On Determinism and

the illusion of Free

Will.
A short discourse on
ideas:
Justin Jurie Chapman

J. Chapman
I have been contemplating about articulating my thoughts on this matter for a while now. I
understand that much of my work will not be anything new to the educated philosopher or the
well-read thinker, nonetheless – these are my thoughts and I hope that you find a modicum of
logic and sound reasoning within them. The problem of free-will has been a philosophical
problem for aeons and I am not very hopeful that I could add anything worthy to the debate.
My main intention is to try and make sense of an ethical system within a deterministic
universe that is firstly all encompassing, and has the main goal of love and tolerance as its
end.

I had no choice
Every thought you have ever had
Whether good or bad
Sprung from the recesses of your mind
A deliberating consciousness that is blind.

Every feeling you have ever felt

Was wound tightly with a deterministic belt

Every word you have ever written

Was written with a hand wearing a causal mitten.

Free-will is an illusion and always has been,

However, this is perhaps one elephant in the room
best left unseen.

Dualism is a false philosophy.

We are a causal system,
In a Universe governed by a causal piston.

Libertarian free will is an illusion.

However comforting it may feel to be free,
I had no other option that to write these words,
And be me.

J.J.Chapman

“Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”

― Arthur Schopenhauer, Essays and Aphorisms

J. Chapman
 CONTENTS:
1. The Notion of Free Will
2. The Monotheistic Problem of Free Will
3. My argument for Determinism
4. Compatibilism
5. Moral responsibility
6. The Hard problem of Consciousness
7. An Imperative (Kantian) based argument for morality from a
libertarian free-will proposition

Image taken from: (https://dontdontoperate.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/free-will-sam-harris/)

J. Chapman
 1. The Notion of Free Will

The classical formulation for libertarian free will has long since been realised as a fallacious
and wish-based argument.

Below is the classical formulation of the problem that libertarian free will faces:

P1. Some agent, at some time, could have done otherwise than it did

P2. Actions are events

P3. Every event has a cause

P4. If an event is caused, it is causally determined

C. If an event is an act that is causally determined, then the agent could not have acted
otherwise than in the way it did.

Albert Einstein” Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over
which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as the star. Human beings,
vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an
invisible piper."

J. Chapman
 2. The Monotheistic problem of free will:
Even though the above formulation is outdated, from a theological perspective the fate of
free-will seems even more dire. I personally find a few problems with us as sentient,
cognitive creatures having an ounce of “free choice” if a classical monotheistic God exists.
These are the problems free will seems to face from this perspective:

- If we ascribe the attributes of omniscience (All knowing), omnipotence (All powerful)

(and less importantly, and more baseless) omnibenevolence (All good), there is
absolutely no room for free will.
- If God is all knowing, and all powerful, He (Using the classical misogynistic term)
would not be able to ask himself a question He could not answer, or create an object
He could not lift, or change his mind because he would know that he is going to
change his mind before he changes it – Hence no choice or change occurs. Therefore,
He could not Himself be a free agent.
- Considering the attributes of this Being, would you and I ever be able to make a
choice that it could not foresee? Could we confound this being? Is there a way that
Eve could have chosen to not eat the apple considering this Being would have known
about the fall of man before the creation of time and space?
- Perhaps I am being too narrow minded, and possibly this was the only reality that
could be created where we could experience the prodigious heights of joy and love
because of the reality of suffering and hate? Again, this Being can nullify the concept
of “Ying-Yang” because it can create a place of eternal bliss and eternal torture, it can
create light without darkness, and is itself without fault.

- Therefore, whatever the purpose of

creating this “gateway” between two worlds,
where our choices directly influence our
place in the afterlife – it is not apparent. This
Being would have full knowledge of the
subsequent suffering that would take place
after a talking snake managed to confuse a
woman. The only conclusion that I can come
to is that this was intended. Why not remove the apple? Why allow a creature to talk?
Why, if in full control and with full knowledge, would a Being allow this if it is
omnibenevolent and did not wish us to gain knowledge of good and evil (considering
it already existed)?
- The book of Job is a complete and open violation of a man’s free will. We see God
deliberately hardening the heart of pharaoh to make sure He could unleash the Angel
of Death and snuff the life from the first born in the land, unless they blood let a goat
and paint their doors with its blood.

J. Chapman
 - God often calls people his chosen, or his elect and says in many passages, as in
Ephesians 1:4 “4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the
world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love”
- What we fail to realize, is that if God had chosen us before he made the world, before
the conceptualization of humans, he had already known that the fall of man would
occur and the entire doctrine of faith, worship and prayer – becomes irrelevant. We
are already chosen, and if we are not chosen – there is absolutely nothing we can do
about it. Would a just being punish someone (for the infraction of non-belief) for not
being able to be what it was predestined to be by the being who has promulgated the
punishment itself? Judge, Jury, Guilty Party and Executioner of the confused and
innocent predetermined man.

I find the paradox Epicurus formulated many aeons ago, to be as fitting today, as it was then.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not
willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Believers usually respond to the “Classical Problem of Evil” like

this, which are called theodicies -
Theodicy: “As defined by Alvin Plantinga, theodicy is the "answer to the question of
why God permits evil”. Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to
vindicate God in response to the evidential problem of evil that militates against the
existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity.”

