Did the Buddha teach we have choice? (aka The Great Free Will v Determinism Debate)

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by acinteyyo »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi acinteyyo
acinteyyo wrote: It is very important to not fall for the trap of determinism. It is utterly wrong to believe that anything about us is dependent upon prior causes and conditions.
I presume this is a misprint, and you meant to type "everything"? :reading:

:anjali:
Mike
Yes it was indeed, thanks Mike for the correction ;)
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by dhammacoustic »

Zom wrote:Actually, this is a wrong view only in the sense, that you can cut your hand here and now and this is not your past kamma - this pain is just due to your present action. In this sense yes, not everything is caused by what was done in the past (in past life, to be more exact). However, Buddha did not say "determinism is incorrect" and neither said "there is an unconditioned free will". Suttas keep silence on this topic (I mean, no such direct statements ever made). However, what Buddha did say - is that when someone has determinist view, then he probably would lack effort in holy life and thus he won't reach the goal (and basing on this argument he critisises determinists). Just that simple. And when someone does not have such a view - then he is likely to live the holy life, because he sees effort as a cause for enlightenment. However, if someone believes that "will is unconditioned, or - "some part of will is unconditioned" - then he, of course, leans towards eternalism, self-view.

So correct answer to these questions: "Is "free will" fully conditioned?" or "Is "free will" at least partly unconditioned?" is: "Do not say so, friend. Instead, you should see it this way: "When there is an effort, there is a result. When there is no effort, there is no result". ;)
Hi, Zom

So you agree that the Buddha acknowledged determinisim, and indeed proposed a self-deluding doctrine?

:anjali:
User avatar
Alobha
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:27 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by Alobha »

silver surfer wrote: Please share your opinions on this. Thanks.
Gladly. It's time to put on the neurohat again! :D

As for the experiments Sam Harris talks about starting at 2:50... just to give an idea how reliable neuroimaging procedures are: Dead salmon have brain activity under fMRI and there are troublesome Voodoo correlations going on. The list goes on with other methodological and technical issues about what studies like the one Sam Harris mentions actually means. The study he mentions may only show that the act of actively expressing a conscious decision takes a few seconds or miliseconds more than one would think and that there is brainactivity going on before that (Well - there is always brain activity going on before anything..). Neuroscience has not found "the place" in the brain where consciousness is located at.

Also, when Sam Harris talks about a row of causes that determine behavior in the end: That's very simplistic. There are things like risk factors. (e.g. biological, social, intrapersonal risk factors for developing this or that mental disorder, this or that disease, commit this or that crime,...) but risk factors are not the same as causes. They increase the likelihood but are not deterministic in nature. People can have the same risk factors or "causes" and still behave different. Sam Harris and others may argue that they don't have the same causes but that is theoretical jibber-jabber. There aren't studies where people have cause 1+2+3 and it can be determined with 100% precision that a person will do x or y once you leave the world of measuring the activity of bloodvessels on the outside of the brain.

He also has a good point though. People may overly believe they are "free" but one has to acknowledge that the chains of kilesas are holding a tight grip on people. Habits, social influence, emotions, ... there's a lot going on. So our decisions and mind are influenced by other things than our conscious will(power) alone - however: this is hardly surprising, is it?
And Sam Harris says we can't control our thoughts? Well, we can guide the mind, can't we? thoughts may pop up, but how the mind approaches this and how it acts is not determined by the thoughts that pop up. Those theoretical assumptions of his don't really catch the reality and complexity of things as far as i'm concerned.

To sum it up: The whole determinism thing according to neuroscience seems a bit too wonky to me both from the empirical/methodic point of view as well as the logical line of explanation used. I might be convinced if there are studies presented where a behavior (committing action x or y like say, choosing a job or university) can be predicted with 100% accuracy before the behavior has been actually shown within a real-world setting for a large number of trials. Measuring the activity of blood veins in an organ that is constantly active with methods that have proven to still fall prey to many weird errors and come to conclusions by calculating differences in the area of seconds to milliseconds... that's not gonna cut it for me.

If there is huge interest in properly tackling the studies Sam Harris mentioned, do tell. I'll see if I can get my hands on the studies and explain the whole thing in longwinding, voodoolistic, bedazzling detail in a seperate thread :P
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by Zom »

So you agree that the Buddha acknowledged determinisim, and indeed proposed a self-deluding doctrine?
I said everything above.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by DNS »

Not a bad video. Sam Harris frequently refers to "who is the author" of the thoughts implying there is no author, somewhat compatible with Buddhist anatta.

Theistic religions are firmly in the free will camp.
Current scientific thinking / most scholars are firmly in the determinism camp.
I believe the Dhamma is somewhere in the middle.

