Determinism; Or, Why We Are Robots

I suppose I should explain where the name of this blog comes from. This is the big one. Every few years I try my damnedest to more effectively and concisely describe what determinism is. I don’t think a single person I’ve explained the concept to has liked the idea. Not a glowing endorsement, I know, but I have heard the arguments people have made against it and will attempt to satiate them as well. My thought is that if determinism was more widely known and understood, the world would have far less conflict. I think it is the most important idea I hold, so I keep trying to improve its ability to be understood. However, it is a hard sell to most people. Not because determinism isn’t well supported or based in fact and logic, but that people don’t like hearing it. They don’t like the common determinism phrase that ‘free will is an illusion’. I’m going to attempt to explain the semantics of that statement once more, for whom it may concern. I have mentioned this most personally influential of philosophies before when I was explaining my agnosticism, but have been rather intimidated to do a dedicated explanation of it itself. I can explain my faith but this subject is too intimidating? Reflecting on that might give you some perspective on my views of it. I have tried before, but always felt I fell substantially short of my goals for clarity. Here we go again, eh? I will attempt to be succinct.

Determinism, Or, Why We Are All Robots: Determinism is the idea that everything that happens in the universe is the result of causal factors, which were, themselves, results of causal factors, and so on. Everything physical, including the atomic, electrical and chemical processes that ultimately control the happenings of the universe, are but plinko pucks, being bounced around in predictable but impossibly difficult to comprehend ways. If one had absolutely exact measurements of the puck, the wall, the atmospheric conditions, the placement, makeup and density of the rods the pucks run into, the initial conditions in the release of the puck, along with the processing power to comprehend these numbers, we could easily predict exactly where the puck would land. We don’t know these measurements, however, so in our ignorance, we call the result “random”. This is our first error: The misunderstanding of that word. What is random? Webster defines it as: “lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern”. Is this correct? Technically, in my opinion, no. Perhaps adding the word “discernible” or “understandable” somewhere in there would fix it. I would rather define it as “lacking any pattern or reason whatsoever”. Using that definition, which I believe most people operate under, I don’t believe true randomness to exist. It’s the same fallacious and loose attribution as people claiming something is “inexplicable”. Such a thing does not exist except in ignorance. If one knew the underlying reasons, anything could be explained. The vast universe is operating under the same laws as that plinko wall. Everything that happens is a reaction to something else. When you go to a bar and see someone you know unexpectedly, you did not “randomly” run into them. A series of events led both of you to the same place in a completely predictable way, provided you could see and understand the conditions. Computers themselves are incapable of producing true ‘random’ numbers. Instead, what they do is use an algorithm to simulates such things. Usually it’s some equation that, in part, plugs in numbers from your computer's internal clock and grabs digits from the result. Since time is always changing, the result you get appears random. What people tend to refer to as “random” is instead quite literally ignorance and inability to comprehend the dances of the puck. I said before that true randomness doesn’t exist, though some more learned of you might note that quantum mechanics has thrown a little wrench in that idea. Perhaps it exists and perhaps not, but certainly not on the level that most people imagine. After millennia of humanity blaming everything on either randomness or the will of a god, I find it somehow arrogant. It’s almost like ‘randomness’ has been a favorite scapegoat for eternity and that this is another example of humans trying to pass the puck (I’m so witty). The scientists making the claims are obviously far smarter than I and I can only just comprehend even the idea of quantum mechanics, so I should probably defer to their judgement. In any case, I find this the only possible example of true randomness, and it doesn’t affect my conclusions. Had to get that out of the way. Now, let's talk about the constructs known as humans. Humans are a network of biomechanical parts working together to accomplish a task. Notably: life. Our lungs extract oxygen from our environment and expels CO2 without any conscious input. Red blood cells in our body automatically deliver oxygen, our muscles autonomously use that oxygen as a type of fuel, enabling our movement, etc. What I now want to get you comfortable with is the notion that these tasks are all programmed. I suspect the first question many would immediately ask is “Programmed by whom?”, to which I would respond, “Sit down and shut up.” That is not the subject of this paper, nor is the conclusion, again, affected by the possibility of some divine creator, though it does in my opinion have unavoidable repercussions on the