“Since we don’t know if the goods we know of are representative of all the goods there
are, here or in heaven, we cannot know if it is likely that there are no goods that justify
God in permitting whatever amount of apparently pointless, horrific evil there might
occur in our world. Just as we expect a small child to be blind to the reasons an adult has
for allowing her to suffer justified pain of a vaccine, so we should expect that we will be
blind to the reasons God has for allowing our justified suffering. The justified rational
attitude concerning whether there are pointless evils is agnosticism. Faith’s attitude is
spiritual growth and a return to God. There is some important lesson that God wants us
to learn, for our own good, and the only pedagogically effective means of imparting the
lesson are ones that require tolerating suffering.”

Further reading: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

J. Chapman
 A few general thoughts pertaining to this specific theodicy and
covering a few others (As I did in my earlier statements as well):

1. If the parent-infant analogy were fully successful, it would be difficult to see how
we could know anything at all about God. Infants or parents haven’t the slightest
idea that their parents or Gods are bipolar, psychopath, sadist, an experimenter,
Satan, a zombie, or automaton.
2. While it may be true for limited parents that they must permit some suffering to
occur to achieve goods of much greater value for their infants, an omnipotent being
cannot justify the toleration of suffering because it has apparent limitations. What
kind of necessity is it that constrains even an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being
that entails the toleration of suffering? And what moral goal could warrant the
toleration of suffering as vast and as various as we observe in the world around
us? If the idea is that only the prospect of gaining relief from their misery can
motivate human beings to return to God, it hardly seems apt to say that they are
doing it “of their own free will.”
3. It's hard to understand the believer fearing a God when worshiping a loving
God. The allegation of necessity of God to allow suffering to enable soul growth
through free will is like to say:
a. If it weren’t for the fact that someone burned down his house in a drunken stupor,
killing his wife and five children, he never would have realized how much he loved
them and have given up drink.
b. It was good God allowing the possibility of slavery occur because it made possible
for slavers to have free will to enslave; and for plantation-owners to have free will
to buy slaves. There was also the great good for those who themselves suffered as
slaves that their lives were not useless, their vulnerability to suffering made
possible many free choices.
c. It is good that God gave us the very deep responsibility to have free will of how
long others live, God gave to the hard-hearted the very extreme free will in cases of
unjust suffering, such as is found in slavery and the Holocaust.
d. You know that something has gone wrong with theism when the God’s evil
justification is morally acceptable. If it isn't wrong for God to do that which it is
wrong for a man to do, the theism’s morality and our acceptable moral rationality
are quite different.
4. Belief in God makes morality unintelligible. If one is unable to determine whether
some good or evil is truly good or evil, such that we cannot even know if there
exists pointless evil, how can we be said to have any meaningful morality? (e.g. "Is
what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it
morally good because it is commanded by God?” -Socrates). If naturalism is true
we have a more understanding grasp of goods and evils overall.
5. God’s morality is the inherently implausible morality of an infinitely powerful and
infinitely loving being, because of his silence, given the additional suffering
occasioned by the sufferers and their loved ones being unable to understand
pointless horrendous suffering, the despair and loneliness of those who undergo
pointless horrendous suffering without any conscious sense of God being present,
expressing his love and concern.
6. Religion has had the disastrous effect of placing justification of God’s allowed or
commanded evil, his morality and our happiness in a supernatural realm

J. Chapman
 inaccessible to man’s moral reason, the most abject evil will be excused if the
believer can claim the sanction of faith and the “mysterious”.

I use the Freudian theory of the states of consciousness

Fig.1

3. My Argument for Determinism:

P1: Consciousness is the observer of thoughts that arise from the subconscious and
unconscious mind

P2: The Subconscious is a computing device that is programmed by culture, genetics,

circumstances and all other causal effects which are outside of the observers (P1) control.

P3: The Subconscious mind is causally determined, and is reactionary towards outside
stimuli (Instinctual, habitual and predictable)

P4: The unconscious mind is a reservoir of feelings, thoughts, urges, and memories that
outside of our conscious awareness and is also causally determined.

C: The conscious mind is completely reliant on causal determinism and therefore free will
is illusory

J. Chapman
 Explanation of terms:

Observer: We know that reality is buffered through our sense-perception and relayed to us as
a conscious “experience”. One such example is that mechanically speaking, our eyes see
everything upside down. That's because the process of refraction through a convex lens
causes the image to be flipped, so when the image hits your retina, it's completely inverted.
We know that when we touch our finger to our nose, that the feeling arises in the conscious
experience as a unified sense of touch – yet the feeling from the nose would reach the brain
faster, and trigger a neurological response. The brain buffers these two feelings to happen
“simultaneously” for us to have a fluid conscience experience. In a very real way, we are
seeing a (albeit split second) edited version of the past. We also know that once attached to an
fMRI and asked a question (Faced with two buttons, left and right and to make a choice as to
which one to choose), synapses fire in the brain and can be measured before we are
consciously aware of the decision. Please see:
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/libet_experiments.html. And fig.2

RP: Readiness Potential

W: Reported time of movement

Fig.2

Our conscious experience is a collection of past events and prior “programming” which is
vastly out of our control, restricted by knowledge, intelligence and the possibility of a mental
or physiological disease effecting the physical brain. Two men could look at the same object,
namely a mathematical problem (The stimuli) and have two completely different sensory
responses based on prior causes and mental capacity. One could feel anxious, confused and
possibly angry. The other could feel engaged, satisfied and happy. One could solve the
problem and the other may not even see the problem. Which is all entirely out of their
conscious control due to many prior causes.

