Moral consquences of determinism

[littlebabyjesus]

People being scared of the word 'cunt'.
People being scared of actual cunts (see the masses of restrictions that Judaism has on what women do during their blobby week).
All manner of relgious nonsense, actually.
No one being allowed to see a woman's bare ankle in Victorian England.
Miscegenation taboos.
Talking about cancer.
Same re: mental illness.
Same re: Holocaust figures.

etc etc etc etc

Taboo is in fact too narrow a word – my point really covers the development of culture in general and the reason it has developed as it has. Examples of 'useless' taboos could arise from various complications of self-awareness, not least attempts to deal with the knowledge of our own mortality. As such, I agree that they are not to be traced back to pre-cultural traits, so I have to modify my original thesis. Once present, self-awareness can generate its own taboos, norms, etc.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But there is no great reason to think that our knowledge, or lack thereof, has any cosmological significance. The completeness or otherwise of our information has no necessary relation with the question as to whether many different futures can flow from the present state of the world.

It has a large bearing on our ability to answer such a question.

If complete knowledge is impossible, so is answering this question. And how can we know whether or not complete knowledge is possible?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's about right. Quantum mechanics is compatable with special relativity. You can give quantum mechanics a relativistic correction and you come up with quantum field theory (Dirac). So there is no contradiction with relativity even if there seems to be an action at a distance ie. there is no super-luminal signaling.

Thanks.

I'm a bit scared of Dirac. Maybe I'll have to tackle him.

 

[8ball]

Once present, self-awareness can generate its own taboos, norms, etc.

I'd like some fleshing out as to what this bit means.

 

[Jonti]

Be assured, mortal, that complete knowledge is impossible.

That is different to saying that with incomplete information, many different pasts/futures may seem compatible with the present state of the world. That is a truism -- a consequence of a language game.

It remains at least scientifically and physically possible that many different futures can flow from the present state of the world.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Be assured, mortal, that complete knowledge is impossible.

That is different to saying that with incomplete information, many different pasts/futures may seem compatible.

Not really. With incomplete information, many different pasts/futures are compatible with that information. If complete information is impossible, then how can we comment on what is or isn't compatible with it?

We can't even say for sure what complete information would be.

 

[Knotted]

One can -- and sometimes should -- play the language game of doubt and the fallibility of human knowledge. We are fallible and liable to make errors however we interpret scientific theories.

But there is no great reason to think that our knowledge, or lack thereof, has any cosmological significance. The completeness or otherwise of our information has no necessary relation with the question as to whether many different futures can flow from the present state of the world.

That's more or less why I favour determinism. If it's simply a question that we don't know the future then this is just a statement about what we know not a statement about the future. The main cause for scepticism about determinism I have is the possibility that our physical theories of time are flawed and the question is misconceived.

Some physicists (Lee Smolin for example) have suggested that the account of time in both general relativity and quantum field theory is unsatisfactory and doesn't seem to account for what we experience.

 

[Knotted]

Thanks.

I'm a bit scared of Dirac. Maybe I'll have to tackle him.

It's difficult to understand quantum mechanics without understanding the mathematics. The best thing to do is to work out the density matrices of entangled particles and see how it comes out for yourself then go through John Bell's arguments.

 

[Knotted]

Be assured, mortal, that complete knowledge is impossible.

That is different to saying that with incomplete information, many different pasts/futures may seem compatible with the present state of the world. That is a truism -- a consequence of a language game.

It remains at least scientifically and physically possible that many different futures can flow from the present state of the world.

Is it not possible that many different pasts can flow from the present state of the world? Why do you believe backwards determinism but not forwards determinism? Forwards determinism is more plausible - entropy increases overall ie. the future holds fewer possibilities than the past.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'd like some fleshing out as to what this bit means.

Ok, I'll try.

The first thing to do is to look at groups of individuals that are not self-aware, and see how their behaviour is regulated. Within groups, social controls such as hierarchies exist, but also innate controls such as deer not fighting to the death over females, for instance. This latter is not learned behaviour.

Many culturally determined norms of behaviour, including moral codes such as the 10 commandments, can be understood as a means of controlling behaviour where self-aware individuals are presented with choices. This is learned behaviour, and in many cases it is in fact an extension of what would have been innate behaviour were they not self-aware – basically, we are, to a large extent, inclined towards obeying the law.

As I outlined, there is a possible mechanism in this process by which innate behavioural controls are replaced by/reinforced by learned controls whereby the innate controls become weakened within a population over time. This could lead to a tightening and distortion of the learned controls – quite possibly to such an extent that their origin as a replacement for innate controls becomes obscured.

