Is there a pragmatic truth to viewing people like “robots”? Can we optimally navigate the world with a worldview characterized by a belief in hard-determinism, not only in the causal imperative of the physical world, but in relation to the very Being which we are? While conscious subjective experience has the possibility of preceding an action, and can exist as a real objective phenomenon, we are naturally aversive to letting go of a belief system characterized by the autonomy of our own individual “will”. In the consideration of the implications of hard determinism, many people become disenchanted, naturally, by the idea of a lack of individual agency and its correlates in choices, actions, and speech. The delegation of authority to causal connectivity undermines our embodied sense of being in control, it defies our developed sense of “self”, and renders our individuality outside of “ourselves”. For many of us this appears to promote a dissatisfactory view of reality, with its apparent correlation to a pessimistic perspective, or in the extreme a nihilistic mindset. Even if we believe in a strict causal web producing an explicatory account of the phenomena of subjective experience, we still gravitate towards believing in our own individual agency, and act as if free will exists for us. There seems to be a felt sense of pragmatic detriment to our subjective wellbeing in the adoption of the belief system which contains a hard deterministic worldview. I’m going to attempt to show that this is merely an error of framing, and that if reframed, a hard deterministic mindset will meet the standard of more than objective truth (as explained in The Causal Tethers Which Bind), but tangentially be a pragmatic truth in relation to subjective wellbeing. To pose the pragmatic utility of a deterministic worldview entails proving its optimality to the opposing world view based on agency, or the belief in free will, and I will attempt to show how this can be the case.

The natural embodied sense of autonomy, control, and freewill, is something hardwired into our very experience as being self-evident, prior to any concentrated attention. It is a baseline belief stemming from evolutionarily beneficial causation, supported by our social milieu, which over the millennia has gone unchanged in the emphasis of it being a foundational truth. We all assume at first glance that our actions are the result of an agent which we are, the Being behind the eyes, the conscious observer and instigator of action. We assume our choices and decisions are the product of a “self”, a singular concrete being that is characterized by a developed narrative that we use schematically to describe ourselves. This conceptual self whom we believe to be has the ability, in common parlance, to escape the causal tethers, and make different decisions according to its own disposition. Regardless of the situation, our natural inclination is that in a retrospective analysis of any action we could have done otherwise than we have done, that we had an option to act differently than we did. Whether we find justification for free will through religious imperative, rational deduction from experience, or in the philosophical conviction of the pragmatic utility, its social acceptance as a foundational truth is widespread and all pervasive in society and has been for as long as history has been recorded.

While we do have the ability to choose, and decide, those choices and decisions, those actions, the experience which takes form in the present moment, is not decided by the “self” which we believe to be. They are the productions of the chain of causality forcing itself upon the Being which we are, in its totality. Our genes, our body, our conscious experience, all have developed up until this moment in a specific manner giving our present moment circumstances, reactions, actions, and the orientation of our body their shape and their actualization. Our subjective experience is an expression of the totality of our Being actualizing itself according to the moment which we find ourselves thrown into, environmental stimulus informs our Being, and our Being works to most optimally navigate the environment. Whatever content arises into conscious experience is not selected by the conscious awareness itself to arise, it arises in a wholly determined manner, the resultant of material causation.

The objectivity of causal connectivity in the material realm is realized by any scientific enterprise, and in the subjective realm easily realized by any present moment analysis. Sufficient attention to the present moment will display that within the sphere of conscious awareness content is arising and fading away devoid of the agency of the awareness itself (whom we consider to be “ourselves”). Bodily sensations, visual concentration upon physical objects, conceptualized ideas appearing as thoughts, feelings of emotional persuasion, all arise into this conscious experience, themselves not consciously instantiated. If the conceptual thought of directing awareness or action is preceded by the action, we assume that it is the production of our free choice. This assumption leads to the conclusion of the existence of our free will, and is naturally held by the majority of people, prior to any introspection or instruction otherwise. What is missing is the admonition that the conceptual thought itself is preceded by causal influence. We merely are aware of the thought, and its preceding action, and claim agency, when the thought is not directed by an agent. In paying attention to the content of the present moment, we realize that we can consciously formulate multiple pathways to dealing with a situation, we can move or not move, speak or not speak, act in a certain manner or another. In this deliberational sense, we make “choices”, “decisions”, and have “thoughts that precede action”, in the fact that we do choose one of the contemplated pathways and not another, but the choices we make are selected for in a manner that is outside of our ability to do otherwise, if the clock was turned back, we would make the same “decision”. We always can do what we conscious think we “want” to do, but where that “want”, that “will”, that “desire”, itself stems from, is altogether prior to the conscious realization of it. It is the production of the causal chain of influence, beginning with our DNA, and informed through our development and modification.