We can replace the stimuli with any example and see very clearly, that our engagement with
reality is completely restrained by predetermined causes and we are all ourselves, separate
causal chains. Every single thought you have ever thought, or any option of choices to some
external stimuli, came from the recesses of your mind and you had no conscious part to play
in the deliberation process. Having two or three possible choices (thoughts) emerge into our
conscious experience does not make us free. The thoughts would have a causal chain to them,
and you would have only have picked one of those choices regardless if you know all your

J. Chapman
preferences and predetermined influences. This is a clear illusion of choice, as the brain
weighs the options at an unconscious level, and then puts them forth – before we are even
consciously aware of the action. (see Fig.2)

There seems to be a school of thought, or more specifically, an objection to me naming the

conscious experience as a mere observer. That we can somehow influence the subconscious
mind with certain therapies. Namely, CBT, psychoanalysis, REBT, self-affirmations, learning
a new instrument or concept and consciously facing fears to remove the underlying
subconscious/intuitive fear. Even if this is true (which I think it is, but the change still
happens in the place of the unconscious experience, and whether the patient or cognitive
agent is receptive to treatment or not is causally determined anyway), I still do not see how it
effects my premise that the conscious mind is a mere observer through sensory experience.
Our experience is limited by the physical constraints of reality and in a dream, our mind
becomes the constraint.

The conscious mind can sometimes feel as if the ideas that are coming from the subconscious
are wrong, and fall short of logical deduction and when this happens we see cognitive
dissonance take place, or emotional responses to clearly logical problems and of course – the
difficulty of releasing old habits. Often our subconscious mind conflicts with what we want
consciously and that is the reason why we often contradict ourselves. However, if a change in
conscious awareness does take place, the change took place in the deeper recesses of the
mind – and the susceptibility to change was predetermined and, entirely out of the observers
control

The Subconscious and unconscious (Fig.1): These states of mind constantly communicate
with the conscious mind and provide us with meaning to all our interactions with the world,
as filtered through our habits, underlying core-beliefs and emotional tendencies. The
subconscious mind consists of both the old reptilian brain and the mammalian brain. They
communicate through feelings, emotions, imagination, sensations, and dreams (Which arise
in the conscious mind as pictorial imagery with other sensory feelings (A touch, a smell, an
emotion) amalgamated with them.

The purpose of the subconscious aspect of the mind seems to be very like a memory bank
that stores past actions and events in one’s life, and become active when we encounter certain
stimuli in the world. E.g. Your grandmother, or mother are cooking your favourite meal and
when you walk past the kitchen – you may feel a sense of comfort and the memory that
accompanies that smell could be linked to an image of a meal you had at one stage, or a
collage of emotional imagery of pleasant times you have had around the dinner table. For me,
when I gain a scent of frying onions, or put a water-bottle on a sore stomach, I am reminded
of my grandmother and the water bottle becomes a placebo and fills me with a sense of
comfort.

These connections seem to take place in a deep state of consciousness and can be activated by
a stimulus. Another example is when you hear a song your parents used to listen to when you
were small, or a ballad that was playing in the background when you had your first dance. A
feeling of nostalgia or (if perhaps you are as clumsy a dancer as me) a feeling of
embarrassment may arise into consciousness. These neurological, connections all happen
completely out of our control and we are mere observers to them. I mentioned the relatively
comforting responses we certain outside stimuli. I also have negative emotions attached to a
myriad of stimuli, as we all do. Sufferers of PTSD seem to be a slave to this connection we

J. Chapman
make, and when the person who suffered from a tragic event in their life and are exposed to a
stimulus that is like the memory they have of the event, their emotions and thoughts that their
mind has attached to that memory all come back, and this process is entirely out of their
conscious control.

Definitions of Causal and Philosophical determinism:

Causal determinism:

The idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with
the laws of nature.

Philosophical determinism:

the idea that every event or state of affairs, every human decision and action, is the inevitable
and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs. if determinism is true, then, given
the actual past, and holding fixed the laws of nature, only one future is possible at any
moment in time. Notice that an implication of determinism as it applies to a person's conduct
is that, if determinism is true, there are (causal) conditions for that person's actions located in
the remote past, prior to her birth, that are sufficient for each of her actions. I personally
disagree with this, I believe that we do not live in a world of “Newtonian Determinism”
whereby the clock was wound up at the beginning of time and that the future is entirely pre-
determined. In this sense, I am a “Soft determinist” and not a hard-determinist or, in other
words – a Fatalist.

4. Compatibilism

Compatibilism:

“Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem, which concerns a disputed
incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will
is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary
condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed as a thesis about the
compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.” (Stanford Encyclopaedia of
philosophy [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/])

Fig.3

J. Chapman
Compatibilists accept the notion that we live in a deterministic universe, yet argue that we are
still free within this framework. As seen in Fig.3 they argue that we still have a choice, but
the outcome is still the same. David Hume (26 April 1711 – 25 August 1776) argued that the
dispute about the compatibility of freedom and determinism has been continued over two
thousand years by ambiguous terminology. He wrote: "From this circumstance alone, that a
controversy has been long kept on foot ... we may presume that there is some ambiguity in the
expression", and that different disputants use different meanings for the same terms. He
essentially argued that if our actions are not connected to the will then free actions would not
be possible.

A quick example would be that I am in a room, with another person. Hume would argue that
how I left the room (I was escorted through the door by force, or If I left by my own free
choice) would determine whether I acted out of my own free will or not. I personally feel
Hume, as enigmatic a figure as he is, was wrong.

