Deterministic vs non-rational

[CandideWest]

I’m interested in people’s views on whether human decisions are deterministic or non-rational.

Please note from the outset that this is not a question about souls etc. Indeed the presence or absence of a soul does not affect this question one whit. I am for the sake of this conversation referring to wherever decisions are made, whether you believe that to be in the brain or in some kind of soul or something else. I will be referring to it as the decision locus.

Hopefully on that basis everyone can talk on equal footing no matter our differences in religion.

So, why we must choose between deterministic and non-rational…

If decisions made by people are dependent on (name removed by moderator)uts to the decision making locus (by which I mean there is a causal relationship between (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs) then decisions are deterministic. This means that if you had two perfectly identical decision loci fed with precisely the same information then the decisions produced by each would be identical in all circumstances.

If on the other hand if decisions are independent in (name removed by moderator)uts to decision loci (so there is no causal relationship between (name removed by moderator)ut and decision) then two perfectly identical decision loci fed with precisely the same information could still produce different results. In other words there is not necessarily any relationship between (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

Either view offers challenging questions which we can discuss later, but initially I’m curious which people think is most likely true.

Thanks

 

[davidv]

I’m interested in people’s views on whether human decisions are deterministic or non-rational.

Please note from the outset that this is not a question about souls etc. Indeed the presence or absence of a soul does not affect this question one whit. I am for the sake of this conversation referring to wherever decisions are made, whether you believe that to be in the brain or in some kind of soul or something else. I will be referring to it as the decision locus.

Hopefully on that basis everyone can talk on equal footing no matter our differences in religion.

So, why we must choose between deterministic and non-rational…

If decisions made by people are dependent on (name removed by moderator)uts to the decision making locus (by which I mean there is a causal relationship between (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs) then decisions are deterministic. This means that if you had two perfectly identical decision loci fed with precisely the same information then the decisions produced by each would be identical in all circumstances.

If on the other hand if decisions are independent in (name removed by moderator)uts to decision loci (so there is no causal relationship between (name removed by moderator)ut and decision) then two perfectly identical decision loci fed with precisely the same information could still produce different results. In other words there is not necessarily any relationship between (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

Either view offers challenging questions which we can discuss later, but initially I’m curious which people think is most likely true.

Thanks

Why are these two the only choices?

What if decisions are influenced by, but not determined by the (name removed by moderator)uts, and are made based on reasoned consideration of the consequences involved?

 

[Fomalhaut]

I believe the brain is fundamentally deterministic, but the process is so convoluted and fuzzy that it’s practically impossible to actually predict the actions of someone.

Interesting read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

[jc4751]

I’m too mentally tired to get much into this tonight, but I would suggest a beginning point of exploration is the psychopath and Nash equilibriums. They seek to maximize their own position, without regard to the experience of others (thus making perfect players for the Dictator game – make your own political jokes), but this has to be done with a careful analysis and selection of potential victims, as well as taking actions which prevent them from being caught. Memes also seem to have at least some role in this process, but accepting the notion of memes probably tends to obsolete the notion of hard-coded biological behavior. In the end, I think the arguments against free will are probably going to go the way of phrenology.

 

[CandideWest]

Why are these two the only choices?

What if decisions are influenced by, but not determined by the (name removed by moderator)uts, and are made based on reasoned consideration of the consequences involved?

Because the “influence” must either be in the form of logical consequence (in which case the influence is deterministic and hence the decision remains deterministic).

Or the influence is in the form of a change in probability of different outcomes. If the outcome of a decision is on a probability curve which must be chance based. Hence non-rational.

 

[Pugsly]

Because the “influence” must either be in the form of logical consequence (in which case the influence is deterministic and hence the decision remains deterministic).

Or the influence is in the form of a change in probability of different outcomes. If the outcome of a decision is on a probability curve which must be chance based. Hence non-rational.

After the elections of 2012…I’m going to conclude that there is a huge pull toward “deterministic” (if that means influenced by percieved reality and life experiences) in weaker human beings.
However, if you are looking for a One-Size-Fits-All answer…I think people are capable of overcoming all physical and experiential influences…(just go to an AA meeting)…and therefore can become ultra-reasonable…or “non-rational” as you put it.

