you are interested in the party I think a first step would be to get down there and discuss with some members.

[DJP]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

You can sometimes find ebooks on ‘share’ sites. I will send you a copy if I come across it.

Thanks, but I found a paperback copy for about a pound.

robbo203 wrote:

Nobody -leastways, not me – is saying mind states are free from the influence of physical laws. The bio- chemistry of the brain can obviously have mental and behavioural effects.  For example, the rate at which serotonin and acetylcholine is released through biochemical activity in the brain can affect one’s mental state and give rise to mood disorders such as depression which, in turn, can be regulated by medication.  But, even so, the mind is more than the brain upon which it depends.  The mind can effect the brain , can exert “downward causation” on the brain as I tried to show earlier

I don’t think anyone is denying this “downward causation” either. All I’m denying is that there can be causes that are not caused by something or somethings else.

John Horgan wrote:

Harris keeps insisting that because all our choices have prior causes, they are not free; they are determined. Of course all our choices are caused. No free-will proponent I know claims otherwise. The question is how are they caused? Harris seems to think that all causes are ultimately physical, and that to hold otherwise puts you in the company of believers in ghosts, souls, gods and other supernatural nonsense.

Until yesterday I don’t think I had heard of Sam Harris. But the briefest look at his website shows that the final sentence of this is pure strawman. See this for example: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

John Horgan wrote:

But the strange and wonderful thing about all organisms, and especially our species, is that mechanistic physical processes somehow give rise to phenomena that are not reducible to or determined by those physical processes. Human brains, in particular, generate human minds, which while subject to physical laws are influenced by non-physical factors, including ideas produced by other minds. These ideas may cause us to change our minds and make decisions that alter the trajectory of our world.”

 Again myself, or Sam Harris, do not deny that ideas have an influence in the world. The question is do minds somehow magically escape the world of causation? There is a lot of empirical evidence to suggest they do not. And if they do I have not seen an explanation of how they do this, but maybe I’ve missed something.Did you watch that video Robin?I’m not convinced that ’emergence’ is an adequate theory of how consciousness came into being anyhow, but I admit I need to look into the issue more.

Sam Harris wrote:

Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t’ give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. The idea that everything (matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of nothing seems worse than a paradox. “Nothing,” after all, is precisely that which cannot give rise to “anything,” let alone “everything.” Many physicists realise this, of course. Fred Hoyle, who coined “big bang” as a term of derogation, is famous for opposing this creation myth on philosophical grounds, because such an event seems to require a “preexisting space and time.” In a similar vein, Stephen Hawking has said that the notion that the universe had a beginning is incoherent, because something can begin only with reference to time, and here we are talking about the beginning of space-time itself. He pictures space-time as a four-dimensional closed manifold, without beginning or end—much like the surface of a sphere.http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

robbo203 wrote:

It concerns me that there are Marxists who toy with the deterministic language of a teleogical model of society and history.

No-ones suggesting a “theological model of society”. Teleological explanations explain things in the sense that things happen “in order to” do something. Deterministic explanations explain things in the sense that everything happens “because of” everything else. Clearly not the same thing. I am not a Marxist by the way!

[Author]

Posts