This model allows for examples of social controls that are entirely new to self-aware individuals, and have been produced precisely by the problems self-awareness throws up – how to deal with knowledge of one's own mortality, for instance.

Other 'new' problems may be caused by our cleverness, which has vastly greater possibilities of expression because of the feedback system that is self-awareness and what Damasio calls 'extended consciousness' (we're not just conscious over a narrow range of time, but also of ourselves as beings extended over time in a world extended over time). At the very least old problems, such as regulating power within the group, will need new solutions. Again, as societies become more complex, the origin of a particular learned behavioural control may be very obscure.

 

[Knotted]

Two ways we know about physical events. Firstly we can look at the record and see what it shows, secondly we can extrapolate from what we already know. The first seems more fundamental than the second but I would resist seeing it that way, I think we always use a combination of the two.

The problem with knowing about the future is that there is no record of the future. I think it is this fact that leads some people to see determinism as absurd. If there is no record of something it doesn't exist. Only the past exists.

Is this right? There is no record of anything outside our past light cone. This includes anything in the future but also anything on the other side of an event horizon or a de Sitter horizon. We certainly wouldn't say a black hole does not exist, and yet it is not from our past. Black holes do not offer a record of what went into them. However they certainly exert a gravitational pull - they have a real effect on us.

I don't know whether the future is determined by the present, but I do think the future is real. It isn't something that we can change. It is record over extrapolation fundamentalism (ie. positivism) to say otherwise. [I think this is the only real difference between Dawkins and Gould - Dawkins is more comfortable with extrapolation].

This is not to say that nothing is worthwhile. Given that there is no record of the future we cannot verify the future. There is no way to empirically check the future. You cannot see into the future. You cannot base your life on your future, you can only base your life on the different possibilities that you can extrapolate about your future.

 

[Jonti]

I don't know whether the future is determined by the present, but I do think the future is real. It isn't something that we can change.

Not everything that happens matters very much, or has a lasting effect, so it's almost trivially true that many different futures can flow from the present. And just as true that the present is consistent with many different pasts.

Standing in the present, we interpret the past, but the physical shape of the past events is fixed. All we can do is change how we feel about past events, and so change their effect on our future.

On the other hand, the physical shape of future events is open. We cannot help but choose this or that future, depending on how we interpret events around us.

 

[8ball]

Ok, I'll try. . . <snip>

Hmmm - it's kind of handwavy and appears to be full of holes, but maybe that's just vagueness or maybe you're glossing over some bits for brevity.

In case you're interested - some of the bits that look a iffy to me are:

" . . moral codes such as the 10 commandments, can be understood as a means of controlling behaviour where self-aware individuals are presented with choices. This is learned behaviour, and in many cases it is in fact an extension of what would have been innate behaviour were they not self-aware . ."

Any evidence at all for this assertion in the second sentence?

"As I outlined, there is a possible mechanism in this process by which innate behavioural controls are replaced by/reinforced by learned controls whereby the innate controls become weakened within a population over time."

I don't buy this, nor does it seem to ring true.

Also, I don't see what this theory is meant to explain that isn't currently perfectly explainable. Maybe once your theory is fully developed it could have its own thread . . .

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The theory goes some way towards explaining how and why culture has developed as it has. It's also a response to Freud's ideas about culture and the nature of 'law-givers', which I think are totally wrong.

I'll address your points in detail when I have the time.

 

[Jonti]

Be assured, mortal, that complete knowledge is impossible.

That is different to saying that with incomplete information, many different pasts/futures may seem compatible with the present state of the world. That is a truism -- a consequence of a language game.

It remains at least scientifically and physically possible that many different futures can flow from the present state of the world.

This is the point I want to brandish, to dispense with the notion of the OP that 'science' has proven determinism. It has done no such thing. Of course, the scientific method can work in an unpredictable world (whether or not that unpredictability overlies an unknown determinist generator). The scientific method works without metaphysical and philosophical preconditions. That's why scientists were hounded and oppressed back in the day, let's not forget.

That all events have a cause, and lead back to a first cause, is not a result of science. It is a hugely successful, even essential, methodological assumption, and it reaches its full flowering in classical physics. It's become part of the modern world-view.

But that thing about complete information ... about having a complete and comprehensive pattern, a universal langauge for the world as imagined by Leibnitz: Gregory Chaitin says "No!" and does the math

 

[bhamgeezer]

This is the point I want to brandish, to dispense with the notion of the OP that 'science' has proven determinism. It has done no such thing. Of course, the scientific method can work in an unpredictable world (whether or not that unpredictability overlies an unknown determinist generator). The scientific method works without metaphysical and philosophical preconditions. That's why scientists were hounded and oppressed back in the day, let's not forget.