subject which I will dive into later. We are machines and our parts are programmed. The Matrix had it right when it compared humans to batteries. After all, batteries store energy through a chemical process, same as humans. Humans are advanced computers, really no different in function. We aren’t as reliable much of the time and can’t compute at nearly the same speed even as today's smart phones, but we are programmed. Webster backs me up on this one: Program: provide (a computer or other machine) with coded instructions for the automatic performance of a particular task. Machine: an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task. Nobody would disagree that we do not consciously control our blood cells, yes? They do their work completely autonomously. They could not do anything without some set of instructions, right? Those instructions, in this case, is our DNA and underlying chemistry in the cells. I don’t believe anything they do is ‘random’, because they were programmed to do it. Even when a system in the body does something it’s not meant to do, randomness never enters the picture. It isn’t random that someone can’t eat gluten - their body simply lacks the enzymes necessary to break it down. It isn’t random if your body gets cancer, pneumonia, the flu, if you develop alzheimers or are born autistic or with down syndrome. There are causal reasons for all these things, even if we may not be privy to exactly what they are. Medical doctors know this, which is why they don’t say “Whether or not you get this illness is random”, but rather, “We don’t yet know what causes this.” Your thoughts and actions are under the same rules as the plinko puck. Everything you think, do, experience, all the choices you make; All are the result of causal factors. It seems perfectly reasonable and logical when said like that, right? However, the most difficult part for people to swallow is this: If this is true, this means the definition of ‘free will’ has changed drastically from what we thought. In the strictest sense, it doesn’t actually exist. Still with me? Does a robot have free will? Most would agree that, no, it simply follows its programming. It can appear to make decisions but will only ever follow those which its programming has already dictated. A robot’s programming can change, in turn changing its decisions, but it will still always be a slave to its programming. Since robots can’t program themselves, their choices are undeniably out of their control, yes? I use this example as it is easier for people new to the idea to grasp, but humanity is actually no different. Some may have asked “but what happens when Skynet comes online and CAN program itself?” I’d make the argument that this is basically what humanity does - at least in appearance. Humans do program themselves. .. kind of. Let’s go through it. First, as embryos, we have absolutely no choice. We are completely and obviously slaves to the programming of our DNA alone. We grow. As babies, we cry when we are hungry or cold, laugh when we are tickled, get frightened when we see something scary to us, etc. Technically, these are also programmed by our DNA, but it’s more relatable to say they’re programmed by evolution. We don’t have a choice to cry when our diapers are full - our programming has simply told us that when we are uncomfortable, we should cry. Or, maybe we’re the child of the fortunate parents who have genetically provided us with a chemical makeup that would make us less prone to crying. In either case, we are fulfilling a programmed function, same as robots do. I said earlier that it doesn’t matter if some god programmed us or not, as the point is that we are, without any doubt, programmed in some way, and that’s the important bit. Let’s now get to the meat of the idea and skip to adulthood. In my experience, most people who hear about determinism for the first time will indignantly say they can choose to go out to a bar or stay in. They can choose which restaurant to eat at or even make the choice to pick a place they’ve never been. I respond by reiterating their role as plinko pucks. Sure, they can “choose” to go somewhere, but when they make the decision, I’d ask why they made the choice they did. Randomness doesn’t exist, and there has to be a reason, so what was it? Programming. Early life, our programming is almost exclusively our DNA. It controls our early instincts, how our brains develop, any disabilities we might have, our general aptitude for learning, our strength, and a myriad of other traits. Later in life, programming also takes the form of our experiences. When confronted with a choice, we measure it based largely on what has transpired in the past. Should we eat at this new restaurant? Well, what have we heard of it? Do they serve food I like? How much do we like new things? What is our propensity for gambling and chance? How expensive are they? To answer those questions, we have to go deeper. What are my past experiences with new things? How much have I enjoyed the thrill of a gamble in the past? Have I enjoyed this type of food historically? Have I ever experienced food listed at a similar price that I considered “worth it”? How often? Let's say you try and cheat the system and ‘not choose’, but elect to toss a coin, smirking pompously at me as you do so. I would giggle to myself just as smug and tell you that your choice to throw a coin was still decided by your past experiences, most