The Illogicality of Determinism

Physical determinism is the notion that all events, including thoughts and actions, are the result of cause and effect. Each effect is the result of a prior cause. Each effect is also the cause of some new effect and you get what is called a causal chain.

C→E/C→E/C …

So every event is ‘necessary’ in some way – although philosophers have pointed out that in what sense they are necessary is hard to say. For our purposes it is sufficient to say that determinism and the idea of causal chains imply that every event is unavoidable in some way and a ‘necessary’ consequence of preceding events.

If we take the Big Bang as the first cause, then all subsequent events can then be thought of as the result of that first cause, when time began. Thus, according to determinism, since the beginning of time, your thoughts and actions have been pre-determined and unavoidable. No deviation from this predestination is possible on this view.

The ‘events’ referred to would seem to include our thoughts, on the assumption that our brains generate consciousness. An afterlife would also be impossible since your mind would cease to exist when your brain stopped working.

However, if physical determinism is true then the person arguing for it has no choice as to whether he believes in physical determinism or not, nor whether he argues for determinism or not. He is in the grip of physical forces beyond his control. It is as though someone pushed the cosmic ‘play’ button and the arguer starts arguing for something he never had any choice but to believe and to argue for. He is the victim of circumstance. Why should one pay any attention to such a victim – to such a mindless and compulsive machine – to such an idiot? He has an unfortunately not so rare form of Tourette’s syndrome and should be pitied.

It is a farce. The farce gets worse when one considers the person being blasted with this nonsense. According to determinism, the interlocutor too has no choice whether he listens to the sounds the other madman makes, for he too is mad. He listens or doesn’t listen compulsively. He agrees or doesn’t agree with the determinist’s argument through no free will of his own. While the arguer is a cosmic tape machine playing its predetermined recording, the interlocutor is affected by blind physical forces himself. The outcome of this travesty masquerading as ‘reasoning’ has been predetermined since the beginning of time and the exercise is pointless.

The image of two tape machines alone in a room together playing their scripted comments and responses comes to mind. Nobody and nothing is really asserting anything nor really responding. Determinism is consciousness denying.

A colleague who somehow finds this objection unconvincing seemed more persuaded by the fiction of an evil wizard. Imagine that before beginning an argument about determinism one finds out that one’s interlocutor has been zapped by an evil wizard to find one side or the other convincing in advance. One would immediately abandon the planned conversation because it would now be pointless. Genuine debate would be an illusion; the game would be rigged. This Cartesian conceit adds nothing from my point of view, but the colleague seemed to attribute more force to it.

Arguments are necessary when assertions are controversial. We are perhaps ‘forced’ to accept that 2 + 2 = 4, but that’s not an argument. Arguments attempt to persuade.

Some determinists argue that computers are deterministic machines that argue and can produce valid arguments and that proves that meaningful argument and physical determinism are compatible. But computers are the product of human minds. We program them to do the things we want them to do. They argue as we determine. As John Searle’s Chinese Room argument demonstrates, computers understand nothing – neither the input nor their own output. Computers are the physical medium by which human beings communicate with each other or derive answers to computational questions or do the things we wish. They are not the product of blind deterministic physical forces unless you already assume that determinism governs human beings which is the very thing you are supposed to be proving.

The purpose of a philosophical argument is supposed to be to provide evidence for controversial assertions and thus to persuade one of the truth of the assertion. If determinism is true, being persuaded by a compulsive madman means nothing for I too am mad. Neither one of us is rational, unless rationality is itself a farce and then, once again, Game Over. The evil wizard has zapped both of us. You can’t rationally persuade me that rationality is a farce.

It is logically possible that determinism is true, but it is not logically possible to persuade me that determinism is true because determinism precludes the possibility of logic and genuine persuasion in the context of controversial assertions.

Any argument that expresses skepticism about consciousness or our ability to think rationally is problematic and generates self-refuting paradoxes since you are using the very thing you are arguing is untrustworthy to arrive at the conclusion that this thing is untrustworthy.

