How could there be options in a deterministic world?

[Ecurb]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

I converse with Determinists routinely and they typically say that the appearance of options is an illusion, thus the actual outcome is the only possible outcome thus it is not an "option", it was predetermined.

But how could that be true? There are two things when we are dealing with options, the subjective experience of options and the interruption in our activity where the latter is due to the fact that the brain is in an undecided state. First, these two things cannot coincide by chance. Second, if one of the options is predetermined then why does the person who is dealing with options pause at all?

OK, let's make sure we're speaking of the same things. The fact that animals pause and go through the process of decision making does NOT prove that there are legitimate options. It is possible that the process of "decision making" will 100% of the time lead to a pre determined outcome, given the pre conditions. Of course there is absolutely no subjective or objective experience consistent with this scenario, but it is technically possible.

"I opted to have lunch at McDonalds yesterday."

I cannot, of course, opt otherwise at this stage of the game. Nonetheless, the sentence is coherent, descriptive, and meaningful. If we can "choose" in the past tense, surely we can choose in the present tense. "Options" is a meaningful word whether or not they are determined.

[Sculptor1]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

Easy.
How on earth can you make a choice freely?? Based on what exactly?

[LuckyR]

I converse with Determinists routinely and they typically say that the appearance of options is an illusion, thus the actual outcome is the only possible outcome thus it is not an "option", it was predetermined.

But how could that be true? There are two things when we are dealing with options, the subjective experience of options and the interruption in our activity where the latter is due to the fact that the brain is in an undecided state. First, these two things cannot coincide by chance. Second, if one of the options is predetermined then why does the person who is dealing with options pause at all?

OK, let's make sure we're speaking of the same things. The fact that animals pause and go through the process of decision making does NOT prove that there are legitimate options. It is possible that the process of "decision making" will 100% of the time lead to a pre determined outcome, given the pre conditions. Of course there is absolutely no subjective or objective experience consistent with this scenario, but it is technically possible.

"I opted to have lunch at McDonalds yesterday."

I cannot, of course, opt otherwise at this stage of the game. Nonetheless, the sentence is coherent, descriptive, and meaningful. If we can "choose" in the past tense, surely we can choose in the present tense. "Options" is a meaningful word whether or not they are determined.

A couple of things.

First, common spoken language (words like choose, select, opt and options) reflect Free Will because the entirety of human experience is consistent with there being Free Will. Whereas none of human experience is consistent with a Deterministic universe as far as animal decision making is concerned. Determinism (as pertains to decision making) exists exclusively in the minds of philosophers who believe in it. Having said that, it is true that decision making could be determined, that is it has NOT been disproven.

Thus there is a fundamental difference between a universe where you ponder where to have lunch and you truly select to eat at McDonald's instead of Pizza Hut (that is, either was possible) and a universe where given your memories of your past experiences, your state of mind and the status of a myriad of other variables you will ALWAYS select McDonalds even though you may consider Pizza Hut.

[Good_Egg]

Way back when, I wrote small computer programs to do calculations.

Rerunning the same program would always give the same answer - the computer operates deterministically. But there was a noticable time lag while it went through the process of calculation.

To me, knowing that it would generate the same answer as last time, the pause before the answer came up on the screen might have seemed unnecessary. But the computer has no knowledge of what last time's answer was. Determinism gives it no short-cut to the answer; it grinds through the same number manipulations every time.

So the argument from the fact of a pause to indeterminacy is false.

(Modern computers are arguably less predictable, because they're running umpteen other processes in the background...)

[Gertie]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

To understand the issue, first you have to consider what it is that people think makes the universe deterministic.   Whether that is correct or not, and whether there can be exceptions.

Many assume the universe is deterministic because we see predictable patterns, which Physicalism has modelled as laws, or forces, acting on matter. QM introduces an underlying probabilistic element, but that isn't really what we mean by options, choices, or mentally willing our behaviour in contrast to  physicalist determinism.

In your post you point to pausing for thought, mentally weighing options and making choices based on mind somehow intervening in these physical processes when it comes to brains.