likely in this case, how much your past experiences and people you have known make you think my words and ideas are conceited or that I’m unlikable, making you want to disagree with me, or how much the chemical makeup of your brain and your past experiences made you loathe the idea of not being in control, hence hating the idea of not truly having a real choice, etc. You can’t cheat the system. Is this still unsatisfactory to you? If you believe we have free will, then you are also claiming robots do as well. That flowers and trees and phones and the process of fermentation and the process of precipitation and tectonic plates and the sun and the universe itself has free will. Any system that follows rule or pattern or law is claimed to have free will by your logic. There is literally no difference in function. They are simply following instructions given to them by their programming, be it DNA, human programmers, or physics. Admittedly, it is much harder to see in humanity and even more so to accept, but the similarities are there, unashamedly. We simply wish to believe otherwise in the more poetic philosophy that what we do has actual reason behind it. I am honestly a little crestfallen that I must take the mantle of the realist in this situation. Now, what do we make of this idea? We are not in control. We are each of us on a monorail, being unknowingly guided through life. We are each of us a plinko puck, ostensibly bouncing around randomly, but in reality, completely predictably, provided we had all the relevant data. It has been said before that if you knew the location and velocity of every single particle in the universe, you could predict literally everything that would ever happen, provided you had access to that processing power. Quantum mechanics may possibly be truly random, maybe not. However, as I said before, it doesn’t impede what I consider to be the take-away from the philosophy, whatever the truth. We have no free will. We have no control. We have no justified reason to ever ‘blame’ someone for anything they did, in the classical sense of the word. This, maybe more than anything else, rubs people the wrong way. They like their revenge. They like pretending people who have done things they don’t agree with are terrible people. It makes it easier to hate those people. Many seem to often take huge offense to the idea of giving people who have done wrong less blame, less judgement, or less prison time. Every example of those trying to claim justice is too harsh for any type of criminal seems to be met with vilification. What I ask is that you realize it is simple bias that makes you think that way. Try and ignore that for the time being, at least. Let me give you the first example I thought of when I was ~13 that eventually grew into this philosophy (which I found out when I was ~20 was already a very discussed and developed philosophy named ‘determinism’): Think for a moment how ridiculous racism is. If it didn’t cause so much pain and violence, it would be silly enough to laugh at. Skin color? Really? How unbelievably childish. Though, these men have those beliefs for a reason. What are they? When they were children, they had terrible parents who taught them that black people were below them. If I had grown up in that environment under such ignorance and low IQ’s, well, I would have turned out the exact same as them. I wouldn’t have had the knowledge to see that what I heard was utter trash, as my limited wisdom at that point was derived solely from the atmosphere my awful parents had created. I can’t really blame them for turning out the terrible people they became. They never had a chance. That being said, I can hate the vitriol they spew whilst still having empathy for they themselves. I must remember to always put myself in their shoes. What if I had grown up my entire life being told by parents and everyone else in my sphere of influence that suicide bombing those who didn’t believe in the same god as you was a thing to be respected? It is nice to pretend I would have somehow known the folly, but that’s just something people tell themselves to feel better. They wouldn’t turn out any different. Gandhi wouldn’t have turned out different. Maybe your parents would have died when another country bombed yours when you were little because their military didn’t care about avoiding civilians. You were less than human to them. Maybe it would have then been understandable for you to seek revenge when you grew older? Let’s talk about the difference between the words ‘understandable’ and ‘justified’ before someone reports me to the FBI for possible terrorist ties. “Understandable” is defined: “able to be understood”. “Justified” as thus: “having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.” I can understand why someone has a truly deplorable view without agreeing with their reasoning. Without that view being justified. Keep that in mind, as it is important for this discussion. Another point to be made is: Very few Americans wouldn’t seek revenge had they the opportunity if their family had been killed by an invading foreign government as a response to things they themselves did not cause, but rather their government or a small faction of assholes. Empathy is key. Something I’ve said before but relates: Every war is a civil war in my eyes. Enough of politics. Captain Jack Sparrow once disappointingly said “They do what’s right by them. Can’t expect more than that.” I