 

[CandideWest]

I believe the brain is fundamentally deterministic, but the process is so convoluted and fuzzy that it’s practically impossible to actually predict the actions of someone.

Interesting read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Interesting, thanks

 

[Alindawyl]

I’m interested in people’s views on whether human decisions are deterministic or non-rational.

When presented with a choice between two options in an either/or manner, it is supposed to mean that those two options are mutually exclusive. But there is nothing mutually exclusive about the two options you present; they are not opposites. If you were to ask if human decisions were deterministic or non-deterministic, or rational or non-rational, that would be one thing. But deterministic and non-rational are not synonymous, any more than non-deterministic and rational are synonymous.

Human decisions are rational. They are rational because we decide what to do based on whatever we believe to be the most optimal choice. If we are mistaken about what is the most optimal thing to do, then we will mistakenly choose what is not optimal. If we do not like what is the most optimal thing to do, then we may lie to ourselves that something we’d rather do is actually the most optimal. Whether it’s truly optimal or only optimal in our own mind, we always choose what we believe to be the most optimal.

Human decisions are also non-deterministic because we are not constrained by the (name removed by moderator)uts we receive. We are free to reject the output suggested by the (name removed by moderator)uts we receive if we do not trust the source of the (name removed by moderator)uts, or don’t like one or more (name removed by moderator)ut, or don’t want to do the output, or don’t want to be associated with the kind of people who typically do the output, or… any number of things.

The fact that human decisions are both non-deterministic and rational is clearly evident from even a superficial examination of human behavior.

 

[davidv]

Because the “influence” must either be in the form of logical consequence (in which case the influence is deterministic and hence the decision remains deterministic).

Or the influence is in the form of a change in probability of different outcomes. If the outcome of a decision is on a probability curve which must be chance based. Hence non-rational.

How does the determinism is the (name removed by moderator)ut cause determinism in the choice? Looks like a non sequiteur to me.

 

[CandideWest]

After the elections of 2012…I’m going to conclude that there is a huge pull toward “deterministic” (if that means influenced by percieved reality and life experiences) in weaker human beings.

Interesting, what do you mean by “weaker human beings” and why would you say there was a pull towards deterministic?

However, if you are looking for a One-Size-Fits-All answer…I think people are capable of overcoming all physical and experiential influences…(just go to an AA meeting)…and therefore can become ultra-reasonable…or “non-rational” as you put it.

Ok, just to be clear, that people have the ability to come from one background and end up living completely differently is not evidence for the non-rational position. Complex interactions of millions of pieces of information coming together in complex ways in the decision loci could still all hinge on a single apparently innocuous piece of information which ultimately skews the decision making process and cause a radically different result (think butterfly effect).

This could happen just as well if our decision loci are deterministic as it could if they are non-rational.

 

[CandideWest]

When presented with a choice between two options in an either/or manner, it is supposed to mean that those two options are mutually exclusive. But there is nothing mutually exclusive about the two options you present; they are not opposites. If you were to ask if human decisions were deterministic or non-deterministic, or rational or non-rational, that would be one thing. But deterministic and non-rational are not synonymous, any more than non-deterministic and rational are synonymous.

You’re probably right, I should have expounded a little more clearly from the outset. Funnily enough I was trying to keep things simple but I can see now that this might cause confusion.

Allow me to re-state.

“What are your views on whether humans decisions are rational and therefore deterministic in nature, or non-rational and therefore may be non-deterministic?”

Decisions cannot be both rational (the result of a sequence of logical outcomes) and non-deterministic (not a consequence of of a sequence of antecendent outcomes). Since this would be contradictory.

Human decisions are rational. They are rational because we decide what to do based on whatever we believe to be the most optimal choice. If we are mistaken about what is the most optimal thing to do, then we will mistakenly choose what is not optimal. If we do not like what is the most optimal thing to do, then we may lie to ourselves that something we’d rather do is actually the most optimal. Whether it’s truly optimal or only optimal in our own mind, we always choose what we believe to be the most optimal.

Interesting point of view, there’s a lot of research ongoing at the moment into why we make the decisions we do. it’s an interesting area of work. But I’ve yet to find any evidence that humans “choose” what to believe. I’d be interested if you know of any?

