Determinism

[Loredoctor]

WOW! Thanks Avatar! I must read this!

[Avatar]

No worries. Hope you can find it, and enjoy it. Might have to scour the 2nd hand shops though, it's probably been out of print for years.

Of course, in the true tradition of Sci-Fi, he doesn't actually GIVE those formula's but you can infer something at least about them, (conceptually anyway) from the text.

There are quite a few of his books that mention these, and similar concepts. I think Assignment in Eternity (Containing 3 short stories) is another one of them. (you'll probably like that one too. Deals with educating people to make full use of their mental potential, rather than the paltry 10-15% we usually make do with )

--Avatar

[Loredoctor]

Excellent, thanks.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

All of this is really interesting stuff...
I was curious about the idea of developing a seperate theory for each person, however.
So I suppose I'll be the devil's advocate and dissenting opinion in this case.
I took a few psych classes, it was my major for a while, but I can't claim any expertise on the subject from an academic standpoint. However, I have spent an incredible amount of energy in my personal life on trying to understand those around me... that's led to a sort of intuitive understanding of various scenarios, emotional and mental, that people around me seem to go through.
Often, when I recognize the scenario, the variables invariably (heheh) fall into place around it....
My origional thought was that an overall theory would be possible after intense study of the individual.
Avatar, I agree with you most vehemently that the scope of psychology today is very narrow, especially from what I learned at the university.
Most people believe that to make decisions about emotions from a purely unemotional, logical perspective is the only way to eliminate errors in judgement. I feel differently. I think that when one tries to deal with emotions from a non empathetic, detached perspective, they are exposing themselves to a much greater likelyhood of error, especially where theraputic treatment is concerned.

I think for psychology to be successful as a theraputic science there needs to be a greater interaction between those that research behavior and those that administer therapy. I think that a generalized theory of human behavior is possible because we are all human beings, and we all operate under very similar physical circumstances.

I'm not thinking about a defining theory for personality, more like... a set of guidelines that hold true often enough to serve as a source of help for a therapist who would be going through the process of developing a theory for an individual.

This is really interesting for me to think about, I've been in therapy for a long time...wait....wasn't there some kind of....topic or something here? something about determanism? hehehe...ANYWAY I've been in therapy for a fairly long time, about half of my life, and I'd been trying to think of a way for it to be more useful... I hear as many negative therapy stories as I do success stories. Actually more.

Any thoughts?

[Avatar]

My origional thought was that an overall theory would be possible after intense study of the individual.

I assume that since you say that it was your original thought, you've since changed your mind? As I said, study of the individual gives you only an understanding of that specific individual.

Most people believe that to make decisions about emotions from a purely unemotional, logical perspective is the only way to eliminate errors in judgement. I feel differently. I think that when one tries to deal with emotions from a non empathetic, detached perspective, they are exposing themselves to a much greater likelyhood of error, especially where theraputic treatment is concerned.

Where theraputic treatment is concerned, I certainly agree that not taking the emotions into account, from either the therapist or the patients point of view, would be a mistake. Chances are that the need for therapy arises in part at least from the emotional state of the patient. In terms of making logical descisions in the course of your life, on the one hand, emotions DO interfere, especially if you are unaware of their impact on your thought processess. On the other, I can't help but feel that in attempting to "negate" the emotional impact, we lose some amount of "depth" in our lives. Perhaps not in terms of any given choice, but in overall "quality" of life.

I think for psychology to be successful as a theraputic science there needs to be a greater interaction between those that research behavior and those that administer therapy. I think that a generalized theory of human behavior is possible because we are all human beings, and we all operate under very similar physical circumstances.

Physical circumstances in terms of brain physiology? Perhaps, leaving aside genetic variation. But not in terms of actual experience or perspective. Everybody, even twins, have different perceptions of the way their lives work.

I'm not thinking about a defining theory for personality, more like... a set of guidelines that hold true often enough to serve as a source of help for a therapist who would be going through the process of developing a theory for an individual.

I see what you mean here, and I suppose that given the fact that it would be an acknowledged "general theory" intended for amplification in terms of each individual, I could accept that.

I'd been trying to think of a way for it to be more useful... I hear as many negative therapy stories as I do success stories. Actually more.

Any thoughts?

Can't help you there really. Although I've experienced therapy once or twice, it never seemed to do me the least bit of good. I ended up lying to the shrink 33% of the time, just to keep things even and amuse myself. Decided I was wasting my time. I understood myself better than this guy was ever going to understand me, however hard he tried.

--Avatar

[Fist and Faith]

I started a thread nearly two years ago that is about parts of this conversation. Pretty fun stuff.
kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=672


On an unrelated aspect of determinism, here's some ramblings that have been going through my head the last couple days. Figured if I write them down, I can stop thinking about them. First, a couple quotes about this concept. This first one is from the pilot for the original Kung Fu series:

Caine: "What happens in a man's life is already written. Man must move through life as his destiny wills."