As far as we know, there are no physical brain processes which are in principle not following physicalist deterministic laws in response to physical stimuli.  The pause then could reflect the complex physical brain processes taking time, or perhaps never, hitting the threshold to instigate motor neuron behaviour.

But - we don't understand the relationship between mind and body.  And we can just as easily point to the evolutionary utlitity of being able to mentally reason through decisions, weigh options, imagine the consequences of different decisions, etc. Not to mention the obvious evolutionary  utility of  feeling hunger, satiety, lust, care, comfort, pain, memory, etc. There's an obvious functional (evolutionary) account of the role of our mental states which makes sense of our behaviour too.  And creates room for options which at least escape physicalist determinism, but perhaps raises an issue of psychological determinism - my psychology is such that it is inevitable I will make specific choices, that I will prioritise this over that option, just like I will remove my hand from a burning fire. (Some see a 'compatabilistic' approach to options making sense here). Never-the-less, this raises the possibility we can in effect mentally intervene in the physical brain processes, mind over matter.  And if mental experience is simply causally redundant epiphenomenal baggage, why does it look so well attuned to utility...

These two explanatory accounts, the mental and physical, run in parallel.  And as far as we can tell are closely related through our observations of neural correlation.  Raising  the additional problem of over-determinism.  

Without understanding the mind-body relationship, which we don't, the question and apparent paradoxes remain unanswerable.

[Sculptor1]

Way back when, I wrote small computer programs to do calculations.

Rerunning the same program would always give the same answer - the computer operates deterministically. But there was a noticable time lag while it went through the process of calculation.

To me, knowing that it would generate the same answer as last time, the pause before the answer came up on the screen might have seemed unnecessary. But the computer has no knowledge of what last time's answer was. Determinism gives it no short-cut to the answer; it grinds through the same number manipulations every time.

So the argument from the fact of a pause to indeterminacy is false.

(Modern computers are arguably less predictable, because they're running umpteen other processes in the background...)

This is a good point.
When I learned programming I was horrified to find out that even a random number generator gave the same number each time I re-ran the programme.
For example a program whose job it was to roll a dice would alway come up with the same sequence,1,2,4,3,3,5,3,6,2,4,2....repeated on RUN.
The lecturer informed me that a computer cannot generate a real random number and has to use a list of numbers which the RND() string selects.
To invoke unpredictability I learned was that if you seeded the RND function with a time signature, then it would always select from a different part of the list each time you "throw to dice" RND(6)+1. This would always achieve a different sequence. But you have to ask your self - is ANYTHING truly random. Surely when you throw a dice the laws of physics determine the trajectory, vector, bounce, rotation, so that when it leaves your hand the result of a fait accompli.
And when you make a choice, your motivation and volition at that moment determine the outcome?
So is not the will compatible with determination, and determinism?

[Pattern-chaser]

Here we assume determinism for the sake of discussion. Science tells us that this is true...

Science tells us that the world is deterministic?

[Pattern-chaser]

The lecturer informed me that a computer cannot generate a real random number and has to use a list of numbers which the RND() string selects.

What your lecturer told you was ... incomplete. Trying to get a computer to generate random numbers is difficult and challenging. There are quite a few ways to approximate randomness, and one or two that might allow the computer to 'consult' an external source of randomness, such as the famous array of lava lamps. In most cases, computers use pseudo-random sequences, not truly random ones, and yes, if restarted at the same point, they will always deliver the same answer(s).

It is well-known, in programming circles, that library functions like "RND()" are poor approximations to randomness, but they are adequate for most applications, strangely enough. Especially when they are adapted to suit a particular need, such as seeding the sequence as you describe.

[Ecurb]

A couple of things.

First, common spoken language (words like choose, select, opt and options) reflect Free Will because the entirety of human experience is consistent with there being Free Will. Whereas none of human experience is consistent with a Deterministic universe as far as animal decision making is concerned. Determinism (as pertains to decision making) exists exclusively in the minds of philosophers who believe in it. Having said that, it is true that decision making could be determined, that is it has NOT been disproven.

Thus there is a fundamental difference between a universe where you ponder where to have lunch and you truly select to eat at McDonald's instead of Pizza Hut (that is, either was possible) and a universe where given your memories of your past experiences, your state of mind and the status of a myriad of other variables you will ALWAYS select McDonalds even though you may consider Pizza Hut.