was tempted to scoff at the lack of continuity in his character, as he’s written as almost bumbling. However, wiser words were never spoken by a fictional character. Remember those words when someone slights you. You may wish to call them an asshole, but they are simply a result of programming they did not choose. Nobody chooses the person they will become. They have no control over what DNA and chemical makeup they will receive, their parents, when or where they are born. In turn, they have no real control over their first experiences which will inform their future experiences which will inform the rest until their death. Action leads to reaction which leads to reaction. We’re simply blind enough to consider reactions instead ‘choices’. There is a reason for everything, though the cause may be forever hidden behind a wall we cannot see, let alone comprehend. I’ve mentioned “chemical makeup” as a form of programming. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, let me explain. Levels of serotonin, dopamine, other neurotransmitters, etc, as well as how well our thyroid works or how large our prefrontal cortex is or for lack of a better term the ‘quality’ of our amygdala's and other brain systems vastly changes who we become. I’d venture a guess that most people who are reading this article have heard at least one of the many stories where someone suffers some kind of brain damage, gets something skewered through their brains and live, or develops a brain tumor that ends up completely changing the person's personality, usually not for the better. Even something more mundane can change your life in a surprisingly big way. A birth mark. Freckles. Red hair. Perhaps you are born with a rare skin condition or food intolerance or have an unavoidable future of male pattern baldness in your genes. All of these things change you, most likely in astoundingly huge unrelated ways. Two more things I want to touch on before I continue: Chaos theory and the butterfly effect. It always reminds me of the old adage which spoke of the flapping of a butterfly's wings eventually causing a hurricane several weeks later hundreds of miles away. It is the notion that within complex systems, tiny variations in the initial starting conditions can yield wildly different results. It is the reasons that you can’t confidently attempt to place the plinko puck in the same place before releasing to guess the landing point. It will still, on decent plinko board anyway, fall seemingly randomly to our uncomprehending minds. It is also why Freud would never confidently be able to say that kids in similar bad environments who witnessed a traumatic event would all turn out serial killers. Sometimes the tiniest thing, even otherwise trivial, can exponentially change our personalities and experiences over time. The only reason I’m sitting here might have hinged on the fact that I saw a cloud that looked like a dog when I was 4 years old. For all I know, it’s perfectly plausible that I’d be in jail for hard drug use right now if I had missed that event alone, even having never touched hard drugs as it is. Determinists often get accused of not wanting to punish anybody who commits a crime since we believe nothing is technically anybody’s fault - we can’t really blame anybody for their actions. That’s a straw man. It's not the typical determinists view. In making that accusation, though, I find they admit a bias - they think that punishment is solely about revenge. I find the thought a primitive, animalistic one. Punishment should, in fact, never be about revenge. It is about justice, rehabilitation, and example. The point of justice is to ensure we maintain order in society (or attempt to) by discouraging people to break the law, both the person responsible for the crime and the rest of society witnessing their punishment. A deterrent (and I'll stifle my urges to talk about Thoreau for now). Sometimes, no matter how much empathy we have, we must concede that some people can never be trusted to a great enough extent, and thus, allowed to reenter society. If I had all information about their lives and DNA, I might be able to understand how they turned out as they did. I may not technically blame them for their sometimes severely damaged programming, but that doesn’t mean I won’t be prudent in their separation from those I love. I don’t look at a gun and think “I don’t necessarily blame you for the death you cause” before leaving it within reach of my children. The one thing I think would help people the most is the realization that if you were put in anyone else's shoes and had lived the same exact life as them, you’d turn out the exact same. This is true of literally anyone. If the Pope was put in Hitler's body as an embryo and Hitler in the Pope’s, we’d not be able to tell a single difference if we could compare the two timelines. If the most “Make America Great Again” white power right-wing Christian Breitbart country redneck cowboys were put in the bodies of certain Saudi infants several years ago, they would have eventually grown up to help fly a plane into the WTC’s on 9/11. That is not a guess on my part. That is a logical fact. If you find your current attitude one of indignance, you either are in denial or I haven’t done a good enough job of explaining. People tend to accept this idea in tiny doses. “Trump only has money now because his dad gave him a loan of a million dollars, and even then his dad had