The funny thing is that the determinist is then likely to engage in an argument to persuade one that the exercise is not pointless through some elaborate chain of reasoning. But his decision to pursue this line of thought is not something he has any control over and my agreement or failure to agree is also compelled by mindless physical forces; hence the charade continues. If one finds the phrase “mindless physical forces” question begging, then one is postulating mindful physical forces where qualities of mind are attributed to physical forces and as we will see below one then has mind affecting matter affecting mind with matter as a simple intermediary between two aspects of mind – a cosmic mind (a giant thinking nature) and a parochial mind (human minds).

If evolution or Nature is selecting human beings who can think rationally then evolution or Nature is selecting a mind free from determinism – which would be bizarre, considering that evolution and Nature are normally considered deterministic by the determinist. One would be in the situation of a law-governed deterministic Nature selecting non-law-governed non-deterministic minds – something free from the very thing ‘selecting’ it.

Do brains generate minds?

These considerations should be sufficient to prove the pointlessness of arguing for determinism. If, however, further argument is necessary then we can consider the following diagram.

The brains in the diagram represent the same brain in different states – A, B and C. Under determinism, Brain State A causes Brain State B which in turn causes Brain State C. As a physical mechanism, the brain is following the laws of chemistry and physics. We can imagine that each brain state is giving rise to a discrete thought. Brain State A (BSA) gives rise to the thought that ‘p → q’ (If p, then q). BSB give rises to the thought that ‘p.’ BSC gives rise to the thought ‘q.’

If we look at the diagram above, the brains and the black arrows represent physical determinism. The modus ponens argument, p→q, p, ∴ q – if p, then q, p, therefore q, the supposed product of bottom up causation – from physical causes of mental events –  represents the abstract level of logic.

From a mental level perspective, it would seem that these thoughts generated by a physically determined brain, are effectively random. Each thought is not the product of rational reflection. It is the inexorable product of physical processes, each state deterministically producing the next state. If the brain generates the mind then we are driven to conclude that the mental events which seem conceptually related to other mental events are really random from a conceptual point of view. If the thoughts seem conceptually coherent, and importantly related to each other in the form of an argument, this is just a coincidence.

An analogy could be Powerball machines. In this form of lottery, a machine blows ping pong balls with numbers on them. After a while, the ping pong balls end up in a structure at the bottom of the machine. If the numbers happened to be the first few digits of pi, this would be by pure chance. Mindless physical processes are acting on the balls; any meaning is a coincidence. We can imagine that on the balls are written letters instead of numbers and that words might get accidentally spelled. Or variables and logical operators such that p → q, p, ∴ q.  Again, such results would be comparable to faces in clouds and the like.

If the physical processes are not mindless then the balls would not be being blown by forces governed by deterministic laws of nature but would be being selected on the basis of meaning. The apparent autonomy of physical processes with their never-ending chains of cause and effect would be an illusion.

With regard to the Powerball machine, the game would be rigged. Instead of purely physical processes determining what happens to the balls, reason and logic would be guiding the balls to the desired logical outcome. Mind would have proved to be more fundamental than matter. Of interest might be Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos that asserts that consciousness and material reality are fundamental aspects of nature and always have been.

Philosophers refer to bottom up causation: the brain or body affecting the mind such as the effects of caffeine or sleep deprivation on your thoughts and feelings. Top down causation is when the mind affects the brain and body. You say something that upsets me and I go red in the face and my blood pressure rises. A mind selecting brain states to produce mental events would be similar to top down causation.

Causes versus reasons

The premises and conclusions of a valid argument are connected, but their connection is not physical. Or if they are physically connected by being written on the same piece of paper, or blackboard, or hard drive, if we can call this ‘connected,’ then this physical connection is irrelevant. It is the way the premises and conclusion are connected logically that matters.

Causally determined physical processes are incompatible with arguments which require true and relevant reasons conceptually and logically related to the conclusion. If I’m good I’ll get a bike for Christmas. My parents agree that I’ve been good. Therefore, I’ll get a bike for Christmas. The relationship between the premises and conclusions is conceptual and logical.

