Could we have made different choices than the ones we actually made?

[Compassionist]

Could we have made different choices than the ones we actually made? By "we" I mean all living things. For example, I have a potted plant that has tilted westward by twenty degrees. Could the plant have refrained from tilting or tilted at a different direction by a different degree or was it inevitable that it tilted westward by twenty degrees? I ate porridge for breakfast today. Could I have eaten something else or was eating porridge for breakfast inevitable? Nelson Mandela died on 14 June 1999. Was his death on that date inevitable or could he have died at a younger or older age? Albert Einstein was a physicist. Could he have been a professional football player instead of a physicist or was his choice of career inevitable? In your response, please explain how you know what you know.

[fredonly]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

This thread seemed to quickly accept that determinism is true and then moved on to what would follow from that. But I want to get back to the starting point. I saw two reasons offered for this conclusion:

1. We couldnt have made different "choices" because no one has proven we can make different choices

2. We couldnt have made different "choices" because its been proven that we couldnt have made different "choices"

If one believes (1) alone, this would lead to agnosticism, not determinism. And (2) isnt actual support, it just says there is support. Can someone give the actual support for determinism being true?

Start with the question of whether or not determinism is true. There's strong evidence that it is true: the success of science at making predictions in the physical world.

The question then becomes: does our mental decision-making process (which intuition suggests employs "free will"), prove determinism false? It does not. So determinists and physicalists are justified in denying free will.

Someone who denies determinism on the basis of free will is on shaky grounds, since there's no basis for believing free will actually exists (mere possibility is inadequate to justify a belief).

On the other hand, a theist may believe in free-will because it's part of his faith. Such faith is not rationally justified, therefore his belief in free-will has an irrational basis.

My conclusion: although it's possible we have free-will, the most rational position is to deny its existence.

[The Tanager]

Start with the question of whether or not determinism is true. There's strong evidence that it is true: the success of science at making predictions in the physical world.

Could you explain this more? Why is the success of science strong evidence that determinism is true?

[marke]

Could we have made different choices than the ones we actually made? By "we" I mean all living things. For example, I have a potted plant that has tilted westward by twenty degrees. Could the plant have refrained from tilting or tilted at a different direction by a different degree or was it inevitable that it tilted westward by twenty degrees? I ate porridge for breakfast today. Could I have eaten something else or was eating porridge for breakfast inevitable? Nelson Mandela died on 14 June 1999. Was his death on that date inevitable or could he have died at a younger or older age? Albert Einstein was a physicist. Could he have been a professional football player instead of a physicist or was his choice of career inevitable? In your response, please explain how you know what you know.

God gives humans the freedom to make both good and bad choices that God does not make for them.

[Wootah]

Could we have made different choices than the ones we actually made?

Nope.

In fact, no one chooses anything. All is determined.

In your response, please explain how you know what you know.

I "know" because the alternative, free will, has never been shown to exist, whereas determinism has, and for everything that exists---with the possible exception of some quantum decay events. It's the reason "cause" resides in the word "because." Cause is what runs the world.

.

I'm sorry but your post makes no sense. It is non sense.

If I saw writing in the sand created by a determined process I would not assume it was writing.

Determinism is fundamentally irrational.

[Difflugia]

I'm sorry but your post makes no sense. It is non sense.

If I saw writing in the sand created by a determined process I would not assume it was writing.

Determinism is fundamentally irrational.

By your definition, does a deterministic AI system not create writing?

[Wootah]

I'm sorry but your post makes no sense. It is non sense.

If I saw writing in the sand created by a determined process I would not assume it was writing.

Determinism is fundamentally irrational.

By your definition, does a deterministic AI system not create writing?

Well no. If there is a wind-up doll and it says something of course that is not meaningful content.

But in a non-deterministic world then yes a deterministic AI can say meaningful things, if it can get true inputs and make sense of them to give an output.

But in a deterministic world its all just fizz pop.

[Difflugia]

By your definition, does a deterministic AI system not create writing?

Well no. If there is a wind-up doll and it says something of course that is not meaningful content. But in a non-deterministic world then yes a deterministic AI can say meaningful things, if it can get true inputs and make sense of them to give an output.

What is it about the lack of determinism that makes the AI output meaningful?

You've made claims, but haven't justified them.

But in a deterministic world its all just fizz pop.

Let's assume that's true. What makes fizz pop meaningless that a lack of determinism would fix?

[Wootah]

By your definition, does a deterministic AI system not create writing?

Well no. If there is a wind-up doll and it says something of course that is not meaningful content. But in a non-deterministic world then yes a deterministic AI can say meaningful things, if it can get true inputs and make sense of them to give an output.

