Chance-Destiny Theory

10/3/2006

--(1/1/2015) Preface: I am a determinist! Enough people have been confused and mistaken
in reading this that is has become necessary for me to clarify something about this
writing. Though my original hypothesis here is stochastic, I quickly realized I was a
determinist. I hadnt studied philosophy at the time of this writing, and when the word
determinist was first mentioned in relation to this essay in an online discussion, I
instantly realized that that was a better way to categorize how I felt about free will and
destiny. Many post-notes after the initial essay abandon the original hypothesis in favor
of exploring determinism.
--Free Will is an illusion, destiny isn't predetermined. Every choice you make is based on
experiences you encountered by chance. Everyone's brain is basically the same, therefore
we all technically think the same way. This means that people's different choices are
based on people and events that motivated/inspired them.
Some things there is no debate we had no control over such as who our parents are, our
ethnicity, the area we were born in, etc. Even if choices were made due to people having
a different brain, we had no choice over what brain frame we were given. They say you
can pick your friends, but you can't choose the people you encounter. Not to mention the
friends you do pick are based on the mind frame you developed from chance experiences.
Life to me is like dropping a marble through a board with pins in it. The pins represent
people and events you will encounter, and if some are removed the path may change
dramatically. The marble has no free will, but it's path wasn't predetermined.
A man sees an ad on TV for weight loss, and he makes the choice to get in shape. The ad
represents a pin, his choice was just the result of his life (the marble) colliding with
it. Had he not seen the ad, this "free will" to make a choice about his health wouldn't
have existed.
Chance-Destiny Theory is more complex than just one chance event leading to
another. Maybe the man who saw the weight loss ad was in a good mood at the
time. Had he been depressed maybe he wouldn't have bothered, or maybe tried losing
weight before and didn't get results.
We are all just marbles colliding with each other down an unknown everlasting path. If
there is a god, and he has given us destiny, then his decision makes him a puppet to
CDT. No choice you make is your fault, and punishment is just a utilitarian decision to
halt the few of their desires to save the masses. This is a theory of a nihilist.
-Greg "dratsab" Huffman

RELATED NOTE: God also can't have a mind frame can he? I mean, he just existed so
all his knowledge was apparently already available to him, so how does that work? He
just starts creating planets and galaxies with no experience. How does something create
such complex, the most complex things possible, with no mind frame or former
experience?
This is definitely a factor of a sentient god. God has to have some form of mind frame to
create something, otherwise he's no more god than nature is god, and if natural law is god
then it's basically atheism under the guise of deism.
ADDED DETAILS: What I'm basically saying is that we have two scenarios, either A)
We share identical brain functions, thus our only influence is people around us, or B) We
were born with different brain functions, thus we had no control over how we are going
to react differently.
EXAMPLE: Everything is controlled by natural law (determinism), the best way to
prove this is simple... if the universe was split into two, and the exact duplication of the
universes led to all non-living matter to follow the same laws, would the universes be
exactly identical? What is free will? Free will is when certain neurons in your brain
click. You make a choice, your brain makes a choice, now who/what made your
brain? god/nature did, therefore it manipulates it as it chooses.
Determinism Paradox (4/26/2008)
If we could re-create the starting conditions exactly of the creation of the universe
and simulate them at any speed, you would create a paradox. The simulation could see
the full path of every event of the universe. You would fast forward past the simulation
machine being made in the recreations world and have the option of betraying that
destiny, and so too would that world that all the simulations would have new paths.
There is no free will, because every action you take is simply an automatic reaction your
brain has formulated before you had time to think about it, and even those thoughts are
just a reaction to what is present in your environment. - 10/9/2010
OKCupid discussion (11/10/2011)
Hmm, I don't necessarily believe in destiny either. This is how I believe it works...
man thinks he is separate from nature, that is how the distinction natural vs artificial is
made, correct? Is a beaver dam more natural than a human building? Man thinks he is
excluded from the rules of nature, he is mistaken. The laws of gravity, and the laws of
motion hold true for man and the human brain. Chemicals in the brain are triggered
through motion, of interaction with external objects, also on a pathway to their "destiny".
Only destiny doesn't mean any grand design, destiny is simply the only path the
object of nature could take without defying the laws of nature, and thus becoming
sorcery. Take, for instance, a rock. If you will it down a hill, is the path it travels destiny?