While Christianity in its dogma of omniscience logically introduced pre-destination by default, and ancient religious systems such as Norse Mythology have posited fatalism, it isn’t until recently that the claims have reached their conclusion in both the scientific and subjectively intuited realms of discovery. The ascension of physics, advent of modern psychology, widespread translation of Buddhist texts with subsequent immersion in meditation, have all played a role in providing evidence, both empirical and ideological, of the illusory nature of freewill. Deductions from practices in all these domains have lead modern philosophers to give rational accounts and methods of intuiting our causal nature, which have given us an improved method of viewing mental phenomena, choice, and decisions as being on the same deterministic plane as any inorganic system.

Whether we came to develop the belief in hard determinism through spirituality, through direct intuition in examining the content of consciousness, or through philosophical rationale, the conviction has sway over the minds of millions and the modification it has upon our Being, including our conscious subjective experience, has varied considerably. In some we find the development of nihilism, in others an air of superiority in being “awake”, but for most it seems to be a defeatist attitude and resignation of responsibility, meaning, and duties. To abolish freewill, for most, is synonymous with destruction of pride in accomplishment and of being an inhibitory factor towards pursuing meaning, and growth. Conventional framing seems to reinforce these deductions, and within a framework viewed as such these conclusions are all pragmatically false in the manner of their impracticality towards providing a positive subjective experience and living a fulfilling life.

Pragmatic truth will be that which is practically useful towards optimizing our lives, including subjective experience, in our Being-in-the-world. A belief in an abstract ideal, that which transcends mere sensory perception, must enable us to be better able to navigate the ups and downs of existence for it to be a pragmatic truth. We ought to express this in the ability to live a life that provides subjective wellbeing, not necessarily moment to moment, but over the span of time from which the belief is held. Short term pleasure, delayed gratification, long term fulfillment, and the general managing of life’s necessities must all be taken into account. Certain normative value claims will nevertheless be crucial to any conception of what this pragmatic truth entails. Our developed moral system, what we deem to be important – family, friends, relationships, career, personal interests – all are necessary considerations to factor into what beliefs so modify our Being to be optimally suited to our individually developed inclinations and values. It only necessarily follows that given our inherent biological diversity, and subsequent individual development of personality and unique experiential historicity, that what is a logically pragmatic truth for one, may be pragmatically false for another. In this sense the pragmatic claim of optimality in regards to specific truth-claims and belief systems are ambiguous.

We must admit that there are degrees of utility when the goal is discovering pragmatic truth, for different people, with different values, at different times of their lives, different beliefs may be more or less suitable in enabling the individual to optimally navigate their environment – either practically, interpersonally, or in terms of their subjective wellbeing. In addition to becoming convincing enough for the individual to adopt the belief that freewill is an illusion, and that the real nature of their individual reality is one of being deterministic in its foundation, the belief must cohesively fit into a larger intellectual belief framework. If it is inconsistent, or poses a contradiction to other held beliefs, such as is frequently seen in our common view of “self”, then cognitive dissonance will ensue. For the reasons above, Christianity may be best suited towards optimizing the activity of one person while being injurious to another, and any individual belief within a system may have the same dissonance causing effect upon different individuals. In taking up hard determinism, we must go a step further of adopting it with other beliefs if we are able to stand upon a non-contradictory ground that promotes the optimality of our Being.  To hold a certain belief is to simultaneously confirm the belief in the non-existence of its antithesis, which, itself is a tangentially running belief, if any of these positive beliefs posit a contradiction to a pre-existing belief, we will suffer the incoherentness of a schema that doesn’t systematically and cohesively represent our environment in a manner that is explicatory for us. Hard determinism meshes cohesively with a scientific materialist belief system, as well as an evolutionary biologist perspective, and in the religious sphere, with certain principles found in Buddhism such as their “non-self” doctrine, “dependent origination” doctrine, and the “impermanence” doctrine.

We can see how the ambiguous nature of the pragmatic utility of hard determinism is quite obvious, its acceptance as a fundamental truth may not be beneficial for everyone, I’d even go so far as to argue it is quite unbeneficial for the majority of people.  Setting aside the objective validity of determinism, the pragmatic utility here is what is under scrutiny. We are biological organisms thrown into a world that makes demands upon us for existence, and we have an experience which is an expression of our developed Being which admits of better or worse ways to navigate this thrown existence. Seeing that better or worse methods of schematically representing reality exist in relation to their utility in our lives, the pragmatic utility of operating from a pragmatic perspective ought to be an objectively beneficial imperative for us. Does hard determinism fit into the optimal belief system that provides this pragmatic utility? As we’ve seen, this seems to be the case only in certain individuals, under certain conditions, in the same manner that other beliefs operate. Towards what kind of person, given what education, experience, personality type, and purposive values would the belief in hard determinism provide a pragmatic benefit?