What he fails to understand is that the other person in the room (another cognitive creature
within his own causal chain) exerting his will, through the laws of determinism would not
then grant me a “free choice”. If Hume is to grant him acting by his will being a free action,
thereby taking away mine – he would have to say the enslavement of another person (of
violating another’s free will) would then mean that the very act of being violated is
determined as well. To which I agree. If I fought back and resisted the violation, my nature
would come into play, my tendency to not be submissive, or my perception of the other
cognitive agent – would all be determined by past causal events.

In the same token, if a car knocks me over, I was not acting out of my own determined role
and my free will was violated. However, the vehicle, the person driving the vehicle, the other
factors that may have led to the person not stopping, seeing me or perhaps the brakes failing –
would all have their own, separate causal chains. It seems Hume made the mistake of using
his feelings, E.g. “I feel free, so I must be” to come up with his argument. Unfortunately,
philosophical arguments do not fair very well when based in wish thinking and as we know
we can hardly trust our pure intuition. It is because of this reason that I am not a Fatalist and
a Soft Determinist, which I will further explain in my segment where I try (albeit sloppily), to
explain the concept of randomness within the quantum level.

At this point I will concede, however, that because of our limited understanding in cognitive
and neuroscience and the vast size and magnitude of the brains intricacies there very well
may be a system that could allow for true, freedom of choice. But there would have to be no
outside causal chains to snatch our “will” from us.

I find the problem that most people tend to make is that they do not think of the larger picture
at play here. They tend to see themselves as a singular casually determined (or not, but for the
sake of argument allow me to use this line of argument) and fail to understand that every
atom, every object and ever gathering of them (experience) is itself a casual chain. Thus, the
amalgamation of all these separate, the unified events would have had no way to form the
conundrum of perceived chaos they did anyway.

David Hume: “Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing; and where they
proceed not from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed
them, they can neither redound to his honour, if good; nor infamy, if evil.”

J. Chapman
 5. Moral Responsibility:

I can imagine that at this point, if causal determinism is accepted as true – a problem arises.
The largest problem would the one that pertains to moral accountability. If one could not
have done otherwise than they did, how could we call their actions intentional? How could
we condemn a person whom, by no exertion of their own free will, committed a heinous
crime? I believe that this is why determinism is so strongly opposed, and it is a belief that I
share a part of as well. However, if causal determinism is true – it is clear that a sense of
“right” and “wrong” exists within our minds as sentient creatures regardless. Our current
system of law is entirely based on the premise that we are free agents, and therefore are
accountable to our actions.

An interesting case study (albeit a terrible event) would be that of the man called Charles
Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) he was an American mass murderer who
became infamously known as the "Texas Tower Sniper". On August 1, 1966, he murdered his
mother and wife in their homes and then went to the University of Texas at Austin where he
shot and killed three people inside the university's tower. After he had done that he then went
to the tower's 28th-floor observation deck, where he fired at random for approximately 96
minutes, killing an additional eleven people and wounding thirty-one before being shot and
killed by police. Sixteen people were killed in total and a 17th victim died in 2001 from
injuries sustained in the attack. Charles had written a suicide note on the morning before he
started his killing spree, knowing that his actions would lead to suicide by cop. A portion of
the suicide note reads as follows:

“I do not quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave
some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I do not really understand
myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man.
However, lately (I cannot recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and
irrational thoughts. These thoughts constantly recur, and it requires a tremendous mental
effort to concentrate on useful and progressive tasks” –

(http://alt.cimedia.com/statesman/specialreports/whitman/letter.pdf)

– The full note.

Further on in his note, Charles went on to request an autopsy be performed on his remains
after he was dead to determine if there had been a discernible biological contributory cause
for his actions and for his continuing and increasingly intense headaches. He found his recent
states of mind disconcerting and completely irrational, yet, still felt compelled to act them
out. Sadly, in a very tragic way.

Below extract is taken directly from:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman)
“The first autopsy carried out on his remains was done on August the 2nd, due to the autopsy
he had requested in his suicide note and his father’s consent. They found nothing out of the
ordinary in the toxicology report, yet Dr. Chenar discovered a “pecan-sized” brain tumor
which he labelled an astrocytoma and which exhibited a small amount of necrosis. Chenar
concluded that the tumour had no effect on Whitman's actions. Dr. Chenars diagnosis was
later found to be in error.
J. Chapman
The new team (once commissioned) found that the tumour had features of a glioblastoma
multiforme, with widespread areas of necrosis, palisading of cells and a "remarkable vascular
component" described as having "the nature of a small congenital vascular malformation."
Psychiatric contributors to the report concluded that "the relationship between the brain
tumour and Whitman's actions cannot be established with clarity. However, the tumour
conceivably could have contributed to his inability to control his emotions and
actions", while the neurologists and neuropathologists concluded: "The application of
existing knowledge of organic brain function does not enable us to explain the actions of
Whitman on August first”
Forensic investigators have theorized that the tumour may have been pressed against
Whitman's amygdala, a part of the brain related to anxiety and fight-or-flight responses –
thereby exacerbating any violent tendencies if any were already present, and completely
altering his perception of reality.”