Is there really a "fundamental difference" (from our point of view)? Is fate vs. free will a philosophical problem, or a lingusitic puzzle?

Of course there are reasons for choices. Does that mean they are not freely made?

The card player thinks there is a 1/13 chance of drawing an ace off the top of the deck. But, of course, he is wrong. Either there is an ace on the top, or their isn't. Anyone who can see the other side of the card knows there is either a 100% or 0% chance of drawing an ace. It's already been determined, after the shuffle. But are the card players calculations incorrect? I'd suggest they are not. He is calculating properly from his point of view.

The same is the case with free will. If our choice is "free" (unconstrained by other people), it's perfectly reasonable to talk about free will. It's coherent and meaningful. Why is the concept of free will negated just because we make choices for a reason?

My point is this: I don't think determinism and free will are contradictory or mutually exclusive.

[Bahman]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

I converse with Determinists routinely and they typically say that the appearance of options is an illusion, thus the actual outcome is the only possible outcome thus it is not an "option", it was predetermined.

But how could that be true? There are two things when we are dealing with options, the subjective experience of options and the interruption in our activity where the latter is due to the fact that the brain is in an undecided state. First, these two things cannot coincide by chance. Second, if one of the options is predetermined then why does the person who is dealing with options pause at all?

OK, let's make sure we're speaking of the same things. The fact that animals pause and go through the process of decision making does NOT prove that there are legitimate options. It is possible that the process of "decision making" will 100% of the time lead to a pre determined outcome, given the pre conditions. Of course there is absolutely no subjective or objective experience consistent with this scenario, but it is technically possible.

No, I am talking about two phenomena that coincide with each other, namely the subjective experience of options and the pause in our physical and even mental activity. These two phenomena cannot coincide with each other by chance. Therefore options are real.

[Bahman]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

Easy.
How on earth can you make a choice freely?? Based on what exactly?

That is off-topic but I answer it. I choose freely by my mind. I believe in a new version of substance dualism.

[value]

Philosopher William James's perspective on free will might be of interest. William James is the "father of American psychology" which means that he studied the psychological aspect of free will in depth.

William James developed his two-stage model of free will. In his model, he tries to explain how it is people come to the making of a decision and what factors are involved in it. He firstly defines our basic ability to choose as free will. Then he specifies our two factors as chance and choice. "James's two-stage model effectively separates chance (the in-deterministic free element) from choice (an arguably determinate decision that follows causally from one's character, values, and especially feelings and desires at the moment of decision)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James#Free_will
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/james/

My own perspective is "If life would be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."

I would argue that even in the case of a psychological choice that it cannot be said that it is purely deterministic due to the fact that a choice is made based on a moral valuation in the face of an unknown future. The non-deterministic nature of choices is already evident by evaluating conscious attention which must precede any choice. There is a moral component involved with attention.

[Bahman]

Way back when, I wrote small computer programs to do calculations.

Rerunning the same program would always give the same answer - the computer operates deterministically. But there was a noticable time lag while it went through the process of calculation.

To me, knowing that it would generate the same answer as last time, the pause before the answer came up on the screen might have seemed unnecessary. But the computer has no knowledge of what last time's answer was. Determinism gives it no short-cut to the answer; it grinds through the same number manipulations every time.

So the argument from the fact of a pause to indeterminacy is false.

(Modern computers are arguably less predictable, because they're running umpteen other processes in the background...)

It seems to me that you didn't understand OP. I am not saying that options are real because there is a pause but rather I am saying that there is also a subjective experience of options. These two cannot coincide with each other by chance therefore options are real.

[value]

Way back when, I wrote small computer programs to do calculations.

Rerunning the same program would always give the same answer - the computer operates deterministically. But there was a noticable time lag while it went through the process of calculation.

To me, knowing that it would generate the same answer as last time, the pause before the answer came up on the screen might have seemed unnecessary. But the computer has no knowledge of what last time's answer was. Determinism gives it no short-cut to the answer; it grinds through the same number manipulations every time.