It mustn’t be someone who is inclined towards hedonistic aims, as the pleasure in believing in freewill and the classical interpretation of determinism leading to reduction in wellbeing is aversive anyone who isn’t vigorously concerned with the truth of their reality. For those who don’t wish to “think deeply”, for those who are most concerned with positive emotion, enjoyment, entertainment, and sensual pleasure, such abstract concepts surely have no place within their value / belief system. To him who values introspection, to him who has a pointed interest in philosophy, psychology, religion, science, and the nature of reality, both externally and internally, determinism posits a value of being both revelatory in its explanation, and cohesive in its comparison between our experience and abstract reality. To him who is introverted, with a mind bent upon discovery of empirical truth, to the phenomenologist, the meditator, the critical thinker who is able to view the world through multiple perspectives, and criticize them for their shortcomings in his search for an infallible foundation to stand upon, hard-determinism offers the cohesive explanation to the fundamental nature of our subjective experience. To those less inclined to discover the nature of our experience, such a belief will be wholly barred from acceptance, as the value in its revelation will be diminished to the point where even rational argumentation will not hold sway. To the mind which is emotionally fragmented, the psyche that is unintegrated, such revelations such as the illusion of free will may be entirely disruptive to the psyche, and pose as a catalyst to substantial existential dread.

It is to the philosopher, the scientist, the explicit seeker of truth, to him who is not beholden to dogma, and to him who doesn’t belong to any rigid pattern of beliefs that hard-determinism will hold the most pragmatic utility. In general, it provides a pragmatic utility to the authentic eclectic searcher, who holds an open mind. One must be a sort of fallibilist to progress from the inherent belief of autonomy to that of causal determinacy, one must hold that one’s beliefs are not the end of the road of knowledge, and that greater potential modes of being, conceptualizations, and experiential knowledge exists in order to ever modify ones Being in the direction of holding the belief in hard determinism. One must maintain this fallibilist mindset to be able to go through the subsequent modifications that enable one to hold the belief while simultaneously pursuing meaning, embodying a morality, and navigating the world in a manner that is subjectively deemed “successful”.

Personality traits of low neuroticism, low extroversion, high openness, low agreeableness and high conscientiousness will be most suited to the adoption of a hard-deterministic belief.   Low neuroticism enables the individual to be less emotionally sensitive to the kind of depersonalization which takes place in the individual modified by strict causal reasoning. Low extroversion implies introversion, while this is in no means necessary for pragmatic utility, the less inclined one is to find enjoyment with others, and the more one is inclined to spend time alone, the more viable the framework of belief characterized by a lack of agency is able to become. The introvert is more likely to find themselves in solitude, paying attention to their own conscious experience, rather than interaction with other people. The more attention we pay to our own experience, the better we are able to utilize hard determinism towards its optimization and instigate the pragmatic potentiality we have from such a framework. This naturally leads into the benefit in being high in personality trait openness to experience. The belief in freewill and power of the individual over his environment is a highly traditional and conservative belief, it is in openness to novel ideas, new abstract conceptualizations, and new experiences which provide the groundwork for better suitability between our existence being compatible with the belief in hard determinism. Being that freewill is an illusion held by the majority of people, the lower one is in reference to trait agreeableness the less likely one is to believe what others believe, or go along with them in mutually confirming each other’s basic assumptions. It is only by a rebellion against conventionality that one can come to terms with a worldview devoid of personal agency.           

The most important personality trait in reference to not only career success, but likewise to being beneficial to the adopter of a belief in hard determinism is that of conscientiousness. A personality low in conscientiousness will not contain the required planning, organization, and integrity needed to follow a disciplined pathway predicated on causal influencing oneself through one’s actions that is needed to provide the biggest benefit to him who has adopted a belief in hard determinism. The higher one is in trait conscientiousness the greater able to plan, organize, strategize, and optimize time-management towards the development of values. As hard-determinism places an added emphasis upon the causal intricacies in reference to our Being, the more we are able to discern our values, and organize our time in accordance with them, and pursue them with integrity, the better we are able to conscious direct our Being towards actualizing those values, and growing in the direction we wish to grow in. The higher in trait conscientiousness, the better we are able to carry out this whole process. The better predisposed we are towards time management, value system instantiation, and actualizing that value system, the better we are able to grow towards our idealistic potentiality of who we wish to become, a goal bolstered by the belief in causal determinacy.