Physical things work by causes. Arguments work by reasons. Causes are not reasons. If I tell that you should drive to Canada because you have a disease that requires expensive medications, and thanks to the Canadian health system, medicines are cheaper in Canada, and that you shouldn’t try using the internet for your purchases because companies in the Caribbean have been known to pretend to be Canadian, and you go to Canada, I have rationally persuaded you to go to Canada on the basis of reasons.

 

If I lock you in an entirely dark room with no company for five straight days, when I open the door, you are likely to be craving stimulation so badly that you will be very excited about anything I say and highly amenable to suggestion. If I then say ‘Go to Canada’ and you go, I have caused you to go. I have brainwashed you to go.

Self-refuting paradoxes

If you say that no, reasons really are just fancy jumped up causes and that when we think we are being persuaded, we are really just being caused by physical processes, then you are expressing skepticism about the reality of rational persuasion.

You want to be an exception to your own rule, a telltale sign of being wrong, because you are contradicting yourself. Francis Crick says “‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” (Science Set Free, Rupert Sheldrake, p. 110, 2012) The trouble is that if all mental activity is “no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules,” then that thought itself is “no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules” and not to be taken seriously; “no more than” being the key phrase here.

Similarly, a professor may argue that gender is nothing more than a social construct. Yet her ability to challenge this supposed social construct means that the professor gets to occupy a rational space outside the social construct. She has her own personal opinion differing from the usual social construct; an opinion that is thus not merely derived from the social construct. The professor is effectively calling the rest of us sheep, merely following the dictates of culture, while she gets to have her own self-derived opinion. She is a wondrous exception to her own rule.

“Everything is just what it is and not something else.” You, your joys and sorrows, memories and ambitions are just what they are and not something else. Nerve cells and molecules may be involved somewhere, but we have no reason at all for reducing them to these things.

Neither can I even rationally suspect that I am really a mechanistic robot which is wholly the product of unthinking physical processes, because for my suspicion to be rational, it must itself be the product of true and relevant reasons. If I have no rational grounds for my suspicion, then I should, rationally speaking, stop being suspicious.

It is a basic rule of logic that we should not believe that for which we have no evidence. Physical determinism of my thought processes rules out the possibility of my being aware of true and relevant evidence. Again, whether something is evidence or not is a matter of reason, logic and rationality, not physical causation.

If you can wonder if you are a deterministic robot whose thoughts are ruled by causally determined physical processes, and you have any rational basis at all for this wonder, then rationality does indeed exist and you are not a robot.

So, free will exists because rationality exists. In order to be rational, I must be free to consider the merits of an argument based on an evaluation of the truth and relevance of the premises of that argument. I must be free of external interference in my evaluation. If something physical is forcing me to a particular conclusion due to an unbroken chain of physical causal processes stretching back to the beginning of time, then rationality per se is impossible. I am unable to make my evaluation on the basis of conceptual and logical relationships, but instead must think whatever the physical unthinking deterministic processes make me think.

Moral responsibility and love

In addition to the self-defeating nature of arguing for determinism, there is a practical objection. This objection is that determinists are only classroom determinists. Their behavior outside the classroom indicates that they believe in free will. In order for determinism to be true, moral responsibility must be an illusion and meaningful love must be an illusion. Determinists continue to hold other people and themselves morally responsible for their actions, and hopefully, they manage to love other people.

Courts of law recognize that actions performed under duress, in which one had no choice, do not make one morally or legally culpable. If I compel you to do something by threatening you with something dire and you have a reasonable expectation I will carry out my threat, then you are not held responsible for your actions. And so it should be.

Regarding love, love is not meaningfully love if it is not freely given. If you discover that every time your beloved attempts to leave you he or she is tasered, or is taken into an interrogation cell and brainwashed, then this would change your feelings about your beloved. You would know that they are not freely choosing to love you or be with you but are acting under compulsion.

Love is not an entirely rational process of course but it does involve respect and admiration and these are based on a more or less rational assessment of the other person. If your girlfriend, husband, etc., thinks you are an idiot or morally corrupt, nasty and horrible, boring, humorless and ugly, then they don’t love you.

