Answering Determinism

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

I’ve a friend who is mostly rational. intelligent and articulate, he and i often discuss philosophy. being something of an Objectivist scholar at a much younger age, i hold my own pretty well against the tide of irrationalities that get spewed at me sometimes. this time however, i find myself at a loss for coherant argument.

this friend has essentially put forth determinism as undeniable. he doesnt like it, but he doesnt think he can avoid it. essentially, that man has no choices, because our choice is made for us by previously determined factors. we only “choose” because we were programmed to do so by our genetics and experience. ive pulled up my lexicon and rifled through my books and found some half answers but nothing that directly helps me. my life-view cannot accept this idea to be true, but my mind is at a loss to express how it cannot be true. please give me the words that im looking for!

2

If you’d like to see a lot of stuff written on the topic, here is an unresolved thread on the topic.

3

If we are determined by our genetics, as most genetic determinists assert, who or what determined the irrefutable will of our genes, they are not intelligent beings, they are mere sequences of chemical compounds? Furthermore, if genes are our puppet masters, why is it that we can manipulate them to serve our benefit?

If experience determines choice (determined choice is a contradiciton in terms) then why do some of us determined creatures choose not to act in our own better nature out of irrational arrogance, even when our experience dictates that we should not repeat the same mistake in a particular situation, an example being a criminal whom repeats crimes, regardless of what punishment he recieves. Upon encountering this arguement, a determinist may argue that a criminal’s choices are dictated by family upbringing and family genetics, the problem with this is that there are criminals who come out of families with no known criminal history, and since man’s existence is not treated scientifically as being eternal, someone must have set the first precedent of a crime being committed independent of a family history. Furthermore, some criminals are able to reform themselves and choose to re-enter society as law abiding citizens, to which the determinist probably argues that his choice was dictated by experience, which would hint that the determinist is already starting to have his cake and eat it too. According to this idea, sometimes genes determine a person’s actions, and yet other times experience will do this, and conveniently the determinist blanks out the minute he is asked to give a logical accessment as to why experience will trump genes or vice versa in a given choice made by a human being. Determinism suggests an automatic function, something which clearly is in contradiction with the idea of choice, so if determinism did exist there should not be such a thing as the word “choice”, it wouldn’t exist because no one would be able to comprehend it.

Determinists assert that choice is an illusion, but all abstractions are dependent upon a metaphysical entity being percieved in order for integration to occur, otherwise there is no frame of reference. If there is no free choice, there can be no concept of free choice because it would have no basis in reality. The determinist may then argue that we imagine things all the time, however, even objects of the imagination are made possible because of metaphysical truths. The imaginary dragon would not be possible unless someone had first seen a kind of lizard that would resemble the fictional beast.

When hit with this arguement, determinists often will reveal the source of their viewpoint and assert that some choice may exist today or maybe had existed at one point but because it is so difficult to resist one’s determined nature that few, if any, are capable of it. This is a secularized mishmash of Platonic mysticism and Martin Luther’s re-assertment of the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin destroying man’s free will (this is also what Existentialist/Post-Modernist proponents of environmental/cultural determinism will regress to when backed into a corner), and it is not consistent with logical study of human nature and reality. It is a doctrine that views man as an impotent being, and the only difference between it and it’s medieval/ancient greek ancestor is that it is dressed up to look like a rational scientific assertion.

4

If we are determined by our genetics, as most genetic determinists assert, who or what determined the irrefutable will of our genes, they are not intelligent beings, they are mere sequences of chemical compounds? Furthermore, if genes are our puppet masters, why is it that we can manipulate them to serve our benefit?

Genes are not concious, no one ever said they were. You will also not find many respected geneticists arguing genetic factors govern all behaviour - or that knowledge of someone’s genetic make up will be enough to predict behaviour.

That said, I find it interesting you seem assume the only objects that have ‘intent’ can affect behaviour. Is this your position?

5

I’ve a friend who is mostly rational. intelligent and articulate, he and i often discuss philosophy. being something of an Objectivist scholar at a much younger age, i hold my own pretty well against the tide of irrationalities that get spewed at me sometimes. this time however, i find myself at a loss for coherant argument.

this friend has essentially put forth determinism as undeniable. he doesnt like it, but he doesnt think he can avoid it. essentially, that man has no choices, because our choice is made for us by previously determined factors. we only “choose” because we were programmed to do so by our genetics and experience. ive pulled up my lexicon and rifled through my books and found some half answers but nothing that directly helps me. my life-view cannot accept this idea to be true, but my mind is at a loss to express how it cannot be true. please give me the words that im looking for!

I define a choice as a decision made in the face of alternatives. Isn’t this what humans do? What else can you expect from free will?

First, all are actions work from the inside out, meaning that we aren’t like pool balls, that the only way they act is when they are hit by an outside force.

We are conscious. We have the type of consciousness that allows us to abstract enough to actually start to grasp the nature of nature, so that we can somewhat understand what the consequences of our actions are, and then make the decisions based on that. So, unlike other animals we have one more step in the causal chain before we take actions. For most animals, it is simple stimulus and response. But for man there is that extra abstraction step that allows us to see the potential outcomes of actions since we are more conceptually able. Thus we notice that have stimulus, (abstraction) thought/ponderence, then action. The middle step is the recognition of alternative courses of action.