Okay, perhaps more toward determinism. There is will / volition, but it is highly determined by our past kilesas, saṅkhāras, our conditioned consciousness, viññāna via paṭiccasamuppāda. I believe from a Buddhist perspective, the only way out of the determinism is by strong mindfulness and concentration, so that one does not get controlled by those past kilesas and saṅkhāras. And this could explain why nearly all people do appear to be operating completely in a deterministic way, i.e. successful meditation, mindfulness, is not easy.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by chownah »

Alobha wrote: If there is huge interest in properly tackling the studies Sam Harris mentioned, do tell. I'll see if I can get my hands on the studies and explain the whole thing in longwinding, voodoolistic, bedazzling detail in a seperate thread :P
I have a huge interest in this but I would like to get my own hands on the studies so I can make some explanations too. I believe that so far you have not shown the methodology used which I think is much more powerful than you have presented....namely I believe that in at least some of the studies it was demonstrated that a scientist observing the brain could reliably predict the choice that was made before the person was aware of what their choice was.....but I don't know for sure....I'm relying on my somewhat fallible memory.

My present take on Harris's video is that it is just a demonstration of the illusory nature of the concept of self and not much more.....his discussion seem to center around the individual not being an agent of decision making.....this is quite compatible with the buddha's teachings on anatta at least in the way I interpret those teachings.

I'm still wondering what the heck are the "self-doer" and the "other-doer". I think some here are thinking that they are just the "self" and the "other"....but in the sutta it seems that the buddha is affirming the existence of the self-doer and the other-doer which I think is incompatible with the teachings of anatta or at least the way I interpret those teachings so if I am correct the self-doer is definitely not the "self".
chownah
User avatar
dhammacoustic
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 4:30 am

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by dhammacoustic »

Thanks @Alobha, looking forward to hearing more.
David N. Snyder wrote:Okay, perhaps more toward determinism. There is will / volition, but it is highly determined by our past kilesas, saṅkhāras, our conditioned consciousness, viññāna via paṭiccasamuppāda. I believe from a Buddhist perspective, the only way out of the determinism is by strong mindfulness and concentration
When we say 'determinism', I don't think we can also say 'there is will/volition'; as things are not highly determined by our past kilesas and saṅkhāras, they're completely determined by the past & they are not 'ours' at all. It's just that a conditionally arisen mind is witnessing and experiencing what's going on. For that matter, developing strong mindfulness or concentration is also not in our hands, we kinda have to unconsciously wait for such experiences. Simply; once you're made conscious of a certain thing (due to the cosmic will), you become another thing.

If this is the case; determinisim kinda proves the reality of an absolute will, and in actuality, there is nothing an originated/samsaric entity can do about it. What I mean is that; if you're a good Buddhist practitioner right now, your heading towards nibbāna - is also part of the already-determined cosmic fate.

Another view of mine is that determinism requires a closed system, and could we say that a universe is a closed system? :juggling:
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by Zom »

I'm still wondering what the heck are the "self-doer" and the "other-doer". I think some here are thinking that they are just the "self" and the "other"....but in the sutta it seems that the buddha is affirming the existence of the self-doer and the other-doer
On conventional level, sure.

On conventional level there is a being. On absolute level there is no being.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by acinteyyo »

Zom wrote:
I mentioned the Devadaha Sutta MN101 there the Buddha makes clear, that the view of the Niganthas ("Whatever a person experiences — pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain — all is caused by what was done in the past") is a wrong view.
Actually, this is a wrong view only in the sense, that you can cut your hand here and now and this is not your past kamma - this pain is just due to your present action. In this sense yes, not everything is caused by what was done in the past (in past life, to be more exact). However, Buddha did not say "determinism is incorrect" and neither said "there is an unconditioned free will". Suttas keep silence on this topic (I mean, no such direct statements ever made). However, what Buddha did say - is that when someone has determinist view, then he probably would lack effort in holy life and thus he won't reach the goal (and basing on this argument he critisises determinists). Just that simple. And when someone does not have such a view - then he is likely to live the holy life, because he sees effort as a cause for enlightenment. However, if someone believes that "will is unconditioned, or - "some part of will is unconditioned" - then he, of course, leans towards eternalism, self-view.

So correct answer to these questions: "Is "free will" fully conditioned?" or "Is "free will" at least partly unconditioned?" is: "Do not say so, friend. Instead, you should see it this way: "When there is an effort, there is a result. When there is no effort, there is no result". ;)
Who asked a question concerning "free will"?
All I'm saying is, that the view that everything is conditioned by past actions is a wrong view. Questions concerning "fee will" have not been attended by me in any way. Apart from that your example is not convincing and in its applicability quite limited in my opinion.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by acinteyyo »

silver surfer wrote:When we say 'determinism', I don't think we can also say 'there is will/volition'; as things are not highly determined by our past kilesas and saṅkhāras, they're completely determined by the past & they are not 'ours' at all. It's just that a conditionally arisen mind is witnessing and experiencing what's going on. For that matter, developing strong mindfulness or concentration is also not in our hands, we kinda have to unconsciously wait for such experiences. Simply; once you're made conscious of a certain thing (due to the cosmic will), you become another thing.

If this is the case; determinisim kinda proves the reality of an absolute will, and in actuality, there is nothing an originated/samsaric entity can do about it. What I mean is that; if you're a good Buddhist practitioner right now, your heading towards nibbāna - is also part of the already-determined cosmic fate.

