« Nature's seamlessness leaves no room for free will | Main | Renunciative versus life-affirming types of meditation »

October 26, 2023

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"One is that determinism allows you to explain why something happened, whereas predictability allows you to say what happens next."
False.

Predictability is the Sine Que Non standard to prove a cause. Without predictability you cannot say you have eliminated all other possibilities, nor achieved enough control to confirm what you think was the cause.

"So you can't do radical eliminative reductionism and decide what single thing caused the fire, which button presser delivered the poison, or what prior state gave rise to a particular chaotic pattern. But that doesn't mean that the fire wasn't actually caused by anything,"

It means you haven't proven exactly what did or did not cause the fire. You've got a dead soldier, that is all. It might have been a heart attack from fear. It might have been a live wire on the ground no one noticed. You may know a lot about how guns work but you may know nothing of what actually happened here today.

You don't know enough to make it conclusive.

Your system in this example is closed, however...You have a set number of soldiers and guns, and just one bullet. One of them had to do it. And the working of the guns is a proven entity.

But if you don't really know what is going on, there could be any other factor possible.

Consider quantum mechanic states. The one we talk about alot says there is 50% chance of a particle existing in a location. But what about the probabilities much smaller, under 5%, under 1%?

The determinist insists they don't matter. The Chaos theory expert knows they may mean everything.


But the universe isn't a closed system. We don't actually understand all the variables well enough to draw such a conclusion.

When it comes to the universe, at best we know 5% of it...and 95% is unknown.

So drawing conclusions about what we don't know, and trying to pretend we do, trying to pretend the universe is a closed system is purely unscientific. Just foolishness.

The whole argument for strict determinism is a fool's errand and has largely been disproved.

https://bigthink.com/hard-science/95-percent-universe-mystery/#:~:text=Everything%20we%20know%20%E2%80%94%20everything%20we,%2C%20don't%20yet%20understand.

As pointed out earlier, "random" in-determinate variability must be established in every single hard and soft scientific experiment before causality of a variable can be proven. You prove the in-determinate nature of human understanding, to a calculated degree, in order to establish the level of change needed to conclude you have an effect. And that is a probability. Not a statement of fact.

But you can only prove what you can replicate or accurately predict.

So much of the universe falls outside those two parameters of science that you cannot conclude the universe is a closed system. And therefore the case for absolute determinism fails.

With complex systems, you cannot predict how they will interact with any accuracy over any period of time.
Often unique variations continue to crop up, and that destroys the utility of the argument for determinism. You may say that the inputs appear deterministic, but the power to influence is attenuated to such a degree, by complex factors, that they are not functionally deterministic at all. If you take away any one of those independent factors that were deterministic for individual variables, you may see that they no longer have any effect whatsoever on the outcomes of a complex interaction. Interactions can not only attenuate but entirely nullify the deterministic forces from which they sprang.

But OK, argue from ignorance, argue the linear approach...Do your thing.

I actually don't understand why determinists insist on believing that they know so much about reality they can draw a conclusion of absolute determinism, and a closed system, which is really what arguing for determinism is trying, poorly, to do.

The notion that all the events of one's life are inevitable is an interesting thought experiment. If everything had to unfold as it did, then the weight of the past loses its reality, and peace results.

In that context, I can see how the no-free-will philosophy has a specific, practical value.

That seems to be different from what Sapolsky is arguing. That we have no will.

The problem with Sapolsky's argument is that he needs 400 pages to argue it, and most philosophers do not agree with his radical reductionist take. It's an idea that's been around at least since Spinoza.

But despite the 400 pages, what Sapolsky is trying to prove is unprovable. The idea that there's no such thing as choice, is pseudoscientific.

That which is pseudoscientific attempts to describe the real world by making purely unfalsifiable predictions.

An unfalsifiable prediction is a prediction that defines every conceivable outcome as something that confirms the hypothesis.

Determinism doesn't make falsifiable predictions, only unfalsifiable ones; therefore, determinism is pseudoscientific.

Sapolsky states that 30 billion neurons collectively interact based on everything from what happened at the last minute to all of evolution. He has also stated to prove free will you would have to demonstrate that neurons that caused a particular behavior would be operating independently of all the other neurons that could have influenced it and everything else in its developmental history and evolution. Check out his recent interview in the NYT. There is clearly no way possible to run any type of experiment that could prove this to be false. He has a lot of interesting connections and theories, but his main conclusion doesn't pass a basic test of unfalsifiability to make it good science.

I just don't see any conceivable way of developing an experiment that could disprove determinism, which would render it unfalsifiable. No matter how much-perceived agency an actor could display in an experiment, determinism can always say 'That's simply the only result that would've been and no choice was ever-present'. This also covers all subjective feelings of agency.

Here's another consideration: a theory that makes everything ridiculous is unsound. A theory that reduces choice and morality to dust is likewise unsound. No choice and no morality are the conclusions of Sapolsky's hard determinism.

I think people are attracted to the theory of no free will when they’re feeling powerless or overwhelmed.

Personally, I would rather take on the suffering of others and hurt when they hurt than to ever throw my hands in the air and just say, “we’ll, there’s nothing we can do.”

It might might be painful as hell, but I’ll go through hell to get to the other side. We have choices. We have power. And we should exercise those things to bring an end to suffering.

Love is the ultimate source of strength. And true love will sacrifice everything to reach a place of peace for everyone.

Today, we live in dark times where certain leaders believe oppression is strength. Oppression is a pathetic attempt to retain power—the weakest kind of power.

I will smile when you laugh,
I will rejoice when you are happy.

I will cry when you cry,
And I will do everything I can to lift your burden.

Because I know that you and I are the same.
Joy is incomplete when God’s souls continue to suffer.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.