Q&A: Question about the Rabbi’s argument against determinism
Question about the Rabbi’s argument against determinism
Question
I read the Rabbi’s remarks in his book The Science of Freedom, and also in one of the recent posts, where the following argument appears (roughly):
Why do people who believe in determinism bother to deliberate, if everything is predetermined? From this it follows that they themselves really do believe in free choice.
This seems to me like a mistaken argument, since a deterministic view is not identical with belief in fate.
Our deliberations are attempts by the brain to evaluate probabilities. For example, if I’m deliberating which job to choose, I’m trying to estimate the probabilities regarding the expected (emotional) payoff for me in each of the options before me.
For example, suppose technology advances and it becomes possible to build a robot with artificial intelligence. The robot’s objective function would be to carry out moves that maximize my gains, as defined by the programmer (for example, accumulating friends, money, and political power). The robot would observe the world and, through trial and error, build a system of regularities according to which it should operate. The robot would “deliberate” each time about what to do; that is, it would try to assess, based on the information it had gathered, which alternative would yield the greatest payoff. This would be an entirely mechanistic and deterministic process, and we would not challenge the robot by asking why it bothers to run these calculations.
You can also see deliberation in animals—for example, a cat trying to assess whether it is capable of jumping from one point to another. Again, we do not think the cat has free choice, but we do believe its “deliberation” has value.
I don’t see why this is essentially different from human beings?
Answer
I don’t see it either. Where did you see me saying anything different?
Discussion on Answer
The argument that Amichi put in my mouth, as I recall, does not appear in my books. On the contrary, what he himself wrote appears in my work. Except that I don’t call it deliberation but calculation.
What I argue is that deliberations of the sort that consist of brain calculation can also exist in animals. I don’t know whether that actually exists or not, but there is no reason it couldn’t. That has nothing to do with free will and judgment in the sense I am talking about.
Meaning, animals have a mind like human beings do?