Is determinism more intelligible than free will?

Question

Thanks to all your answers philosophers. Have a great day!

Answer 1

No, it is not.

If matter in motion didn’t act in a deterministic way, what would it mean? If hot water and fresh coffee grounds didn’t always make a cup of coffee, but sometimes, for no reason, made sulfuric acid, would we ever drink what is in the cup? No! It is the deterministic nature of matter in motion that allows us to live as we live in virtually every aspect of our lives.

The question is do we act in the same way? Does the matter in motion that makes up you and me act deterministically? Or can we act independently or transcendently? Are what we call thoughts and ideas necessarily determined by the atoms bouncing around in our heads the way atoms bounce around in solar systems? If our minds consist of nothing more than the same matter that makes up the rest of the universe, one may be tempted to answer, yes. But, then the question would be, isn’t that answer also necessarily determined? And on and on it goes! If what we call “thoughts” are necessarily determined, then words and ideas really have no meaning, we could not have thought or acted any differently than we did anymore than Jupiter could take a break.

With determinism all “knowledge” terms are functional synonyms. For instance, one person comes to a “true conclusion” and another to a “false conclusion,” both are the necessary effects of antecedent causes belonging to matter in motion. Neither person can come to any other conclusion; they were determined to come to that conclusion and only that conclusion by the antecedent causes. To call a person’s argument “stupid” or “brilliant” in a deterministic worldview is nonsense on one level and a functional synonym on another level. It is nonsense because the argument in question is just the product of antecedent causes and can be no other than it is. There is no independent mind that can take credit or be given credit for the argument; there are just antecedent causes that produce the necessary effect. On the other level, the judgment that an argument is “stupid” or “brilliant” is itself the product of antecedent causes, and the person making the judgment can say nothing else. In this way the judgments of “stupid” and “brilliant” are functional synonyms. These judgments say nothing about the actual argument, but are merely effects necessarily determined by antecedent causes.

This is why it is the case that if the deterministic position is true, there is no knowledge. Like “stupid” and “brilliant,” “knowledge” and “ignorance” are also functional synonyms. Both terms can mean nothing more than “effects of antecedent causes.” The so-called “ignorant man” is thus because of antecedent causes. In fact, he could be nothing else. The “knowledgeable man” is thus because of antecedent causes. In fact, he could be nothing else. It would also be true that the person judging them as knowledgeable or ignorant could come to no other judgment. His judgment is not an independent conclusion, but the determined effect of antecedent causes that were put in motion many years ago; which of course makes the judgment also meaningless.

For “knowledgeable” and “ignorant” to be antonyms, a level of independence must be present. For terms like “Sound argument” or “invalid argument” to have different meanings, a level of independence must be present within the judge. For the conclusions of opposing arguments to have any real and distinct value, the arguers and the judges must have the ability to make decisions independent of mere matter in motion. So, any philosophical position that denies this level of independence, necessarily denies the existence of real knowledge. In a system, like determinism, where knowledge and ignorance are functionally the same thing, the term “knowledge” is meaningless.

In cosmological Naturism, reality consists of only nature, i.e. our universe. By universe we mean our dimensions of time and space, energy and matter and all that is inherent to them. In Naturism, this universe, which is basically matter in motion, is all that exists. Basically, everything is made up of some kind of matter in motion. There are simple compositions of matter and complex compositions of matter; there is light matter, dark matter, normal matter and exotic matter, but there exists nothing but matter. This is the cosmology of western Atheism; it is a cosmology that most of us are familiar with.

The next question we must ask is which elements in this cosmology get us to knowledge? Which elements of this cosmology allow us to be independent of or to rise above the deterministic nature of mere matter in motion, so that we can have free thought and are able to make free decisions; not simply act as we must like some predetermined programmed mechanism? Well, if matter in motion is all there is, then matter in motion is all there is! In other words, there are no elements that allow us to draw independent conclusions, or to give real meaning to words and sentences. If this form of atheistic cosmology it true, then the matter in motion that makes up you and me must also act in a necessarily determined way, as all other matter in motion must. What we call thoughts, are nothing more than the result of atoms and molecules bouncing around in our heads as they must according to the laws of physics. If this is true, then it would be impossible for me not to be a Christian; that is the way the atoms are bouncing and no one can do anything about it. It would be impossible for an Atheist not to be an Atheist; that is the way the atoms are bouncing in his head. This means there is no such thing as real “thoughts,” there is merely the necessary bouncing of atoms, deterministically producing what bouncing atoms produce.

At this point one could question the existence of knowledge. There are problems with this position too. You see, all assertions about knowledge are statements of knowledge! For instance, when someone says that knowledge exists, he is saying that he knows that knowledge exists. When a person denies that knowledge exists, he is saying that he knows that knowledge does not exist. He is saying he knows something, while affirming that no one can know anything! It gets even worse. A person can assert that one cannot know if knowledge exists, but this is also a statement that asserts that the person knows that we cannot know if knowledge exists. These last two assertions about knowledge are what we call self-stultifying. This is because if the statement is true, then the statement is false.

So, the only logically consistent statement is that knowledge (and its element of independence) does exist. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we know everything or that we can ever know everything. It just means that we can derive correct independent conclusions.

Answer 2

It may appear so, like all arguments in philosophy, that something must always determine what happens to someone from a previous course or event. However, is it more intelligible,- one could argue that it actually is foolish; for it is what keeps the status quo and because everything is back tracked to an ancient cause or way or belief then nothing ever really moves forward.

Where as in the course of using ones "free will" they are making choices that break the mold, shed the constrains of the past of external circumstances and forge new ground to dictate ones own fate or divine will. Thus presenting new concepts that may transcended the old ways to a better tomorrow.

Answer 3

determinism is probably the side that has more support for it, but i would think neither side is conclusive. its uncertain whether or not things like the randomness on the quantum level would allow free will to exist. but there hasnt been any formulation of human reaction yet that can conclusively say we are determined to act just one way. this very well may be just an endless debate for us to have.

Answer 4

A big YES.

Free will does not make sense in a physical sense, and does not make sense in a theological sense.

Where would this alleged mysterious free will come from? You must resort to dualism... a spirit comes down upon your brain to impart its will. That is a god-of-the-gaps approach, and sadly for the religious that gap is soon to be entirely closed.

QM is a ridiculous assertion. At best you're passing the "will" on to a random number generator. Its also absurd because QM is relevalent on only extremely small scales - its beyond affecting the brain.

Answer 5

Yes, but it depends who you talk to. Determinism has utilitarian history, the cause and effect metaphor, system and processive mechanism concepts, but so could free will. Pessimistically determinism sees free will as found on superstition, whereas optimistic determinism sees free will as found on something uniquely human in the use of the word 'I', the smallest expression for ego and in its context a symptom of self reflection.

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sl/slactual.htm#SL145n

Answer 6

For a lot of people, it's certanly more comforting. But without any free will, there's no reason for anyone to do anything except set around and wait for whatever happens next. Of course, that's what a lot of people do anyway, but I'm definitely not in that camp ☺

Doug

Answer 7

While it may be more intelligible, I doubt it to be more intelligent. It explains too much too easily. The X factor is ever present.