Comments on: The Demon of Determinism

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:38:04 +0000

Mr. Shermer’s solution to free will’s origin is complexity induced ignorance? That is not very helpful. He, on the one hand, eschews Dennett’s conclusion that freedom originates in determinism, and on the other basically states that ultra complex deterministic causes can spawn freedom. Undoubtedly the key ingredient is complexity.

By: Trev

Trev — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:39:02 +0000

I think Dennett has a tendency to just redefine the term which he says he is explaining. In “Consciousness Explained” and “Elbow Room”, he follows the same strategy. He begins by saying “Let’s start by being neutral about what consciousness/free will is, and then look at the evidence”. He then goes on to look at various scientific accounts of brain/cognitive activity and then, late in the piece, he declares “There, that is what consciousness/free will is.” This isn’t actually an empirical investigation of a phenomenon, it’s just a way of defining a term. It’s like saying “I can show scientifically that Santa Claus exists”, then describing how parents bring the presents and fill the stockings, and then saying “See? Santa exists as the actions of the parents”. It’s actually no different from just flat-out declaring that Santa doesn’t exist. In the same way, Dennett’s eventual definitions of consciousness and free will are indistinguishable from behaviourism and determinism.

By: J. D. Draeger

J. D. Draeger — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 04:14:45 +0000

Anyone who knows about the existence of mirror neurons in other animals besides humans should question the validity of the second point of Dennett’s summarized thesis: we are the only species with free will because we have a “self,” a sense of being self-aware, and even aware that others are self-aware. It’s a good thing science involves actually doing experiments to determine objective reality, rather than relying on long-winded thought experiments by philosophers.

By: sitbytheriver

sitbytheriver — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:57:08 +0000

Well said, skeptic griggsy.
Visual artists are acutely aware of the natural propensity to see and identify patterns. Many viewers of contemporary paintings ask “what is it supposed to be?” They search for identifiable images (created by recognizable patterns) and then extract meaning from the symbolism of those images. And what becomes very clear is that every viewer perceives it differently.

An artist friend was in the process of drawing a figure, and a viewer pointed at the drawing and said “that arm is wrong”. My friend said “you believe that is an arm? That is not an arm. that is a drawing.” he was right.

By: skeptic griggsy

skeptic griggsy — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:22:18 +0000

Don’t we have compatabilist freedom- causal free will as contrary to contra-causal free will? We can change our causes as I did with therapy and medicine. The cause of depression and other matters caused me to seek help.Now I aam freer. We give cause to others to behave better. That is my take on the whole matter.
By the way, to change the subject,as philosopher Paul Draper in an email to me notes, the weight of evidence is against cosmic teleology, so God need not apply to be Super Boss of natural causes and explanations, which are the sufficient reason. We see patterns ,not designs and no designer; to so see is to use pareidolia like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla. It is the mere feelling that some caring, super mind has to be behind and beyond Existence,[ which as everything[ Lee Smolin] such that there can be no such entity.]Any dvinity would have to be immanent and contingent!

By: Tuffgong

Tuffgong — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:11:10 +0000

Free will from what I can determine from reading the first three chapters of a Sociology textbook in my sophomore year of high school for pleasure: free will is the existence of our capability to differentiate choices and act on those choices with self-awareness that his shared amongst ourselves in a social system in which we can hold ourselves accountable for the choices we make.

As it turns out this fits with behavior studies in animals. Behavior is a mix of genetics and environmental factors. The more advanced and social the species, the more environmental factors play a role in our behavior. Environmental factors are enormous in our behavior, which includes our system of language, social interaction, and learned thought. As we see apes develop basic primate characteristics including moral choice, they are moving along from less genetic to more environmental factors. Biologically speaking determinism is genetic influence that has been determined through natural selection. Environmental factors makes behavior much more fluid. There is an area in evolution in which true free will by means of conscious thought and communication through language and such.

Incidentally the system of environmental influence creates within it situations in which there is no choice. However those are particular and the lack of choice comes from the difference in authority in culture that we established anyway.

It is through a mix of occurrences in which we mostly do and sometimes can’t make a choice in a social environment is what we have now as our free will as humans.

Determinism as it is now to us is nothing but the easy way out. We created the concept with the idea that our actions are determined and we don’t have to “worry about it”. It automatically creates a grand purpose that our psychology can suck on like a lollipop. Under that thinking we “think” we have free will when we don’t and our existence is blah blah blah… A bunch of bunkum.

By: Charles Braslow

Charles Braslow — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:21:01 +0000

Doesn’t the Heisenberg Principle at least slay Laplace’s Demon insofar as it removes the theoretical possibility of knowing both the precise position and momentum of any particle, much less all particles in the universe?