Also please note that the above is not evidence for human decisions being rational. given the above they could just as easily be selected by chance on a probability curve and subsequently justified. Either option neatly matches the observed effect.

Human decisions are also non-deterministic because we are not constrained by the (name removed by moderator)uts we receive. We are free to reject the output suggested by the (name removed by moderator)uts we receive if we do not trust the source of the (name removed by moderator)uts, or don’t like one or more (name removed by moderator)ut, or don’t want to do the output, or don’t want to be associated with the kind of people who typically do the output, or… any number of things.

But of course all of those other things are also (name removed by moderator)uts in their own right to the decision loci. Therefore this is not evidence of decisions being non-deterministic.

The fact that human decisions are both non-deterministic and rational is clearly evident from even a superficial examination of human behavior.

I fear in my quest for brevity I’ve missed key information. But hopefully the above should fill the gaps. Let me know if I’m still not there yet and I’ll take another shot at it.

Thanks

 

[CandideWest]

How does the determinism is the (name removed by moderator)ut cause determinism in the choice? Looks like a non sequiteur to me.

I’m afraid I’m not sure how this relates to what I wrote? I didn’t say anything about determinism in the (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m talking about determinism in the decision making process, no more, no less.

 

[MPat]

You’re probably right, I should have expounded a little more clearly from the outset. Funnily enough I was trying to keep things simple but I can see now that this might cause confusion.

Allow me to re-state.

“What are your views on whether humans decisions are rational and therefore deterministic in nature, or non-rational and therefore may be non-deterministic?”

Decisions cannot be both rational (the result of a sequence of logical outcomes) and non-deterministic (not a consequence of of a sequence of antecendent outcomes). Since this would be contradictory.

So, in other words, you are saying that a quantum computer is definitely “non-rational” and a “normal” computer is (or can be) “rational”…?

 

[CandideWest]

So, in other words, you are saying that a quantum computer is definitely “non-rational” and a “normal” computer is (or can be) “rational”…?

I’m afraid i know little or nothing about quantum computers so cannot really answer the first part of the question.

But with regards to the latter… if you could build a computer which could be said to “make decisions” then I guess you’d have to say that it’s decisions at least could be rational.

I’m going to try to keep this thread as close to the topic as possible, so I’m going to avoid any excursions (ie into the realms of computing) unless they prove unavoidable. At the moment i don’t see any need to refer to computers to discuss peoples’ opinions on how humans make decisions.

 

[MPat]

I’m afraid i know little or nothing about quantum computers so cannot really answer the first part of the question.

But with regards to the latter… if you could build a computer which could be said to “make decisions” then I guess you’d have to say that it’s decisions at least could be rational.

I’m going to try to keep this thread as close to the topic as possible, so I’m going to avoid any excursions (ie into the realms of computing) unless they prove unavoidable. At the moment i don’t see any need to refer to computers to discuss peoples’ opinions on how humans make decisions.

In such case you should probably read some articles of Wikipedia:

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_algorithm
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_algorithm
• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method

(The last one does not concern quantum computing, but it still concerns probabilities.)

I wouldn’t say that all that is irrelevant. It is relevant to find out what counts as “rational”. How are we going to discuss if something is “rational” without knowing what “rational” means…? And I hope that reading the links I gave you will help you see that it is not that obvious that rationality should be understood as incompatible with probability…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m interested in people’s views on whether human decisions are deterministic or non-rational.

Please note from the outset that this is not a question about souls etc. Indeed the presence or absence of a soul does not affect this question one whit. I am for the sake of this conversation referring to wherever decisions are made, whether you believe that to be in the brain or in some kind of soul or something else. I will be referring to it as the decision locus.

Hopefully on that basis everyone can talk on equal footing no matter our differences in religion.

So, why we must choose between deterministic and non-rational…

If decisions made by people are dependent on (name removed by moderator)uts to the decision making locus (by which I mean there is a causal relationship between (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs) then decisions are deterministic. This means that if you had two perfectly identical decision loci fed with precisely the same information then the decisions produced by each would be identical in all circumstances.

If on the other hand if decisions are independent in (name removed by moderator)uts to decision loci (so there is no causal relationship between (name removed by moderator)ut and decision) then two perfectly identical decision loci fed with precisely the same information could still produce different results. In other words there is not necessarily any relationship between (name removed by moderator)uts and outputs.