This completely satisfies the best rational definition of free will one could have. You have stimulus, you recognize choices, and then you act.

But don’t let this issue get to you, if this post doesn’t help. I argue that this whole issue is completely irrelevant and not worthy of any real intellectual study. It should be something you might think about now and then for kicks.

6

my life-view cannot accept this idea to be true, but my mind is at a loss to express how it cannot be true. please give me the words that im looking for!

It cannot possibly be true that humans don’t have volition; it’s axiomatic. A given person can refuse to accept it (because he has volition, heh), but he still must make use of it at all times.

The only real way to validate volition is to point to the facts. Refusing to admit it when it’s pointed out is approximately equivalent to denying gravity when someone has dropped a rock and demonstrated it. How can you argue that the rock falling indicates the existence of gravity if someone refuses to accept the evidence of their senses?

All you can do is leave off in disgust and go elsewhere.

Edit: I mean a dropped rock indicates the existence of gravity in the sense that it indicates that some effect has caused the rock to fall, not that it proves a bunch of physics equations and so forth. The precise nature of gravity is STILL not understood, but the EFFECTS are easily demonstrable.

7

  1. Genes are not concious, no one ever said they were. You will also not find many respected geneticists arguing genetic factors govern all behaviour - or that knowledge of someone’s genetic make up will be enough to predict behaviour.

  2. That said, I find it interesting you seem assume the only objects that have ‘intent’ can affect behaviour. Is this your position?

  1. If our genes are not conscious, how do they “affect” something that possesses consciousness. Furthermore, I did not suggest that they were conscious, I merely said they were not intelligent, there is a clear difference between the two terms.

What I was getting at is “since our genes are not intelligent” they are unable to determine anything. In order for something to be “Determined”, it must be either programed by an outside entity (ergo computers are programmed by people) or an outside force (an object in motion pushing another into motion). Where is the force or entity that acts upon our genes to determine our nature, when you go back in time eventually you get to a point where humanity did not exist, so what determined the formation of the human gene?

Many respected geneticists can argue that the sky is green, do we automatically assume that they are correct without scrutinizing their evidence and questioning their premises? There have been many scientific errors of late, the most blatant of which is the theory of man-made global warming (which would suggest that the Polar Ice Caps on Mars are melting because the martians drive SUVs). I have a high respect for science, but that does not automatically translate into me defaulting to what scientists say.

  1. My position on the matter is that a meteoroid may be determined by the vacuum of space not stopping it’s collision course with a space shuttle, and a computer may be determined by it’s programmer, but that these analogies bear no burden upon the free will of man. The arguements in favor of the various determinisms of late drop the context that man is the one whom determines the things that he manipulates and then utilizes as analogies to refute his own freedom to choose to create such things, things that are not neccesarily essentially to his survival but which allow him to survive easier.

So I merely ask the question, who determines the determiner?

8

Jon, you seem to be using a contextually limited meaning of the word, “determined.” Either state the context in which you are using it or realize that determined can indeed apply to chemical genes, asteroids and the like, in that a present state was determined by any specific set of circumstances directly preceding any observed state. I am speaking in the context of inanimate objects.

… Where is the force or entity that acts upon our genes to determine our nature, when you go back in time eventually you get to a point where humanity did not exist, so what determined the formation of the human gene? […]

I’m just jumping in on a point so forgive me if I’m missing some context here in the discussion.

Genes do not determine our nature. Genes are simply part of a whole mechanism that is the progenerate of the specific nature of human beings.

9

Jon, you seem to be using a contextually limited meaning of the word, “determined.” Either state the context in which you are using it or realize that determined can indeed apply to chemical genes, asteroids and the like, in that a present state was determined by any specific set of circumstances directly preceding any observed state. I am speaking in the context of inanimate objects.

To clarify what I meant, proponents of determinism use analogies to such objects as “computers” to argue their points. I used the example of a meteoroid because it, like a computer, is an inanimate object. Basically the context is that a computer does nothing until someone punches in a program for it to follow, so I drew the analogy of a meteor in order to illustrate an absurdity hidden inside the technical lingo used to compare people and computers.

Essentially I would agree that certain circumstances determine the make-up of one’s genes (the volition of your parents consumating a sexual relationship), however, the thing that is always lacking is the link between genes and their order determining a person’s actions. The idea that genetic make-up will determine if a person will become either a scientist or a street sweeper sounds alot like voodoo science unless someone can explain to me the connection between genetic code and human action in a given situation.

10

illustrate an absurdity hidden inside the technical lingo used to compare people and computers.

Ok. I agree.

someone can explain to me the connection between genetic code and human action in a given situation.

Yes, there is still much to learn about the difference between genetic traits and environmental traits.

11

Yes, there is still much to learn about the difference between genetic traits and environmental traits.

And I would further argue that even with a clear distinction between the two made and proven conclusively, we must include within this the fact that the individual is not a slave to neither his genes nor his environment. They may influence him, but they do not rule him. I have seen too many people defy both their genetic lineage (an example being parents whom behave irresponsibly) and their environment (an example being growing up in a violent and impoverished area) and become something that could only be explained as a choice to defy both one’s line and one’s surroundings to truly assert the power given to every man, the potential of self-determination.