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the tumour had a direct influence on Mr. Whitman’s
actions on that fateful day on August the 1st 1966. Could we still then concede that he was
guilty for his actions? Could we blame him for the formation of the tumour that pressed upon
his amygdala thereby causing psychopathic behaviour and tendencies? Surely, he was just a
victim of a terrible circumstance? If we stop making white blood cells, or if our pancreas
stops producing insulin, we are responsible for this change or are we mere victims to this
change?
Essentially, I feel that freedom and morality is to be found in existential meaning, namely
within desires. And through this understanding, we can blame him for his action and should
condemn him for his actions as we did. We must act, as a species – together and altruistically
to protect ourselves from the onslaught of such predators – because our desire to thrive
cannot survive with such a being within our midst. Much like the rabid lose animal that needs
to be put down, so, sadly did Mr. Whitman – even if he had no control at all over his actions

I believe that morality logically requires determinism

if we are to grant a non-dualistic base to the nature of
consciousness. As subjective and counter-intuitive as
this may sound, please allow me to attempt to
elaborate on my argument which I put forward. At
this point I can imagine I have lost many readers, due
to the obvious contradiction that seems to arise. I can
almost feel the objections arising in the air at this very
moment. But alas, let me continue

It is often thought that for us to have a moral system we need an agent capable of free-action
or will. To say that an agent ought to have done something else implies that he could have
done something else. Which means that if it is not the case that he could have done something
else, then it is not the case that he ought to have done something else. It is an adage in
philosophy that one cannot from “is” to “ought”.

J. Chapman
------

Desirism: A moral theory that holds that desires are the fundamental object of moral
evaluation. It is built on an overall theory of value that holds that value exists in the real
world as a set of relationships between states of affairs and desires. (definition taken from:
http://desirism.wikia.com/wiki/Desirism.)

“Many of the elements of Desirism can be found in the writings of David Hume. Hume held
that moral judgments are primarily concerned with character traits. Furthermore, those
traits are evaluated according to the degree to which they are pleasing to the agents and
others, and useful to the agent and others”

Further reading: http://www.justopia.org/desirism--the-most-honest-mainstream-ethical-

philosophy.html

Image taken from: http://nelliesabin.tumblr.com/myarticlesonline

Desirism and Determinism:

Desirism as a moral theory, requires determinism. With desirism, if free will did exist - if
humans had the capacity to overthrow the laws of physics and act in violation of those laws -
this would introduce a complication that the theory could not handle. The only way morality
could exist outside of a deterministic system would be if Dualism where true, or we had a
“soul” or other mediating entity between the physical world and the mystical metaphysical
(Woo-Woo) one. Fortunately, free will does not seem to exist and there is no evidence of
some such mediating, non-physical, woo-enticing aspect to the brain.

Desirism requires that the assumption that our actions are caused by our beliefs, desires,
habits, and the like. It requires that desires determine ends or goals and that agents act in a
determined way to try to realize those goals. It requires that some desires are malleable -
meaning that interaction with the external world can create, strengthen, weaken, or
exterminate those desires. It requires that the types of experiences capable of moulding

J. Chapman
desires includes praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment. It requires that those who use
these tools could predict, at least roughly, what their effects will be on the desires - and
through them on the actions - of other agents.

These facts make it possible for one person to influence the actions of another by influencing
the causes of those action, and to influence the causes of action by using tools that themselves
influence the causes of action. Those tools - praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment -
act on the reward centre of the brain to alter the desires of other agents. If we throw free will
into the soup, the system becomes a hopeless muddle. It is best to leave it out - unless
somebody can provide real evidence that it is real. And insofar as I can tell, none has been put
forth yet.

Praise, Condemnation, Free Will, and Malleable Desires:

The question remains, "How can you condemn somebody by saying he should have done
something else when he could not have done something else?"

One counter-question I have relevant to this question is, "How is it the case that praise and
condemnation are a legitimate response to an act of free will?" Perhaps a legitimate response
to a good act is to spin clockwise and to a bad act is to spin counter-clockwise. It makes no
sense - there is nothing in a good act that implies that agents should spin clockwise, or in a
bad act that implies that an agent responds by spinning counter-clockwise. However, it is also
the case that there is no implication from the fact that an act was a product of free will, that
this justifies condemnation (if it was a bad act) or praise (if it was a good act). For the very
act of free will would imply that a “clockwise” or “counter clockwise” action is judged by the
free will of the other – hence making is nonsensical and in no way a path to what a true and
ethical moral action is.

Desirism has a way of linking good and bad actions with praise and condemnation. Praise and
condemnation serve a purpose (Or at least the meanings those words connotate and
biologically necessitate). The reason for using these tools is because of their impact on
moulding desires. This allows agents to promote desires they have reason to promote and
inhibit desires they have reason to inhibit. A bad act is caused by malleable desires that
people have reason to inhibit or eliminate, or by the lack of malleable desires that people
have reason to create or strengthen. Praise and condemnation are the tools to be used to
inhibit or eliminate bad desires, or to create and promote good desires. This explains why bad
actions are to be met with condemnation and good desires are to be met with praise. In a very
real way, what we desire for ourselves, and we see the action done counter to what we desire
to another cognitive agent – would and should be considered an immoral action. One thing
we can be sure of as biological organisms is that we all have the innate desire to live long and
prosper and want the same for our next of kin and less aptly our “tribe”.

On the issue that it is wrong to condemn somebody unless they could have done otherwise

J. Chapman
(See the case of Mr. Whitman), desirism uses the compatibilist account of "could have done
otherwise". This account reduces "could have done otherwise" to "would have done
otherwise if he had wanted to," and "could have wanted to." "Could have wanted to," in turn,
refers to the fact that the wants that are relevant are malleable desires - desires that can be
moulded through acts such as praise and condemnation. "Ought" implies "can" comes from
the fact that it only makes sense to apply these tools where desires are malleable - where, in a
sense, the desires of agents can be changed.