Is it free will? I would say neither... every turn it takes is the interaction of wind and
terrain and whatnot other external influences, that the human mind is too simple to
calculate. But with enough knowledge, and with a strong enough calculator, any human's
destiny can be mapped. Ironically though, if you present them with their destiny, does
that not change it?
I suppose it is similar to a video game, in that if you have the opportunity to play
again, you will make different choices given another play-through to see how things
would have turned out. Sure, this option is available with new knowledge, but the map
this machine carves out surely would be able to account for it's own influence, correct?
It's kind of a paradox if you think about it.
OKCupid discussion continued (11/19/2011)
Well, what constitutes a man's environment? Is not his brain also a part of the
environment? What do you actually control? Your mind told you it wanted to move a
body part of yours, and then it did, and you think you made that decision, but you didn't...
your brain made that decision for you. It's no different than a reflex, it's like a delayed
reflex... a reflex with less urgency, but you autonomously did it all the same. If you had
put your hand on a slightly hot surface (or any surface that was slightly uncomfortable),
would you (your brain) not, more slowly, come to the conclusion that the surface was not
a great place for your hand and move it away all the same?
Only this time, you had time to let the uncomfortableness sink in before you
moved it. Your brain would have compulsively moved it all the same though, as it looks
for the ideal spot where your body should be. To fight this urge, would be an annoyance
to your brain, and the only reason you would fight this urge is to appease a bigger
picture... such as when you want to make as little movement as possible. But, when this
happens, there is a chemical battle in your head... comfort vs necessity of the situation,
and one chemical has to win, but it may take time for your brain to decide on a course of
action, thus resulting in your false sense of having a choice.
POSTED ON GAMEFAQS: Philosophy & Ethics board (9/12/2013)
Topic: What is the difference between a voluntary action and an involuntary one?
I mean in regards to free will, and by involuntary I don't mean spasms necessarily,
or movement that is unnatural. What I mean is, why do we say we have control over our
movement? Is it because the image of us moving a certain body part pops up into our
head before we see it move? Obviously we don't act on every move in our head though,
as some may be absurd or potentially risky, but our brain finally settles on one it likes and
then this is mimicked in reality. Of course, we also have reflexes... do those also count as
free volition? And I don't just mean things like closing and opening your eye and moving
your hand back from a hot surface, but also muscle memory when we train ourselves to
go through a certain set of motions in certain scenarios.
Is our body just moving on its own and we don't have a problem with it? As long as the
body moves toward its goal, do we claim it as our own? It seems as if nature whispers the

answer to us and we are that guy that says "Yep, that was my idea, I came up with it all
on myself." But what does it mean to choose to move? How do I know I'm moving a
certain part of my body or if nature is telling me ahead of time that it is going to move my
body? Maybe the illusion of free will is a deal nature makes with us so that our
consciousness doesn't freak out when the body starts moving separately from what the
consciousness is thinking about. Instead of nature first issuing the command in the body,
it goes to a middleman... your consciousness.
(9/13/2013) BigRedRacer response:
Greg, you seem to be describing a mind body dualism. I describe this view as the self
being a passenger sitting in a car of a rollercoaster. I don't buy this view.
I think that the mind is a material thing in the sense that if it was possible to see the
physical changes if the brain in enough detail, you could literally read their mind. What
this means is that this mental activity is a physical thing that is part of the chain of cause
and effect. Your consciousness matters to how you move. But that doesn't mean that your
brain's activity is completely dedicated to your consciousness. The programmed motions
are also happening in your brain, but because they are reliable in that they produce
expected results, your consciousness is never alerted. That way your consciousness is
freer to engage other interests.
The cortex is a prediction and verification machine.
(9/16/2013) My Response:
Aren't we both then? I kind of meant for my topic to be associated with determinism. I
don't really consider myself a dualist, though I do consider actions outside of our
consciousness to be something we really shouldn't be held responsible for. However, I
also think that our consciousness when it lines up with what we want our actions to be is
an example of free action, but not free will. The whole point is that our consciousness is
pre-determined. So for example, some people say it isn't guns that kill people, it is people
that kill people. However, you could argue that the bullet killed the person, the gun killed
the person, the person killed the person, the person that hired that person killed the
person, or I might even say that that person died because the course of objects in
movement were set in motion a long time ago that this person was bound to die in this
exact same way and it couldn't be prevented in the same way that hitting the rewind
button on a remote control won't stop the character from dying in a movie.
But what does it mean to be the roller coaster? Maybe we are the roller coaster, but a
roller coaster isn't in control of itself, it is controlled by a person operating the system.
However, we are also the passenger through our consciousness. So it seems like an
argument from semantics. My body may be moving, but so does the blood in my veins,
but no one would say I have conscious control over that. So, it seems the onus is on the
consciousness, because we believe that is the one area where we have control. But if life
is a rail that can't be deviated from... what does it matter whether we are the roller coaster
or whether we are sitting in it?