That all events have a cause, and lead back to a first cause, is not a result of science. It is a hugely successful, even essential, methodological assumption, and it reaches its full flowering in classical physics. It's become part of the modern world-view.

But that thing about complete information ... about having a complete and comprehensive pattern, a universal langauge for the world as imagined by Leibnitz: Gregory Chaitin says "No!" and does the math

I would never claim such a thing

I agree it is not a scientifc fact, determinism is an unfalsifiable thesis. However I am certainly not a scientific realist and therefore derive my ideas about determinism from experience more than partical physics. Surely its not a faith if you are open to a change in belief through rational argument

My perception of science is of a working empirical model subject to paradigm revolution that whilst potentially conceptionally the most accurate of the conceptions available, it certainly does not equate with truth.

My point was concerning the relationship of thesis (be it true or false) and it's relationship with the human moral attitude. I want to know if people require the thesis to be false to understand human morality or put another way, whether the existence of human morality necessitates its falsity.

 

[kyser_soze]

I fail to see the relevance of even discussing morality within the framework of a deterministic universe, outside of some post-facto method of criticising/praising someone for something good.

What I find interesting is that someone like lbj, a believer in progressive politics and that we can affect change, also thinks that ultimately the whole notion that we have some kind of choice over our actions is bunk...

 

[bhamgeezer]

I fail to see the relevance of even discussing morality within the framework of a deterministic universe, outside of some post-facto method of criticising/praising someone for something good.

What I find interesting is that someone like lbj, a believer in progressive politics and that we can affect change, also thinks that ultimately the whole notion that we have some kind of choice over our actions is bunk...

Why is it that you believe morality cannot exist within a hypothetical determinate universe?

What is it that you require a moral choice to be over and above the sum of the determinate processes of the inhabitants of this theoretical universes mind and body?

If the grounds for moral choices is not derived from determined processes, where are they derived from?

 

[kyser_soze]

It's not that it can't exist, it's simply what's the point of even developing it as a thought process? If everything is pre-determined, that there is no opportunity to affect change in one's own behaviour because you will simply do whatever the sum total of your life has already meant your unconcious self has decided, why bother having moral codes in the first place? Indeed, why even bother with the illusion of free will? Just accept whatever the universe throws at you with good grace and never, ever fight back against what you perceive as injustice - after all, no matter what you or others do, it was still going to happen whatever so why bother getting in a piss about it all?

 

[bhamgeezer]

It's not that it can't exist, it's simply what's the point of even developing it as a thought process? If everything is pre-determined, that there is no opportunity to affect change in one's own behaviour because you will simply do whatever the sum total of your life has already meant your unconcious self has decided, why bother having moral codes in the first place? Indeed, why even bother with the illusion of free will? Just accept whatever the universe throws at you with good grace and never, ever fight back against what you perceive as injustice - after all, no matter what you or others do, it was still going to happen whatever so why bother getting in a piss about it all?

Well personally I think this is complete misinterpretation of what determinism implys. It does not imply nihilism, I am quite happy with that idea that whilst my "decisions" (or at least what appear to my consciousness as decisions) are in some respect mine as I experience them, whilst simultaneously everything I do is entirely determined by physical information I experience interacts with the determinate processes of my mind and body.

The reason I "bother" to have moral actions is because it is completely rational to do so, I do not need a determinism superveneing "choice" of make me feel good about acting in a moral fashion. It is simply true that any individual who is functioning properly will follow a moral code within a society to some degree. Every moral choice I make is entirely derived from my perception which in turn derived from the exterior world, how can it be anything else but determined by this?

 

[kyser_soze]

But since your actions and responses are pre-determined, and you have no meaningful input into them, why bother calling them moral? Indeed, why bother doing anything - you can't change your actions, you can't change the world around you through those actions. Indeed, since even the act of my typing was pre-determined at the moment of the Big Bang through a chain of cause and effect events best represented as infinity-1, we're all simply acting out a script, why bother even thinking about whether your actions are moral or not? It's only a fake mask of unconcious drives and externalities ranging from your upbringing to the moral code of the culture you live in - ultimately your actions, moral or otherwise, are pre-determined and you have no stake whatsoever.

Every moral choice I make is entirely derived from my perception which in turn derived from the exterior world, how can it be anything else but determined by this?

But you don't make a choice - your reactions are pre-determined already.