Choice in a Determined World:

A final concern on the issue of free will is the question of how to deal with the illusion of
choice. How does external meaning and desirability grant us the means to condemn someone
for their actions? When an agent is deciding whether to take the money out of a co-worker's
desk drawer, he seems to have a choice. Determinism says there is no actual choice - choice
is, at best, an illusion. He either will or will not take the money and, whichever he does he
does necessarily. However, there is a desire to be wealthy, thereby causing one to perhaps
commit the act of theft – but the consequentialist view would mean that the desire to not get
caught and in doing so – face physical (prison time) and mental (shame) consequences should
outweigh the act of theft. In other words, the ends justify the means –

Further reading (http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_consequentialism.html.)

Consider these immutable facts for argument sake.

1. You and your family are hungry

2. You have no money to purchase food or have no other means to obtain a meal
3. Another person, whom lives comfortably is not hungry
4. They have the money to purchase food and have many means to obtain food

These two entirely separate causally determined chains are facts of life. However, if
one’s desire to be fed and feed one’s family, and there is no other possibly means than
to firstly (ask) the other person for money or food, and secondly to steal. The desire to
feed one’s family would make the act of thievery (for a basal requirement such as
nourishment and survival) outweigh the consequences even if one was caught. For the
other consequence would be starvation. This however, is a consequentialist solution to
a determined outcome. I do not fail to see the contradiction here, but allow me to try
and elaborate.

J. Chapman
Desirability can, within a deterministic system – (granted the cognitive agent is of sound
mind) provide us with a sense of a morally correct and morally wrong action when one’s
desires are weighed. Even if this itself is a mere act of cognition and not a law of nature, but
what else is morality, but that?

Conclusion:

Morality in this sense becomes impossible in the face of free will and requires determinism. It
requires that actions be caused by beliefs, desires, and other mental states. It requires that
some desires are malleable in the sense that interactions with the environment will influence
their strength and even their existence. It requires that agents can mould the desires of other
cognitive agents (causal chains) by moulding their relevant interactions with the environment.
It requires that the desires of agents give them reason to influence the relevant interactions
between other agents and the environment - to provide praise and condemnation, rewards and
punishment. I will further attempt to show that much like Evolution via Natural Selection,
morality is the law of reciprocity weeding out the idea that add to suffering and replicating
the ones that exacerbate well-being. This however, is a slow and arduous process – but a
process nonetheless worth trying to hasten.

“Human behaviour flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge.” Plato

Using Plato’s understanding of human behaviour (which is indeed much more detailed than it
is shown to be in this simple quote) we need to understand that even if one’s emotions are
strong and they lack knowledge (are ignorant) we can still base the action as good or bad
based on the desires of the agent’s action. Does the end justify the means? Does the action
add to the overall desire we all innately have, which is to live long and prosperous lives,
given and circumstance the world may throw at us or any other cognitive agent may impede
on us via his own “will”?

What one needs to understand is that I do not believe that there is an objective, moral
normative outside of sentient experience. Right and wrong moral actions are ideas that have
had to become normative in the conscious experience of sentient creatures for us to live
peaceably and comfortably as a unified tribe. However, in a very deep sense – it is a moral
zeitgeist (A spirit of the times) so to speak and much like evolution is malleable and adapting
to an ever-growing and swiftly changing world. The ideas that add to flourishing seem to
(arduously) win and the ideas that add to suffering are slowly, but surely – being eradicated
from the minds of us sentient creatures.

To quote Darwin, “From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

I see ideas, and morality in general – in the same way. Ideas are much like this. What is
morality but a set of ideas, being weighed upon the scales of justice? The one side of the
scale being flourishing and the other being suffering.

J. Chapman
 6. The Hard Problem of Consciousness:

The problem was originally put forth by Dr David Chalmers, a philosopher and
cognitive scientist

“The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is
conscious rather than nonconscious. It is the problem of explaining why there is “something
it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and
directly appear to the subject.” - http://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

Just think for a moment. What is it like to be conscious? Why do we have consciousness? If
the only way that I can explain the experience, is through my own conscious experience –
and this is all we could ever do, how would we be able to make a sensical understanding of
it? How could billions of synapses firing and neurological pathways – which are purely
chemical and atomic – allow for this experience we all have?

How do we know others are conscious? We can only be certain that we are having an
experience at this very moment, which we call being conscious – but that is really the only
data point we can honestly and deeply attain. We cannot even be certain of our consciousness
in the past, only that we are right now – in the present moment – conscious. Res Cogitans and
Res Extensa – Cogito Ergo Sum. I doubt; therefore, I think, therefore I exist.

I am afraid that I am going to slip into some form of what I believe is a regression called
solipsism. Ideas that have percolated into our film and entertainment industry to great success
namely in the film – The matrix.

There however could be, in the near future, a time when neuroscientists discover the link
between mere synaptic responses to stimuli and how this could grant a very real conscious
experience This is what we call epiphenomenalism which is namely is the view that mental
events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical
events (Which seems to be in line with my argument for determinism). Behaviour is caused
by muscles that contract upon receiving neural impulses, and neural impulses are generated
by input from other neurons or from sense organs. Or, this problem could never be solved and
consciousness could be a mere illusion or even a useless by-product of evolution due to the
need to place agenticity and patternicity behind all outside causal events (A theory which I
find compelling put forth my Dr.Shermer https://michaelshermer.com/2009/06/agenticity/)

Picture a hypothetical zombie, whom has not yet attained higher consciousness due to the
lack of this random mutation of consciousness, whom is living in a very survivalist, intuitive
and reactive world. Could we call this consciousness? How do we know which systems are
conscious?

