Howdy Guest!  / Create an account
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hard Determinism: Religious Scientific Dogma or Ridiculous Joke?
#1
Lately, I've found myself chewing on the concepts of Hard Determinism and free will. Specifically, what would it mean to free will, if Hard Determinism were true. A quick summation of the concept is this:

"1. Determinism is true: all events are caused.

2. Therefore, all human desires and choices are caused.

3. For an action to be free, it would have to be the result of a choice, desire or act of will which had no cause. That is, free WILL means that the Will or choosing "mechanism" initiates the action.

C: Therefore, there can be no free choices or free will."

(Link to the paper HERE;Couldn't find the author)

It's easy to see what Hard Determinism means to the existence of Free Will. It completely removes its existence. Without free choice, we become strictly causal beings.

There have been many arguments made against Hard Determinism. The difficulty is that none of them hold up well. For instance, the idea that Hard Determinism is "self-refuting" because it removes the existence of "true"/"false" statements. It's obvious that this objection has no merit, in an objective forum. True/false statements are not contingent on belief.
The objection seems to notice this. Thus, it tries to link true/false statements to belief. Unfortunately, that falls apart quickly, because belief + true/false can create a causal relationship, where one can create the other.

Other objections include our feeling like we have free will (what...), and the idea that intent is fundamentally necessary. The latter meaning that, if everything is causal and without intent, then the first material cause must have had a cause before it that was intentional. Essentially, we come about to the first-cause argument for God. Objectively, that argument never held any klout.

Why is this important to think about? Well, it essentially implies that all of our actions are pre-determined. Thus, it removes the concept of morality. This has a direct affect on fault. Fault becomes a matter of what caused, what would normally be an immoral, unpleasant event. It wouldn't be a matter of "who" caused, because the self does not exist. Furthermore, the idea of criminality is that there are two parts to it. The action and the intent of action. You need to do the thing, and also need to have done the thing knowing it was wrong and for the sake of it being wrong. None of this is possible, with Hard Determinism.

Now, we get to the crux of things. Science has done it's best to publically remove itself from the idea of Hard Determinism. By and large, they argue that determinism is true, but Hard Determinism might not be.
The current appeal to this claim is Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum Indeterminacy would state that there is a characteristic necessary within all physical systems, and that characteristic is fundamentally undeterminable.
For example, if you can definitely measure something's momentum, you cannot precisely specify its location. Also, if you can definitively measure the length of time a particle will hold its energy, then you cannot precisely measure how much energy a particle has.

It is obvious that indeterminacy and determinism are not compatible with each other, within the same system. You'd think this would have been the end of it, but you think wrong.

As we've pointed out many times on this site, and also as has been pointed out on many other academic sites, the matter of quantum inteterminacy is more a display of our ignorance on the subject. There could eventually come a time where a new system, which is capable of answering these questions, could arise. It was a weak attempt to maintain a certain level of moral responsibility in society. After it was made, it was business as usual.

One of the fundamental implications of Hard Determinism is the claim that only the physical realm exists. Anything that claims to be outside of the measurable realm does not exist. Does that sound familiar?

On TP, this tends to manifest itself in the form of "Where's your evidence to prove God?" or "Where's your evidence it was a ghost?". Science is still, very much, hard deterministic.





Death is when your body ceases burning that energy. Beyond death, there is nothing to know, except that your physical body will release itself, as energy into the ground(nitrogen cycle) or space(cremation via heat energy).

Definitive, no? "There's no evidece that I have any consciousness of anything." If the measurable is all that exists, then the objection by quantam mechanics is a ruse. It's just a matter of time before we come to discover how to remove that indeterminacy from the equation.

Here's where we remain:
1. In science, the tacit implication that only our measurable existence is what makes up reality.

2. Anything physical is fundamentally driven by causal relations. "A" causes "B".

3. This is the description of Hard Determinism.

C: Scientific concensus is the belief of Hard Determinism.

TP, Hard Determinism directly guns for free will. You might think it is a strong case, but I will now present to you why it's a most ridiculous concept. It is the epitome of the scientific community's ignorance.

Free Will is directly linked to morality. Both are vulnerable to Hard Determinism. However,

1. Morality = Action + Intent

2. Intent = Knowledge + Deliberation(the application of reason)

3. Knowledge requires understanding.

4. Understanding is not compatible with the sole existence causal relation.

C: Hard Determinism is untrue.

Hard Determinism doesn't even get to the point where it threatens free will. It dissolves itself at the get-go.

First, morality is the combination of action and intent. Action is simple. Physically, you commit to doing or not doing something. Intent is required, coinciding with action, in order to create morality. As mentioned earlier in the post, you have to want to do it, knowing that it is right or wrong. How do you resolve whether it was right or wrong?

That brings us to our second premise: Intent = Knowledge + Deliberation.
We acquire knowledge of our surroundings and scenarios. After we acquire this knowledge, we set off to apply our reason to it. Reason is developed. There is a small part of it that is influenced by external factors, such as society, rearing, and school education. However, that just gets the ball rolling for the application of reason. The real work is done when you sit and begin learning how to critically think. You get to find new and more efficient ways to decipher knowledge. This directly leads to intent. Everyone has a perspective, this facilitates it.

However, knowledge is dependent on one thing: Understanding. If you do not understand what you have in front of you, you cannot generate knowledge. The scientific method requires the understanding of observations and inference in order to generate knowledge. "We know" only comes about because someone once said "Ooohhh...I get it."
The problem with hard determinism is found within the age-old test for artificial intelligence: The Chinese Room Argument. If cause and effect is all that exists, then it is perfectly possible for every scientific breakthrough to be pre-ordained. Not an ounce of understanding is required to go from Causal point A to Causal point B. It's as if you are merely locked in a room with nothing but a collection of unintelligible books, and eventually come to create the atomic bomb, merely by matching symbols together.

Here's the cool part. If understanding doesn't exist, then nothing we "know" is true, because it isn't something we "know". Objectively, it's irrelevant whether or not it's true. We don't understand it. As a result, theories and belief systems break down. This includes Hard Determinism. Hard Determinism, if true, defeats itself. And, if you try to make an argument for the existence of understanding, you've built the foundation for Free Will, which means that Hard Determinism is wrong.

As a result, this leads to one possible option: Dualism. The idea that reality is made up of two realms: The measurable realm, and the immeasurable realm.

That immeasurable realm is conceptual. The realm of intent. It is within this realm that I believe ghosts and spirits exist. It is from this realm that I believe we can have all manners of abilities. It is also within this realm that any religion, not necessarily Christianity or Hindu etc., exists in its true nature. Dualism facilitates the existence of morality and free will. It also has room for the existence of causal forces, as it is obvious these forces do exist, even if not solely.

Anyways, thank you for taking the time to read this. Too long for me to want to edit, so I'm sorry if it's horrific in grammar. I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)






About Talk Paranormal Forum

...

              Quick Links

              User Links

             ...

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...