Another view of mine is that determinism requires a closed system, and could we say that a universe is a closed system? :juggling:
Either I missed something or I'm just unable to get it but where did you get the idea that "things are completely determined by our past kilesas and saṅkhāras"? That is utterly wrong in buddhist terms.
And what do you mean by "things"?
What about
Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation AN5.57 wrote:"'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.'
There are saṅkhārā which should be taken as "ours". Not in the sense as to identify with them, creating more problems but in a wholesome way in order to be able to practice the path by making an effort for it.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta MN117 wrote:"One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong action & for entering into right action: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness.
May somebody please explain to me what this thread actually is about? I mean if the premise of complete determinism is to be accepted, I have nothing to contribute here.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
Alobha
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:27 pm
Location: Germany

The Science behind "Determinism & Kamma"

Post by Alobha »

This thread is a branch of Determinism & Kamma
[please note that there are only freely-accessible links here, Dhammawheel does not store any of the papers. The articles are stored and offered for download elsewhere. I assume that the papers are provided online either directly by one of the authors or by an authority with explicit permission by the authors to offer it for download such as an free access journal, the associated faculty of one of the authors or the article being released for non-commercial use.]

Below you will find relevant studies that dealt with determinism, ordered by date (earliest to latest)

Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). Brain, 106(3), 623–642. [PDF]

Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. In Neurophysiology of consciousness (S. 269–306). Springer. [PDF]

Haggard, P. (2008). Human volition: towards a neuroscience of will. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(12), 934–946. [PDF]

Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J., & Haynes, J.-D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature neuroscience, 11(5), 543–545. [PDF] [Alternative Link]

Vohs, K. D., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). The Value of Believing in Free Will Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating. Psychological Science, 19(1), 49–54. [PDF]

Bode, S., He, A. H., Soon, C. S., Trampel, R., Turner, R., & Haynes, J.-D. (2011). Tracking the Unconscious Generation of Free Decisions Using UItra-High Field fMRI. PLoS ONE, 6(6), e21612. [PDF]

Fried, I., Mukamel, R., & Kreiman, G. (2011). Internally generated preactivation of single neurons in human medial frontal cortex predicts volition. Neuron, 69(3), 548–562. [Link to Open Access page

Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating Into the Future or Driven by the Past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 119–141. [PDF]

A general overview on the Neuroscience of free will can be found on this wikipedia page.

Feel free to take a dip into the matter. I may post my thoughts on the issue in more detail when I've got the time for it to do it properly.
Best wishes!
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by daverupa »

acinteyyo wrote:I mean if the premise of complete determinism is to be accepted, I have nothing to contribute here.
The impression I got from the OP was frustration at not knowing how to argue against determinism, else a sort of aggressive capitulation to it.

In either case, determinism isn't demonstrable. Sure, all things have causes and conditions: Buddhists are only concerned with dukkha/nirodha, and in this respect it just so happens that intention is the key variable, & in fact the one that's properly called 'kamma'.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by acinteyyo »

daverupa wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:I mean if the premise of complete determinism is to be accepted, I have nothing to contribute here.
The impression I got from the OP was frustration at not knowing how to argue against determinism, else a sort of aggressive capitulation to it.

In either case, determinism isn't demonstrable. Sure, all things have causes and conditions: Buddhists are only concerned with dukkha/nirodha, and in this respect it just so happens that intention is the key variable, & in fact the one that's properly called 'kamma'.
If so, then the place to look for arguments against determinism is the present moment. There one will be able to observe how "things" (which buddhists are concerned with) are determined not only by the past but also by present circumstances.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by DNS »

acinteyyo wrote: May somebody please explain to me what this thread actually is about? I mean if the premise of complete determinism is to be accepted, I have nothing to contribute here.
The video in the OP is about free will and the title of this thread is determinism & kamma. When anyone talks about determinism, you have to include a discussion on free will and the typical debates between free will & determinism. Discussing free will is appropriate for this thread.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17190
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Determinism & Kamma

Post by DNS »

silver surfer wrote: When we say 'determinism', I don't think we can also say 'there is will/volition'; as things are not highly determined by our past kilesas and saṅkhāras, they're completely determined by the past & they are not 'ours' at all.
And that is why I wrote, "more towards determinism" not saying it was a complete determinism. We are conditioned, but there is a way out, through meditation, samatha, and we can get out of the cycle. You seem to be accepting determinism completely as in the way Sam Harris did in the video? That is fine, if that is your view, but you have not shown it to be true anymore than Harris has done; although there are some good points, they are not conclusive.
silver surfer wrote: If this is the case; determinisim kinda proves the reality of an absolute will, and in actuality, there is nothing an originated/samsaric entity can do about it. What I mean is that; if you're a good Buddhist practitioner right now, your heading towards nibbāna - is also part of the already-determined cosmic fate.
I don't believe that necessarily follows, but in any case the Buddhist perspective is not complete determinism nor complete free will.
Post Reply