 

[Wolveryeti]

I think the right/left wing continuum can often be usefully summarised by the determinism question. Right wingers are almost always believers in 'free will' and responsibility, whereas left wingers allow a much greater role for cultural conditioning (i.e. determinism).

 

[bhamgeezer]

But since your actions and responses are pre-determined, and you have no meaningful input into them, why bother calling them moral? Indeed, why bother doing anything - you can't change your actions, you can't change the world around you through those actions. Indeed, since even the act of my typing was pre-determined at the moment of the Big Bang through a chain of cause and effect events best represented as infinity-1, we're all simply acting out a script, why bother even thinking about whether your actions are moral or not? It's only a fake mask of unconcious drives and externalities ranging from your upbringing to the moral code of the culture you live in - ultimately your actions, moral or otherwise, are pre-determined and you have no stake whatsoever.

But what you are essentially consists of that deterministic process so whats the problem, it sounds like you are the one giving yourself the headfuck when you think about the thesis. If determinism is true, you have no more reason to lie down and do nothing than you do to never stop doing what you are doing now, or to start running and never stop, the truth of the thesis simply would imply nothing in regards to how humans should behave in the world.

But you don't make a choice - your reactions are pre-determined already.

In my opinion a choice has never consisted of anything more than the determinate interaction of one body and enviroment so it is fine to call it a choice. The type of choice you are suggesting is nothing more than a daydream of religious madmen that we still suffer the hangover from today, at least in my personal opinion.

 

[kabbes]

Thing is, kyser, the fact that we seek to determine the "best" moral path and follow it is part of the determinism that we are bound by. I do things because I think they are moral -- the fact that this decision is essentially out of my hands doesn't change the fact that I do what I do because a decision was made. If morality was not what it is, that decision would have been different and a different path would have been pursued.

Mostly, it's best not to think about it I reckon.

 

[bhamgeezer]

I think the right/left wing continuum can often be usefully summarised by the determinism question. Right wingers are almost always believers in 'free will' and responsibility, whereas left wingers allow a much greater role for cultural conditioning (i.e. determinism).

Well the most dangerous right-wingers I would suggest believe in genetic determinism

 

[kyser_soze]

Nah, fuck that. The whole point of being human is to be able to know why you make those choices, and change that why for yourself. Otherwise we're just little wind-up toys endlessly reacting to externally determined stimuli with no actual choice as to how we respond to it, or indeed shape that world.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nah, fuck that. The whole point of being human is to be able to know why you make those choices, and change that why for yourself. Otherwise we're just little wind-up toys endlessly reacting to externally determined stimuli with no actual choice as to how we respond to it, or indeed shape that world.

We're intentional beings – we react to external stimuli in an extraordinarily complex way and always for a reason that we ourselves have determined. Are we in control of our decision-making process? The question is ill-posed since we are the decision-making process.

 

[bhamgeezer]

Nah, fuck that. The whole point of being human is to be able to know why you make those choices, and change that why for yourself. Otherwise we're just little wind-up toys endlessly reacting to externally determined stimuli with no actual choice as to how we respond to it, or indeed shape that world.

You adding emotional connatations of the thesis that it does not deserve, if it is the case you are not outside of its casuality powerless to effect it, you are living breathing part of it. In my opinion it is in fact morally empowering to be aware of it as it indicates the significance of our own knowledge and experience in our moral "decisions" (or at least those things we traditionally call decisions, definitions aside).

I would like to add that I don't actually know if I believe the world is determined, I just think the moral argument against it is really weak. Now argument from consciousness are alot stronger in my opinion.

 

[kyser_soze]

We're intentional beings – we react to external stimuli in an extraordinarily complex way and always for a reason that we ourselves have determined. Are we in control of our decision-making process? The question is ill-posed since we are the decision-making process.

True. But I want to be able to know why I lift my arm up before I do it. I want to get into that dark place and truly live up to the concept of tenet nosce. I want my live consciousness to be aware as the decisions take place, not as a post-facto, last minute censor on my actions.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

True. But I want to be able to know why I lift my arm up before I do it. I want to get into that dark place and truly live up to the concept of tenet nosce. I want my live consciousness to be aware as the decisions take place, not as a post-facto, last minute censor on my actions.

Tough.

But the live consciousness is involved in a constant feedback that informs our decisions. You can consciously decide to lift your arm. You just won't know why you lifted it at that particular moment until after you've done it. But our intention is wider than just the not-quite-live consciousness, and it's all us.

The knowledge that consciousness self-representation has a time delay on it doesn't bother me, I must admit.