I believe the sophisticated processing device and experiential aspect of itself wrought forth by
pure chance and adaptation, due to patternicity and agenticity – is the best, in the sense that it
makes the most logical sense - (however based in a presumption) explanation for me. In this
sense consciousness could just be the result of integrated information, the experience of

J. Chapman
integrated information’s lights going on due to the formation of language and reason because
of our deeply entrenched pattern seeking minds. This seems to be the differentiating factor
between us and a less cognitive species. I do not mean less “conscious” – cognition is the
action of the brain, consciousness is the explanatory word we use to explain this experience
we all seem to be having.

However, my Theist and perhaps more woo-woo orientated pattern seeking sentient peers
may feel that there is no real problem here. They have the answer, and the answer is obvious
to them. “God did it”.

I would like to refer them to a principle in philosophy called ‘Occam’s Razor” and Occam’s
razor tells us that the more assumptions we must make, the more unlikely the explanation is.
And God, as great an explanation as it may very well be – is the penultimate assumption and
therefore the least probable explanation.

It seems the best way for us to solve this problem, should it be solvable, is to find observable,
correlatory evidence between physical systems and how that could create this experience we
call “consciousness”. I feel that there is a real, tangible answer that science will discover in
the future, whether near or far. Just because the answer lies (Assuming the question is
sensical) beyond the current understanding of human knowledge and the scientific method –
does not mean we can place another baseless, albeit comforting answer as a placeholder to
ignorance.

Further reading: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor

Conclusion:
I am not sure if we will ever be able to solve the problem, as we can only interpret the
problem and formulate the solution within the mind. Perhaps our intelligence is not capable
of it. We could be limited in understanding this aspect of the experiential mind, namely
introspection and consciousness and how this could arise from a physical “soup”. Personally,
I am hopeful that someday neuroscientists and philosophers will find a real and empirical
answer and believe that consciousness is just an experience of information processing. I do
not however think that consciousness is an illusion, the universe is a simulation, or we are a
brain in a vat (Solipsism). Metaphysics of this kind, as fun and engaging as it may be, seems
to be a fundamental waste of time.

Some interesting reading - http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

How fun a thought that we may be a teenage hackers pleasure in some higher universe, or a
Sims 25, created by humans of the future. Or even under the whim of Descartes’ Demon and
we are deliberately being deceived.

J. Chapman
 7. The Moral imperative (Assuming Libertarian Free will)
I began with a basic Cartesian exercise of absolute doubt (the act of doubting everything
you hold to be true, and trying to ascertain what you assume from there on out, and
whether those assumptions hold “true” or are at least likely to be true.)

I find it also best to arrive at a conclusion with the least assumptions (Occam’s Razor), as
this strengthens an argument - This is how that went in a nutshell, you may need to see
Descartes's Meditations (http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dban.), and his "Cogito Ergo
Sum" conclusion. (I think; therefore, I am)

When he doubted everything, he realized that everything he thinks he knows about the
"outside" world or reality outside of his cognition is based on the assumption that it
actually exists. The mere fact that he could doubt, was in itself an act of thought – thereby
leading him to conclude that res cogitans (thoughts) and res extensa (stuff outside of
thought) are separate. The beginning of Cartesian Dualism. Descartes relied heavily on
Leibniz’s law of the Indiscernibility of Identicals.

However, he could without a shadow of a doubt claim that because he THINKS, he must
EXIST in some reality. I started with the Cogito, because of the fact that I can doubt,
which is a form of thinking, I must exist.

What follows are the assumptions I make about the nature of existence.

Base Assumptions:

Libertarian Free Will exists

1. Reality exists

(1.2.) THIS reality exists

(1.2.1) Once stripped from all biases and preconceived notions and preconceptions - I
can trust my senses and rational mind

(1.2.2) I cannot trust my senses and mind to a definitive, but with enough understanding
of cognition and psychology I can weed out delusions and any perceived external
immaterial purpose (Which can be, and more than likely are wrong)

(1.2.3) Other agents of cognition and sensory experience, like me, exist Outside of my
"Experience" and not as mere sensory experiences within my conscious experience.
Things exist independent of me knowing about them. e.g. Truths about mathematics - A
woman in France I am yet to meet, A planet in Andromeda. Etc

(1.3) Reality (Outside of my cognition) - has no purpose or meaning. All purpose and
meaning exists as an idea within my cognitive mind and interaction with reality through
sensory (1.2.1) interpretation.

J. Chapman
 2. Reality is not deceptive, or an illusion, and any falsity resides in my mind and not
in the external reality.

(2.1) Logical deduction is true. (Mathematics, Geometry, Laws of Nature - etc) A square
will always have 4 sides, and a triangle 3 (The concept that is, even if the language
changes) We can then trust basic deductive arguments with the assumption that logical
deduction is true:

Etc

P1. All men are mortal

P2. Socrates is a man

C. Socrates is mortal

3. Through the Base Assumption that logic and deduction is true, I can infer that
("Good") moral actions are true and correct using a logical system

Definition of the term "Good": - an action or situation (In its contextual sphere) that
maximizes well-being and minimizes suffering of all sentience involved

"Bad”: - The opposite of a good action or situation (In its contextual sphere).

My Argument to prove an action (using the above framework) as morally right or

wrong:

Principle 1: An action is only good if we are willing to make it universal law. And (2)

Principle 2: It maximizes well-being and minimizes suffering for all sentience involved.