(9/16/2013) BigRedRacer response:

The point of the roller-coaster example is that the car interacts with the track. if you
removed the track, would the coaster still follow the same path? If you damaged the
wheels of the coaster, would the coaster still interact with the track in the same way?
The way you explain your perspective, it seems as if you could remove the consciousness
from the body and the body would still move through space in a predetermined way. You
are dismissing the the consciousness' role in the chain of cause and effect.
We recognize that in order to be held responsible in the way we hold people responsible
for their actions, that the person needs to have functioning consciousness of a certain
degree. We recognize the role the consciousness plays in cause and effect. That is why we
don't hold children and the mentally incapacitated to the same degree of responsibility as
a well functioning adult.
We are justified in holding a well functioning adult responsible for their actions because
their actions follow from the factors, which include predicting the consequences of their
actions, they use to weigh their options. A well functioning adult can appreciate the
factors and consequences as they weigh their options, and a child and a mentally
incapacitated adult cannot.
Punishment is a factor that the consciousness can appreciate. If a person can appreciate
that they could be punished for their choice, then I don't see why the punishment
shouldn't be applied.
Punishment is like the rails of the coaster. if you take the rails away, why would you think
that the car would follow the same path?
(9/17/2013) My Response:
Ahh yes, sorry, I've been discussing free will so long I sometimes skip over details that I
shouldn't. What I am trying to say is that consciousness to me is completely impossible to
deviate from. When I say that there is no free will, what I basically mean is the similar to
those rails of the rollercoaster. There is no deviating from that track. There isn't an
alternate dimension where you make (or could have made) a different decision, because
the tracks stay the same. I do agree punishment works for your consciousness, but I don't
think that means we are in control. However, talking about "control" seems confusing and
open to interpretation, so I like to use the metaphor for deviation from the tracks.
Whether I am controlling the roller coaster or not, it will still take the same path that it
has to take.
However, my current ramblings are more concerned with why we even think we have
free will. When I talk about consciousness, I don't mean a mind separate from the body,
but rather that both consciousness and body are out of our control. I assume dualism
means that we control only the consciousness (and thus that is how we escape
determinism) however, I am saying that we do not control either the consciousness or the
body. We feel consciousness like we feel our body. We have thoughts pop into our mind

like we have pains that pop into our arms and joints. We feel these things, but we didn't
put them there. We act on them, but we do it almost by reflex. We can't deviate from the
laws of nature.
(4/13/2014) Differences in Choice based on Character
It seems that ultimately every decision one makes has to come back to a character
that one was endowed with that was out of their internally generated control. For
example if a pedophile asks a normal person why it is that he chose to have sex with a
child and the other person didnt, the answer of the normal person might be that the
pedophile was a deviant. And the pedophile could answer Yes, I am, but did I choose to
be a deviant? and then if that normal person responds that it is true that he did choose
that path, then the pedophile could ask Well, why would I choose such a path? or
Well, why is it that I chose that path and you didnt?
Does the normal person have a choice to be so immoral or so devious? Maybe
they lack the will to act on it, but maybe they fantasize about being able to do so. Maybe
the deviant feels compelled to act, but wishes very avidly that he could avoid it at all
costs and views it as a curse and a nightmare. If the pedophile sees no advantage to
choosing the path of a pedophile, then why would he choose it? Does he do it because he
likes to be rebellious and live against the current or does he do it because he has the
compulsion to do it or feels that it is the only way he can get any form of pleasure out of
life? If the immoral person wishes he could switch out his strings, and change his
character, isnt there some morality to that? And if the moral person wishes he could
switch his strings, and become evil, and doesnt lack the will or intent but only the nature
necessary, isnt there some immorality to that? Compatibilism is the belief that if you
like your strings then you freely choose to keep them, but what if you dont?
(6/13/2014) What may we have Pride in?
I remember discussing white pride VS black pride on a forums before, and usually
someone will always ask, What is the point in having pride in something out of your
control? This also goes for the individual who claims pride for an accomplishment of a
family member, whether it is a father figure who did something with his life, or your kid
winning a trophy. And sometimes we are more proud of people who have to accomplish
things by hard work rather than by gift of being a natural at a given activity. This makes
me wonder though, because as a determinist, I have to believe that the gift of diligence as
a character trait is just as much as a gift as being a natural. You are a natural a natural
at being diligent. It wouldnt make sense to say that a person worked hard to gain the
characteristic of working hard. Should the courageous be praised more than the fearless?
But wasnt courage imbued into the person just as being fearless was? What is it we are
valuing? It cant just be that we praise whoever suffers the most, because if the person
who suffers doesnt make something of it, we call this person a fool.
So, how can we call the person who cares for aesthetic beauty in a person, over
intelligence or good character, shallow? All of these are gifted to the people who

received them. Can I have pride in writing these philosophical insights I get down, when
they just popped into my mind? I didnt work hard to come up with them, and even if I
did, that hard work in crafting my words would have also been a gift from nature, but
maybe with a bit more suffering. Either we can have pride in things out of our control, or
pride can be had in nothing.