One of the more amazing life experiences is when someone you think is really cool and beautiful responds in kind. One goes from having a crush, an unreciprocated affection, to the beginnings of love. You know they don’t have to like you and it is flattering that someone as impressive as that thinks you are attractive and nice too – someone worth getting to know better. If you could just flip a switch on the back of someone’s head and they would gaze at you adoringly, this would make their affection worthless and pathetic. One hopes that one never gets so desperate for simulated affection that one would be willing to do this.

Love is a gift. You cannot demand to be loved. If I point a gun at your head and say “Love me!” you cannot actually comply. You can only pretend to love me. In Christian theology, even God can’t compel us to love Him. Hence, you get the notion of God the lure, or Jesus as making us fishers of men. Likewise, the one ability Bruce doesn’t have in Bruce Almighty even though he is God of Buffalo for a week, is the ability to make anyone love him. The writers consulted a Jewish theologian to get their theology right. If God could make you love him, he would be no better than a man with a date rape drug. If you would not be satisfied with ‘love,’ in those circumstances, neither would God.

Love is a chemical? Partly

There is an amusing movie about a man who thinks love is a chemical. Try explaining that to someone you are trying to date and see how they react. My version of the first encounter – [Robotic voice] Dopamine levels, satisfactory, serotonin plateaued, oxytocin slightly raised, scheduling second meeting – waiting, waiting, Thursday is free – waiting for reply. You’re a dick! Affirmative. Negative response recorded. Is this decision final? Press 1 for yes, 2 for no.

There is an element of truth in the love is a chemical idea. Love is not a chemical, but feelings of love and affection may be related to hormones in the ‘It’ quadrant. Oxytocin seems to be associated with bonding and is released when the skin is stroked – but someone has had to have decided they actually like you before they are going to let you stroke their skin. If you try to start with skin stroking prematurely, no oxytocin.

Whether you think someone is boring, stupid, humorless, ugly and a jerk, or beautiful, interesting, funny, smart and nice is likely to be influenced by one’s cultural context and class, the “We” quadrant. Women are likely to look at a man’s job, social status and income, the “Its” quadrant if they are thinking about whether to marry someone or not. Love or not love occurs in a context. It’s the “I” quadrant that we are examining – one’s idiosyncratic and freely chosen response to another person.

Love and transcendental arguments

So the claim is that there is something wrong with you if you would be happy with taser or determinism compelled love. If you think that love as I’m defining it exists, then free will exists. Kant called this a transcendental argument. This means you start with the phenomenon and then work backwards to the way the universe must be if this phenomenon exists. In other words, one prioritizes evidence/data over theory. Physical determinism is a theory based on a commitment to the metaphysical notion called materialism. If you are ontologically committed to determinism and love as a datum and an experience seems to exist, love is just an illusion. Since materialism remains an unproven assumption you have chosen to rule out of existence one of life’s most important experiences on the basis of an unproven hypothesis. I too am making an unprovable assumption; namely that materialism is false and inadequate, but in order to preserve the data.

Consciousness vs determinism

Lastly, if brains were self-contained physical mechanisms with no input from conscious minds, i.e., top down causation, then the brain would follow its own predetermined chain of causation. But this would mean that the brain would not be subject to adjustment by conscious evaluations of what is going on around you in the environment. Without consciousness and top down causation, you would not be aware of your environment and could not adjust your behavior as the demands of the environment changed. These demands are unpredictable. The workings of the brain, if the organism is to survive, must be constantly adjusted to the environmental factors perceived and evaluated by the conscious mind.

From the point of view of the organism, its environment is unpredictable. Even if the universe were a large deterministic machine – ignoring the fact that machines have designers and in-built purposes – the organism still has no idea what events it will encounter. An event that cannot be predicted is effectively random. An appropriate response cannot be preprogrammed to an unforeseen event – and with the complexity of human social interactions there are many such events. One cannot have a rule for an unanticipated circumstance. One must have the ability to improvise and for this improvisation to be successful one’s reaction must be perfectly suited to this new circumstance and for that real live consciousness free from deterministic rules must exist.