(Eight Moral Imperatives, that I believe are universally the right action and lead to the
maximum flourishing and well-being) and will always take president over any other
action should a contradiction in other actions arise.

1. Enrich the poor

2. Cure the sick

3. Feed the hungry

4. Clean the atmosphere or do not pollute it any further

5. Live in balance with nature (Treat animals as sentient cognitive creatures, such as
ourselves)

6. Educate the uneducated

7. Examine oneself deeply and attempt with all reasonable methods to know thyself

J. Chapman
 8. Empower minorities and women

Principle 3: Every action needs to be seen as if you, your loved ones and every sentient
creature share the consequences of the end result of them. (IE, if you think it right to lie - you
should feel right with everyone you love including yourself being lied to)

Principle 4: IF a contradiction arises between two actions that add to suffering and not to
well-being, the action that takes the least away from “well-being” becomes the morally right
action.

E.g. A man knocks on my door looking for a stranger whom just ran into my house for
refuge. The man at the door has a gun and is intending to harm or possibly murder the
stranger. The act of telling a lie (Saying I have not seen such a man) would create less
universal suffering than the act of murder - therefore the act of deceit becomes the morally
correct action.

Argument 1:

P1. I would not like to be murdered

P2. Not being murdered maximizes well-being and minimizes suffering for all sentience
involved.

P3. IF seen as an end to a universal law, everyone murdering everyone would maximize
suffering

C. Therefore, murder is a wrong action

Argument 2:

P1. I am against pro-choice

P2. I am against another person exerting their free-choice to abort their fetus

P3. It is morally correct for my free will to be restricted, and every sentient creature also
having its free will restricted

P4. Everyone having their freedom of choice being restricted, on any matter, would maximise
well-being

C: Therefore, I cannot logically oppose someone exerting their will over me. And
dictatorship is a morally correct action (Which even though this follows a logically sound
deductive syllogism – is clearly not a world people would want to live in)

I am still in the infancy of creating a logically deductive argument using my framework

outlined in my principles. I rely heavily on Immanuel Kant’s works on Ethics, however I try
to alleviate a contradiction he faced, namely by adding in the element of 8 Moral imperatives
I believe to be the normative actions that would add the most to well-being and take the least
J. Chapman
from suffering. I was also heavily influenced by Dr.Sam Harris’ work in his book The Moral
Landscape.

Please see below links:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/ - Cartesian Doubt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles - Leibniz’s law

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ - Kant’s Moral Philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape - A Short Synopsis of Sam Harris’ book

In Conclusion:
I have tried to formulate a reasonably sound argument based on the premise that libertarian
free will exists, to perhaps balance the context of my document. I however do this the
arguments presumption is incorrect that we can will any other than we are predisposed to will
at any given time, due to causal determinism which I have tried to make a strong case for.

Perhaps in the near, or far future, science and sociology can empirically show us what moral
actions lead to the highest possible level of human flourishing and longevity and in turn, what
actions lead to the highest possible levels of suffering and social angst.

I like to use the “golden rule”, as a basis for a simple and loving morality. With the
understanding of human nature, we know that self-preservation and secondly, but not limited
to, the preservation of directly related kin and then outside social or “tribal” constructs – it
would then seem that what we would see as a good action toward us, and our close kin –
would be in line with flourishing. Seemingly, and ironically – it is through selfish
preservation that we can derive a logical altruistic system for flourishing.

J. Chapman
I would like to end my document with a speech given by the late Christopher Hitchens, a
speech that would become his last public appearance before the cancer took him, and a
speech that I derive great comfort from;

“At this present moment, I have to say that I feel very envious of someone who is young and
active and starting out in this argument. Just think of the extraordinary things that are
happening to us. Go for example to the Smithsonian museum, to the new hall of human
origins which shows among other things the branches along which three, maybe four if you
count Indonesia, humanoid – shall we say, anthropoid – species died out within measurable
distance of 75,000 years or so. Possibly destroyed by us, possibly not. We know they
decorated their graves, we think they probably had language ability, we don't know if they
had souls. I'm sorry I can't help you there. We probably assumed that they would have
alluded to having some kind of a god….

…. I suppose I should close now because I've said all I wanted to say for myself... In the
meantime, we have the same job we always had, to say, as thinking people and as humans,
that there are no final solutions, there is no absolute truth, there is no supreme leader, there
is no totalitarian solution that says that if you will just give up your freedom of inquiry, if you
would just give up, if you will simply abandon your critical faculties, a world of idiotic bliss
can be yours. We must begin by repudiating all such claims – grand rabbis, chief ayatollahs,
infallible popes, the peddlers of mutant quasi-political worship, the dear leader, great leader,
we have no need of any of this. And looking at them and their record I realise it is they who
are the grand imposters, and my own imposture this evening was mild by comparison.”

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/dec/18/christopher-hitchens-atheism-dawkins-
award-speech

My goal in my philosophical pursuits and in life have always been, and will always be – To
educate, to teach how to think and not what to think, to help the downtrodden and forgotten
people of our species and, above all, to do so with knowledge and compassion so that we may
all be given an equal chance in this experience we call life. It is to repudiate all claims to
absolute truth, lest it be found in reason and observation. And to denounce the ideas that
separate us as a unified species.

I suppose, at the base of it all, I Imagine a unified world just as John Lennon did.

--------

Thank you for taking the time to read my work and I hope that it has been of some use to
someone.

Justin Jurie Chapman –

August 2017

(Please excuse me for my lack of correct mode of academic writing and citation, I am not yet
disciplined in that realm)

J. Chapman