promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 12:02 pm
Here's the take on 'determinism' that shook me all up back when I was a proud young determinist. In any case, the following is essentially saying that causality exists, but there is nothing 'making' anything happen in the sense of directing or intending, conditions that we associate to the meaning of 'determining', except us, or other goal oriented machines. Are any of us machines 'free' in the sense freewillists mean? No. But we are determiners nonetheless.
She's (Rosa the Red) thinking that traditional determinism alienated and estranged man by placing responsibility for his actions and fate into the hands of the gods or the state. It was all bourgeois metaphysics and platonism. She's also standing on similar ground as Russell here regarding the idea of natural law.
....
"Here is my summary [of my ideas on 'determinism'], but comrades should not expect a water-tight solution to such a knotty problem in a few paragraphs.
This issue has always revolved around the use of terminology drawn from traditional philosophy (such as "determined", "will", "free", and the like), the use of which bears no relation to how these words are employed in ordinary speech.
For example, "determine" and its cognates are typically used in sentences like this "The rules determine what you can do in chess", "The time of the next train can be determined from the timetable", or "I am determined to go on the demonstration" and so on. Hence, this word is normally used in relation to what human beings can do, can apply, or can bring about.
As we will see, their use in traditional thought inverts this, making nature the agent and human beings the patient. No wonder then that the 'solution' to this artificial problem (i.e., 'determinism' and 'free will') has eluded us for over 2000 years.
To use an analogy, would we take seriously anyone who wondered when the King and Queen in chess got married and then wanted to know who conducted the ceremony? Or, whether planning permission had been sought for that castle over in the corner? Such empty questions, of course, have no answer.
To be sure, this is more difficult to see in relation to the traditional question at hand, but it is nonetheless the result of similar confusions. So, it is my contention that this 'problem' has only arisen because ideologically motivated theorists (from centuries ago) asked such empty questions based on a misuse of language. [More on this below]
When the details are worked out, 'determinism', for instance, can only be made to seem to work if nature is anthropomorphised, so that such things as 'natural law' 'determine' the course of events -- both in reality in general and in the central nervous system in particular -- thus 'controlling' what we do.
But, this is to take concepts that properly apply to what we do and can decide, and then impose them on natural events, suggesting that nature is controlled by a cosmic will of some sort. [Why this is so, I will outline presently.]
So, it's natural to ask: Where is this law written, and who passed it?
Of course, the answer to these questions is "No one" and "Nowhere," but then how can something that does not exist control anything?
It could be responded that natural law is just a summary of how things have so far gone up to now. In that case, such 'laws' are descriptive, not prescriptive -- but it is the latter of these implications that determinists need.
Now, the introduction of modal notions here (such as 'must' or 'necessary') can not be justified from this descriptive nature of 'law' without re-introducing the untoward anthropomorphic connotations mentioned above.
So, if we say that A has always followed B, we cannot now say A must follow B unless we attribute to B some form of control over A (and recall A has not yet happened, so what B is supposed to be controlling is somewhat obscure). And if we now try to say what we mean by 'control' (on lines such as 'could not be otherwise', or 'B made A happen') we need to explain how B prevented, say, C happening instead, and made sure that A, and only A took place.
The use of "obey" here would give the game away, since if this word is used with connotations that go beyond mere description, then this will imply that events like A understand the 'law' (like so many good citizens), and always do the same when B beckons, right across the entire universe --, and, indeed, that this 'law' must exist in some form to make things obey it. Of course, if it doesn't mean this, then what does it mean?
Now, I maintain that any attempt to fill in the details here will introduce notions of will and intelligence into the operation of B on A (and also on C) -- and that is why theorists have found they have had to drag in anthropomorphic concepts here (such as 'determine', 'obey' 'law' and 'control') to fill this gap, failing to note that the use of such words does indeed imply there is a will of some sort operating in nature. [But, note the qualification I introduce here below. There were ideological reasons why these words were, in fact, used.]
If this is denied, then 'determine' (etc.) can only be working descriptively, and we are back at square one.
Incidentally, the above problems are not to be avoided by the introduction of biochemical, neurological, and/or physiological objects and processes. The same questions apply here as elsewhere: how can, for example, a certain chemical 'control' what happens next unless it is intelligent in some way? Reducing this to physics is even worse; how can 'the field' (or whatever) control the future? 'The field' is a mathematical object and no more capable of controlling anything than a Hermite polynomial. Of course, and once more, to argue otherwise would be to anthropomorphise such things -- which is why I made the argument above abstract since it covers all bases.
This also explains why theorists (and particularly scientists who try to popularise their work) find they have to use 'scare quotes' and metaphor everywhere in this area.
As I noted earlier, this whole way of looking at 'the will' inverts things. We are denied a will (except formally), and nature is granted one. As many might now be able to see, this is yet another aspect of the alienating nature of traditional thought, where words are fetishised and we are dehumanised.
And this should not surprise us since such questions were originally posed theologically (and thus ideologically), where theorists were quite happy to alienate to 'god' such control over nature and our supposedly 'free' actions'. Hence, we, too, that we have to appropriate such distorted terminology if we follow traditional patterns of thought in this area."