An old man: "Yes, yet each man is free to live as he chooses. Though they seem opposite, both are true. [chuckles at his own lack of comprehension] I do not understand it."

This one is from Neverness:

I had never heard Soli wax so philosophical before, so I let him continue: "Free will? Have you thought about that term, the way the Fravashi use it? It's an oxymoron, as self-contradictory as a 'cheerful pessimist' or a 'happy fate.' If the universe is alive and conscious, as you believe, if it moves itself toward...if it has a purpose, then we're all slaves because it moves us towards that purpose as if we were pieces on a chessboard. And we don't know anything of the higher game, do we? Yes, and so where is the freedom? It's fine to talk of ananke, of this merging of our individual wills with the higher - is that what you believe? - but for human beings, ananke means hate, desperate love, despair, death."

"No," I said, "you don't understand."

He spat a piece of gristle against the packed-snow floor and said, "Enlighten me."

"We're ultimately free, not totally free. We're free within certain bounds. In the end, our individual wills are a part of the will of the universe."

I've usually heard this idea spoken by Christians, who say that we are free, but that God has everything planned out. But none have ever attempted to explain the obvious contradiction. Not being a believer, I can't go at it from that side, but something occurred to me in a secular vein that might fit there also.

Let's say our species is going to evolve, and that random mutation of DNA and natural selection is how evolution comes about. What if our DNA is set up in such a way that a specific path of evolution is nearly certain? Downs Syndrome is a mutation of a specific gene, after all, but it's a common mutation. What if other genes are built in such a way that specific mutations will happen time and time again throughout the population? This would mean that whatever evolutionary steps come along are, more or less, predetermined. In this scenario, humanity is on a path that it can't much get off of.

But we all have free will.

I don't know... It's likely been said before, and I just never heard it. I'm just trying to bring different ways of thinking together.

[Avatar]

...Let's say our species is going to evolve, and that random mutation of DNA and natural selection is how evolution comes about. What if our DNA is set up in such a way that a specific path of evolution is nearly certain?...This would mean that whatever evolutionary steps come along are, more or less, predetermined. In this scenario, humanity is on a path that it can't much get off of.

I certainly see what you're saying, but if we bring it into the framework of "determinism", how did this "set-up" occur? Is it a "plan"? Or is it merely a random confluence of genetic factors? Are we "meant" to evolve in a certain way? or is it simply the way that we will evolve? (Am I making any sense here? )

It's an aspect of determinism that I can accept insofar as it's "random", in other words, regardless of anything we do, certain "traits" will be exhibited.

Perhaps we can define it as "genetic determinism", and assume that the creatures that became birds, or dolphins, were "meant" to become those things. But as soon as we start to say "meant", do we perhaps imply "By somebody"?

Naturally, none of this impacts on determinism as it relates to our individual and personal lives, and as I said, it's an interpretation I could accept, but not in terms of an overall master plan that has decided we will go a certain way. Rather as a random series of events, with determinable outcomes perhaps?

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I don't believe in the master plan, I believe that all elements of the universal equation could be derived from the big bang, or whatever started the show.

That isn't............................HEY! I just saw the signiture, Avatar. Definately Sweet. Did you read the Illuminatus trilogy? *cough* anyway.....

As far as evolution goes, in terms of a specific plan built in, it really doesn't work with evolution theory. That theory is based on random mutation.... perhaps if the planet was somehow designed to only allow certain mutations to succeed.... but even then there would be no guarantee that the mutations occurred.

No, I don't think there's a 'plan' for any of it, necessarily. Although it's possible I suppose.

[Fist and Faith]

I wasn't meaning that we are "meant" to evolve in any particular way, just that it's possible that we will. As I said, Downs Syndrome is a fairly common random mutation, which means there's something about that gene that makes it prone to a particular mutation. And if so, other genes might have that same quality, and so it could be that we're heading in a particular direction, by design or not.

But what I really wanted to do was try to see if I could find logic (in my own head) in the religious belief that determinism and free will somehow coexist. My scenario is that God wants us to expand to the ultimate degree in every way possible. That's the plan, and God made sure it will happen. Predetermined. And the way he made sure it will happen is by giving us a strong drive to explore and learn. There's no stopping this human drive. But how each of us explores, how each of us expresses this drive, is an individual choice. Some explore the quantum world, some make outrageous telescopes to study the sky, some develop new tonalities in music, some design new types of architecture, etc etc etc. In all ways, humanity is expanding and learning. So the religious belief that determinism and free will are both present is not necessarily an unworkable contradiction.

Again, I'm just trying to find common ground with others.

[Avatar]

Aah, thanks for the clarification Fist. I certainly see what you're trying to say there.

An "overall" determinism, coupled with an individual freedom of choice. Sure it's possible, if we posit that "plan". Sort of relates to what I said earlier, about being free to choose different paths to the same end. Of course, it's not something I really subscribe to, but I can see how you mean it to work.