to bail him out multiple times!” They would often accept an explanation of that magnitude yet deny the logic of determinism. “People only voted for Hillary because she’s a woman!” Same thing. They acknowledge there are underlying reasons that cause people to act one way or another, completely not randomly, yet often can’t accept the same of themselves. It’s frustrating, even knowing that these people think the way they do for a reason. My philosophy (and eventual discovery of determinism proper) has changed me greatly. Not only have I found myself much more empathetic, I began to ask myself certain questions. I had always almost feared religion. I grew up in a religious family and called myself a Christian, though I never felt any ‘connection’ to god. I tried and tried but never truly convinced myself, though I lied and told myself I had. I remember feeling genuinely scared to watch things like Richard Dawkins, George Carlin, Bill Maher’s “Religulous”, or Zeitgeist, for fear it would make me doubt my religion even more. This memory now gives me rare insight into the religious mind. They often consciously avoid other perspectives if they think it threatens their world view. The mere fact they are threatened proves to me that it’s not a real belief. I would guess there are very few who call themselves Christians who truly have convictions - who have no fear. I don’t agree with them, but I do respect them, on a certain level. They are, if nothing else, genuine. A rarity in any demographic. That being said, I’ve still never gotten around to watching Religulous and Zeitgeist is full of demonstrably untrue claims, about religion and otherwise. My mentioning is not an endorsement. Though, I no longer carry an ounce of fear on the subject. That was quite the weight off my shoulders when I finally accepted it out of high school. I don’t see determinism as being compatible with a god. I still don’t claim one doesn’t exist, I just find it highly unlikely. Determinism I can prove with logic (though I still wish I was more concise). God will never be proven or disproven by… any kind of proof, excepting possibly death. Given that, I believe in determinism over religion. Why would god punish anybody ever? If they're omnitemporal and omnipotent, they created us exactly the way we are and would be the only entity capable of knowing the placement and velocity of every particle in the universe, and could literally see the future, knowing exactly how we would turn out. You don’t get angry at a kid for reaching the bottom of a slide when you were the one who pushed them down it to begin with. They would have known exactly why I turned out agnostic and would be a fool if they attempted to punish me because of it. I don’t accept that. If they exist and the bible is correct, they are punishing people by mere chance of birth and placement. They are punishing people solely out of revenge, and not for justice or to discourage similar behavior. Is god a child, then? Lizard? God is supposed to be omnibenevolent as well. Why should I respect a god who has such obvious temperament problems? Why should I waste time on a god who ostensibly decided whether to give me eternal life or suffering the moment I was conceived? Let me get this straight: God allegedly put Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, had the writers have him talk about Chaos Theory, led me to the idea of determinism while simultaneously introduced things into my life making me highly value logic and critical thinking, and expects me to actually believe in a higher power, regardless? Of course not. “Unlikely” is the best they will get and would understand exactly why, if they do, in fact, exist. Why lie to myself? Pascal's Wager is for weak-willed fools and is the main reason, in my opinion, religion still exists in the age of rationalism. Soul insurance for the frightened. So, this all sounds rather dreary. “You have no control” and such. It’s a hard semantical problem to crack. One more reason, in my experiences, that people don't like determinism is that they like their platitudes. "You can do anything!" and "Your life is in your hands!" and such. They find determinism threatening to their motivational poster outlook. They think it's a nihilistic view. It really isn't. The entire purpose of those cliche posters is to change your programming. Let it influence you. Let this paper influence you. If you truly understand determinism, you wouldn't be scared of it. You will still strive to make improvements in your life and seek happiness. It may not technically be entirely your "choice", but if things do improve, what’s the worry?

Just try and recognize the logic, especially when it comes to others. I believe empathy is the single greatest thing that would improve the welfare of the world and determinism is possibly the best vehicle for it. Love your neighbor, be understanding even of your enemies. Even a Saint can only take shit for so long, but maybe try and keep it at a minimum from now on. The more narcissistic among us I can’t see being bothered by the fact that their enemies aren’t really to blame as much as they thought, but I still hold out hope that humanity is inherently good, the worst of us simply led astray by our disappointing programming. This last year hasn’t been encouraging for that thought, but I haven’t sunk to the ‘realist’ level yet.

#determinism #bias #logic #logical #chaostheory #rational #racism #perception