What is it about the lack of determinism that makes the AI output meaningful?

You've made claims, but haven't justified them.

But in a deterministic world its all just fizz pop.

Let's assume that's true. What makes fizz pop meaningless that a lack of determinism would fix?

I think it is self-evident. If a billiard ball bounces around a table there is no meaning, just physics in action. If every step is determined by the one prior there is no meaning. If wind blows through a tunnel and makes a sound, even a sound that says 'hello how are you?' was any meaning really there?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

This thread seemed to quickly accept that determinism is true and then moved on to what would follow from that. But I want to get back to the starting point. I saw two reasons offered for this conclusion:

1. We couldnt have made different "choices" because no one has proven we can make different choices

2. We couldnt have made different "choices" because its been proven that we couldnt have made different "choices"

If one believes (1) alone, this would lead to agnosticism, not determinism. And (2) isnt actual support, it just says there is support. Can someone give the actual support for determinism being true?

I hadn't noticed your post until this evening. That's why I hadn't replied sooner. You raise an important distinction - between absence of proof for free will and positive evidence for determinism. I agree that mere lack of proof isn’t enough. So let’s consider why determinism has strong empirical and philosophical support.

1. The Ubiquity of Causal Regularities

In every domain we can measure - physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology - we find consistent causal relations:

Same causes → same effects (under identical conditions).

From planetary motion to neural firings, no observation has ever required “uncaused causation.”
Every successful scientific explanation appeals to causes, not spontaneous willings.

This gives us inductive evidence for determinism: since everything we’ve studied follows cause and effect, it’s reasonable to infer that everything else does too - including “choices.”

2. Neuroscientific Evidence

Experiments by Benjamin Libet, John-Dylan Haynes, and others show that:

Brain activity predicting a “decision” occurs several hundred milliseconds before conscious awareness of “choosing.”
When subjects report having freely chosen to move a finger, the movement was already initiated by unconscious neural processes.

This suggests that what we call “choice” is the conscious reporting of an event already caused by prior brain states.

3. Developmental and Environmental Causation

Every “chooser” is a product of:

Genes, which shape temperament, intelligence, and impulses. No organism chooses its genes.

Environments, which train habits and expectations. No organism chooses its early environments. As we get older, we gain limited control over our environments.

Nutrients, which influence neurochemistry. No organism chooses its early nutrients. As we get older, we gain limited control over our nutrients.

Experiences, which encode emotional associations and cognitive biases. No organism chooses its early experiences. As we get older, we gain limited control over our experiences.

These are the GENE variables - Genes, Environments, Nutrients, Experiences - that collectively determine each brain’s decision space.
No agent chooses these variables, yet they determine every preference, belief, and motive that the agent later expresses.

4. The Incoherence of Libertarian Freedom

For a choice to be truly “free,” it would have to be:

Not caused by prior states (or else it’s determined), and
Not random (or else it’s arbitrary).

But those are the only two logical categories - caused or uncaused.
If caused, it’s determined; if uncaused, it’s random.
Either way, “ultimate authorship” vanishes.
That’s why Galen Strawson calls free will metaphysically impossible.

5. Predictive and Technological Success

Determinism isn’t just philosophical - it’s what makes science and technology possible.

If events weren’t reliably caused, you couldn’t design engines, computers, or medicines.
Even probabilistic quantum models are deterministic in the aggregate (their probability distributions obey fixed laws).

So while microscopic indeterminacy might exist, there’s no evidence it grants macroscopic agency to humans, plants, or anything else. Quantum indeterminacy doesn’t create agency; and through decoherence, those fluctuations average out at the macroscopic scale, yielding the causal stability our universe displays.

Thus, determinism - understood statistically at the quantum level and classically at the macroscopic - remains the most parsimonious and coherent framework available.

Every decision we’ve examined is traceable to prior causes.
No observation has required uncaused willing.
The concept of an uncaused cause is incoherent.

Therefore, determinism isn’t dogma - it’s an inference from the success of causal explanations across all levels of reality. It remains the most parsimonious explanation consistent with all available data.

If all choices are caused, moral blame loses meaning.
What remains is moral causation:
We can change conditions (education, healthcare, economic, welfare and justice systems) to create kinder future behaviours.

This is why I see determinism not as despairing, but as the foundation for a more compassionate ethics - one that replaces retribution with rehabilitation and prevention.

[Wootah]

This is why I see determinism not as despairing, but as the foundation for a more compassionate ethics - one that replaces retribution with rehabilitation and prevention.

It seem like you did everything but accept the consequences of determinism.

Retribution, rehabilitation and prevention are not choices. Right?

Edit: even despair or not. You didn't choose it.