So the argument from the fact of a pause to indeterminacy is false.

(Modern computers are arguably less predictable, because they're running umpteen other processes in the background...)

This is a good point.
When I learned programming I was horrified to find out that even a random number generator gave the same number each time I re-ran the programme.
For example a program whose job it was to roll a dice would alway come up with the same sequence,1,2,4,3,3,5,3,6,2,4,2....repeated on RUN.
The lecturer informed me that a computer cannot generate a real random number and has to use a list of numbers which the RND() string selects.
To invoke unpredictability I learned was that if you seeded the RND function with a time signature, then it would always select from a different part of the list each time you "throw to dice" RND(6)+1. This would always achieve a different sequence. But you have to ask your self - is ANYTHING truly random. Surely when you throw a dice the laws of physics determine the trajectory, vector, bounce, rotation, so that when it leaves your hand the result of a fait accompli.
And when you make a choice, your motivation and volition at that moment determine the outcome?
So is not the will compatible with determination, and determinism?

A computer is not the one that chooses to run a computation. The computer is merely a tool in the hands of a human (an extension). The choice to run a computation is done in the face of an unknown future and therefore involves a moral valuation of which it cannot be said that it was predetermined.

Therefore a human pause - the 'moral consideration' that takes place before a choice - isn't similar to computer processing.

[Bahman]

To understand the implication of the question we need to understand what determinism is. Determinism is a doctrine that states that the future state of a system is uniquely determined in terms of the current state of the system. This means that there exists only one option, the future state, at any given time. We however without any doubt say that we experience options in our daily life. We pause and think about options and eventually choose one of them. The very existence of the pause means that the brain is also interrupted as well with the situation so one cannot say, as determinists say, that only one of the options is real. So options are real since otherwise, the state of the brain evolves deterministically without any pause one option is chosen and others are disregarded. Now that we established options are real we face the question of "How could there be options in a deterministic world?".

To understand the issue, first you have to consider what it is that people think makes the universe deterministic.   Whether that is correct or not, and whether there can be exceptions.

Many assume the universe is deterministic because we see predictable patterns, which Physicalism has modelled as laws, or forces, acting on matter. QM introduces an underlying probabilistic element, but that isn't really what we mean by options, choices, or mentally willing our behaviour in contrast to  physicalist determinism.

In your post you point to pausing for thought, mentally weighing options and making choices based on mind somehow intervening in these physical processes when it comes to brains.

As far as we know, there are no physical brain processes which are in principle not following physicalist deterministic laws in response to physical stimuli.  The pause then could reflect the complex physical brain processes taking time, or perhaps never, hitting the threshold to instigate motor neuron behaviour.

But - we don't understand the relationship between mind and body.  And we can just as easily point to the evolutionary utlitity of being able to mentally reason through decisions, weigh options, imagine the consequences of different decisions, etc. Not to mention the obvious evolutionary  utility of  feeling hunger, satiety, lust, care, comfort, pain, memory, etc. There's an obvious functional (evolutionary) account of the role of our mental states which makes sense of our behaviour too.  And creates room for options which at least escape physicalist determinism, but perhaps raises an issue of psychological determinism - my psychology is such that it is inevitable I will make specific choices, that I will prioritise this over that option, just like I will remove my hand from a burning fire. (Some see a 'compatabilistic' approach to options making sense here). Never-the-less, this raises the possibility we can in effect mentally intervene in the physical brain processes, mind over matter.  And if mental experience is simply causally redundant epiphenomenal baggage, why does it look so well attuned to utility...

These two explanatory accounts, the mental and physical, run in parallel.  And as far as we can tell are closely related through our observations of neural correlation.  Raising  the additional problem of over-determinism.  

Without understanding the mind-body relationship, which we don't, the question and apparent paradoxes remain unanswerable.

The mind becomes important when it comes to making a decision when there is a conflict of interest in options. That is an interesting but different problem. My point however is how options could possibly be real in a deterministic world. I have an argument for the realness of options though. The heart of my argument is the coincidence of subjective experience of options and the pause in our physical and mental activity. I am arguing that this coincidence can not be due to chance so we can trust the subjective experience and be sure about the existence of options.