Either view offers challenging questions which we can discuss later, but initially I’m curious which people think is most likely true.

Thanks

But you see Candide your described limits prejudice any response at the outset. Those who respond accept materialism by default. And in materialism there can be no " decision process" because there is no mind.

The following Link to an article by Al Moritz ( member here ) pretty well puts the kebash on your form of deterministic naturalism.

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/…sm_is_true.htm

In other words, no soul, no free thought and I would say " no thought " at all. How can matter have thought? It can’t. This error is three thousand years old. It is the error of the early Greek philosophers, who were finally rescued by Plato, Aristotle, and Thomas Aquinas. Linus

 

[davidv]

You’re probably right, I should have expounded a little more clearly from the outset. Funnily enough I was trying to keep things simple but I can see now that this might cause confusion.

Allow me to re-state.

"What are your views on whether humans decisions are rational and therefore deterministic in nature, or non-rational and therefore may be non-deterministic?"

Decisions cannot be both rational (the result of a sequence of logical outcomes) and non-deterministic (not a consequence of of a sequence of antecendent outcomes). Since this would be contradictory.

Interesting point of view, there’s a lot of research ongoing at the moment into why we make the decisions we do. it’s an interesting area of work. But I’ve yet to find any evidence that humans “choose” what to believe. I’d be interested if you know of any?

Also please note that the above is not evidence for human decisions being rational. given the above they could just as easily be selected by chance on a probability curve and subsequently justified. Either option neatly matches the observed effect.

But of course all of those other things are also (name removed by moderator)uts in their own right to the decision loci. Therefore this is not evidence of decisions being non-deterministic.

I fear in my quest for brevity I’ve missed key information. But hopefully the above should fill the gaps. Let me know if I’m still not there yet and I’ll take another shot at it.

Thanks

I cannot accept the bolded above. That rational decisions are deterministic is clearly an unwarranted claim unless you are using highly unusual definitions of rational or deterministic, or both. Please define what you mean with these terms.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I think some of our thoughts are predetermined by what goes on in the unconscious mind. To that extent only are they predetermined. Once they reach the level of consciousness in a normal person, they present us with options that we are free to select from. An insane person, of course, does not have free will. Insanity can be predetermined by brain chemistry, or in unusual cases can result from psychological trauma so extreme that we escape from reality into a fantasy world.

Normally, we have free will, despite whatever suspicions we may have that forces are at work over which we have no control.

The assumption that we have free will is, for me, a given … just by the sheer conviction that I am free. This is not different really from the sheer conviction that I am a reasoning being. The sense of being free is so overwhelming in most people that they should not doubt their own sensation of freedom. Those who do so seem to be playing with intellectual fire … a dangerous business indeed since debilitating fatalism is the possible consequence of such a philosophy.

Fatalism is a typically oriental philosophy. When you look at where and how fatalism dominates in the East, we in the West don’t really want any part of it.

 

[zro_x]

To give my own speculations on this matter: Human decisions are influenced both by certain (name removed by moderator)uts (reason, experiences, genetics, upbringing, etc.). and a non-rational, completely independent free will. Deterministic factors can influence a decision, (which is why we’re able to predict human behavior to any degree at all) but ultimately, the choices are made by the non-rational free will, which can, depending on the degree of willpower, override the wieght of the other factors if it is so inclined. (at least in most cases. when it is not possible for a person to bring up the willpower to override the other factors, we are not morally responsible for those actions)

 

[Pugsly]

Interesting, what do you mean by “weaker human beings” and why would you say there was a pull towards deterministic?

Ok, just to be clear, that people have the ability to come from one background and end up living completely differently is not evidence for the non-rational position. Complex interactions of millions of pieces of information coming together in complex ways in the decision loci could still all hinge on a single apparently innocuous piece of information which ultimately skews the decision making process and cause a radically different result (think butterfly effect).

This could happen just as well if our decision loci are deterministic as it could if they are non-rational.

Weaker human beings are those that are moved about almost exclusively by emotion and appetite.

As to your larger point…I know there is human freedom…we are NOT slaves to mechanations of biology or events or drives…all of it can be overcome by the free will. Christ died on the Cross freely out of love. Jesus was not following a bizarre set of impulses.