JemCheeta, yes, I've read Illuminatus!, and the sequel trilogy, Shrodingers Cat as well. I have a great deal of affinity with the Discordian philosophies, and indeed, consider myself to be a Discordian, insofar as I claim any "religious" affiliation. Primarily because it amuses me a good deal.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I have a friend with the Chao tattooed on his arm. Good times
I've always wanted to engage in serious religious debate as a discordian. That'd throw'em all for a loop, no?

Determinism with free will? Definately I subscribe to that. I just feel the application of the free will is determined. But I'm repeating myself here So it's all good.

[Avatar]

I have a friend with the Chao tattooed on his arm.

Awesome. I've actually seriously been considering it for my next tattoo myself.

I've always wanted to engage in serious religious debate as a discordian. That'd throw'em all for a loop, no?

It tends to, but because of the very nature of the "religion", I'm unable to take things seriously. Best thing about Discordianism is that it doesn't require you to actually believe. We're happy if you just think of it as a nice idea.

Determinism with free will? Definately I subscribe to that. I just feel the application of the free will is determined. But I'm repeating myself here So it's all good.

Just don't like the idea that anything is decided "for" me. Anything at all. As I said, I can sort of accept Fistsidea about a "pre-determined evolutionary direction", but to me it begs the question of "By who?" Surely predetermination implies a "determinor"?

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Hahaha! I am the DETERMINATOR! Fear me...heheh.......sorry.....
No, the system of determinism that I enjoy is definately exclusive to a determinor, unless he determined the 'equation' of the universe, and invented physics. I don't believe in a universal divine agency that takes action in the physical realm.

[Nathan]

Predetermination doesn't require a determinor, only a set of physical laws that never change.

Eventually everything is determined by physics. And unless God (or whoever else) invented the physics of our universe then there's no determinor.

[Avatar]

Predetermination doesn't require a determinor, only a set of physical laws that never change.

This is interesting. If "determinism" is founded on physical laws, then wouldn't every "action" have an always calculable "reaction"?

Although, perhaps our inability to calculate that "reaction" is based in our lack of significant data? In other words, if we knew all the possible variables that affect a situation, we could accurately determine the outcome?

--Avatar

[Nathan]

Although, perhaps our inability to calculate that "reaction" is based in our lack of significant data? In other words, if we knew all the possible variables that affect a situation, we could accurately determine the outcome?

Yep. That's what I believe.
If we could see all the variables and understood them, we'd know the outcome too.

[Avatar]

Fair enough. So the extent to which things are determined is based on a set of physical laws. I could go with that, in a way, but what "actions" or whatever are we talking about?

Does it apply equally in the predetermination of our death, (i.e. it's already decided when and how we die?), as to the predetermination of some possible/probably reation to something?

I don't really go for the idea that it's already decided, long before hand, how I will die. I don't think any set of physical laws can set out my date and manner of death, if only I could understand/interpret them.

If you're simply talking about knowing the way in which people will behave/react, then sure, I could accept that.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

If you're simply talking about knowing the way in which people will behave/react, then sure, I could accept that.

It's the same thing. Death is only a reaction just like everything else, and dictated by the laws of physics. People's choices are just physical and chemical reactions as well albeit very advanced ones. But nothing escapes the clutches of physics and its impenetrable laws.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Ah, but here's the joy of it. If you found out, due to data, when and how you would die IF you continued a course of action, you would be equipped with the information to avoid it. If you chose, of course.
You might think you lose something if you admit to the possibility of physics controlling your decisions... but of course if that's always been the case then nothing has been lost, except possibly the idea of blame...
Anyway, I like it, and very much like the existentialist depression I so recently went through, after I got over the bad points of adopting the idea of determinism, everything just looked brighter.

[Fist and Faith]

Although, perhaps our inability to calculate that "reaction" is based in our lack of significant data? In other words, if we knew all the possible variables that affect a situation, we could accurately determine the outcome?

Yep. That's what I believe.
If we could see all the variables and understood them, we'd know the outcome too.

Do you (either of you) think there is any possibility that free will exists? Repeating myself, but my thinking is that every aspect of our minds is a function of the brain. Memory is a chemical storage system, our senses are electro-chemical interpretations of stimuli hitting sense organs, etc. And I do not believe any activity of the mind happens without brain activity that can be detected by one macine or another.

However, I think that all of these brain functions have come to interact in such a way that we have, in at least some ways, true free will. How this happens is unexplainable at this point, and might possibly never be explainable. I believe this because I cannot think of a convincing reason for evolution to have given us a false sense of free will.

And so, I do not believe that we could ever know enough variables to predict everything, because I don't think free will is a measurable, predictable thing. How will I react to a given situation? Well, if you know me, you might be able to predict general patterns. Certainly, we all have preferences, and act on them. But is there no room to maneuver?