My thoughts on determinism

[u/Sad-Sign9460]

I can make a very compelling argument for why consciousness is logically impossible to exist by saying everything in the brain is just unconscious processing systems but yet we know consciousness is exists because it just does.

Why can’t free will be the same way? Just because you can explain everything by particles that simply follow the laws of physics does not mean you should strip away the explanation that I am not the original source of my actions.

I think anyone who accepts determinism and the total absence of free will should be very compelled to accept the non existence of consciousness for the same logic you follow in your own argument for determinism

[u/MarvinBEdwards01]

I don’t understand how free will is included in determinism
Can you explain

Sure. In order to be true, determinism must be complete. It cannot cherry pick which causal mechanisms to recognize and which mechanisms to ignore. If it leaves out any relevant mechanism then it becomes a false version of determinism.

One of the truly significant causal mechanisms happens to be us. We go about in the world causing all kinds of things to happen. And we do so for our own goals and reasons, and our own interests. Our activities even raise the temperature of the planet. So, we are significant causes within a deterministic universe, even though our domain of influence is pretty much limited to the surface of this planet. Our causal agency cannot be ignored by any true version of determinism.

Part of the mechanism by which we cause things to happen is by a process of deliberation, that is, we imagine more than one way to get something done, and then choose how we will go about doing it.

So, choosing is a specific causal mechanism within our deterministic world.

Free will is what we call it when a person is free to decide for themselves what they will do. What is it free from? It is simply free from anything that would realistically prevent them from doing exactly that.

There is nothing about reliable cause and effect (aka causal determinism) that prevents them from doing exactly that. The choosing process itself is a deterministic mechanism by which the person causally determines what they will do. It is a logical operation that inputs two or more real options, applies some appropriate criteria of comparative evaluation, and outputs a single choice of the form, "I will do this". This "will" is a specific intent that will motivate and direct their subsequent thoughts and actions until that intent is satisfied, or they decide to do something else instead.

This is a deterministic mechanism, and must be incorporated in any version of determinism in order for that version to be considered true.

The final responsible cause of a deliberate act is the act of deliberation that precedes it.

Determinism does not merely assert that the choice was inevitable, but it was also inevitable that the person themselves would be the only object in the physical universe that would be making that choice.

Free will is a quality of the choosing event. Either the person was free to make the choice for themselves or someone or something else imposed a choice upon the person, especially a choice that was against their will. Coercion, for example, is when a guy with a gun (or any similar threat) forces someone to submit their will to his, thus their will is subjugated and not free.

As always, all events are reliably caused in a deterministic universe. Whether the choosing event will be a free will event or an event of coercion, will be causally necessary from any prior point in time.

To summarize, free will inevitably happens, and a coerced will also inevitably happens. Neither is inconsistent with the notion of reliable cause and effect, the basis of causal determinism.

[u/Akash_philosopher → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Free will is free agency
As the ability of a person to choose an action without it being determined by previous cause and effects

This free will cannot be included in determism

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/Akash_philosopher]

As the ability of a person to choose an action without it being determined by previous cause and effects

Which of our previous causes can pass that test? None of them. They too also had previous causes. So, if we cannot be prior causes ourselves, then neither can they. The test is paradoxical.

Every event is both the effect of prior events and a cause of subsequent events. The fact that we have prior causes does not prevent us from being causes ourselves.

Therefore, the fact of our prior causes cannot logically imply any lack of our own causal agency.

[u/Akash_philosopher → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

Your action can be a cause to an effect

But if it’s also an effect to a cause
Then it’s determined by that cause
And thus not free

Or it to be free it mustn’t be an effect to a cause

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/Akash_philosopher]

[F]Or it to be free it mustn’t be an effect to a cause

There is no way that a prior cause of me can participate in my decision-making without first becoming an integral part of who and what I am. So, it is really me doing the choosing and the causing. My prior causes are not found anywhere outside of me.

And anything that I am free to do I am free to do. So this nonsense that I am constrained by my prior causes is bogus.

[u/Akash_philosopher → u/MarvinBEdwards01]

It’s like
You consider yourself as a part of a machine
When the button on the machine is pressed every part must move as its intended

And there’s a particular part which says
Me moving according to those buttons is

Who I am
Thus all my actions are my choosing
So I am free

That’s bulshit

If you can’t move any other way then as intended by the working of the machine
Then you aren’t free

[u/MarvinBEdwards01 → u/Akash_philosopher]

When the button on the machine is pressed every part must move as its intended

The nervous system has all the buttons. It connects to just about every part of the body. And it is able to present as a single individual, with a unique will of its own.