W.H. Auden said “Truth, like love and sleep, presents approaches that are too intense.”  In the same vein we find that for most people not already exposed to a vast array of experiences, perspectives, and ideals, the introduction to the illusion of free will, its disenchantment, and the production of a positive belief of hard determinism is all too intense. It shakes the common world view to its core, and there should be no surprise as to the disagreeableness we find in those with little exposure to unorthodox viewpoints. The more expansive our knowledge of various philosophies, lifestyles, and ways of being, the more primed we are to be able to develop a personal belief system that is less dogmatic by nature. If all we know is Christianity, any immediate deviation from the structure is a dive into the unknown, which halts any productive growth towards transcending the idea to a higher order conception of reality. The Hegelian dialectic of truth transcendence towards a higher resolution conceptualization, manifest in our beliefs, must not be halted for progress to be made, whether it’s in a domain of knowledge, a skill, or in our general approach towards life. Maintaining a fallibilist mindset indefinitely never closes this process, and opens us up to improvement across all hierarchies of competency. Whether its familial duties, financial management, moral action, career progression, virtuous conduct, skill advancement, relational and communal strength, all domains are open to improvement if we hold the meta belief that our beliefs are not perfect or infallibly true – whether that be from an objective standpoint or a pragmatic standpoint. For him who holds this conviction, deviation from a belief in free will to hard determinism becomes a possibility as being pragmatically beneficial.

Viewing people as robots, their present actions being the causal manifestation of the “programming” through their “hardware” of DNA and body, being modified by environment/experiences, appears to depersonalize the individual, but it really points to the uniqueness and individuality of each person as being entirely differentiated from anyone else. To think in terms of robotics may entice one to diminish the value of others, but it may also provide the necessary framework to best navigate life. To view another’s disagreeable, naïve, or malevolent actions as merely ignorance of a more “beneficial” lifestyle, promotes the view of innocence, and aids us in relinquishing grudges, depreciating hate, or giving up hope for their improvement. In viewing the world through hard determinist lenses, we can see the “responsibility” inherent in our action as they will have an impact on the Being of another. This responsibility is in knowledge of the causal effect that proceeds from everything we do, its ability to impact others, for better or worse. Whether that is a low degree or high degree is irrelevant, everything we express, every moment, action, word spoken, thought thought, idea concentrated upon, has moral significance. Every moment is data in our own robotic system towards further navigation of life, and every interaction we have with others will likewise be data integrated to their causal system towards the modification of their totality of Being. Therefore, everything we do has meaning for us as individuals, and for those we come into contact with, and the causal chain that spreads from there. Words of wisdom go a long way in aiding someone in need of advice but even more so in the expanding circle of influence which expands from that person’s modification extrapolated across all their subsequent interactions ad infinitum.

It is through the recognition of causal correlation to every mode of Being we embody, towards the potential for having a better or worse subjective experience, that we can utilize the metaphysical position of determinacy in effecting the most positive change. Thus, hard determinism, when framed in this way, opens us up to the importance of every moment, whether we take this for our own self-interest or in its moral implications, we can view every moment as an opportunity to pursue what is valuable to us, to improve our lives and those that are important to us. It can spur us to positively affect everyone we come into contact with, as we know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, even a smile can alter someone’s day, their mode of being, and the repercussions are infinite in potentiality. While this knowledge affords us knowledge of the power of our time and actions, it simultaneously places the burden of responsibility of power. We become encumbered with the weight of being the best we have the potential to be, if our personality and developed Being values a moral intentionality of reducing suffering. It requires we take action to improve our lot or our career if we value ascension in those domains that are meaningful to us.

Framing the knowledge of causal connectivity in this way shows us that we must not rest on our back foot as the nihilist interpretation may push us to believe, but rather reveals to us that for a better lifestyle, ascension in any hierarchy, to become more virtuous, or to pursue anything that holds meaning to us personally, we must necessarily effect our Being in a way that causally leads to the production of achieving our ideal state. As we know impermanence is a permanent condition, and we are always changing, and becoming modified, the belief in hard determinism inspires us to pursue what we value, to look for ways of embodying and developing ourselves in whatever domain may be important to us, by taking the action that is a causal precedent to that state of Being. This emphasis of action in pursuing value is provided due to our understanding of the cause / effect nature of everything in reality, where physics points to this as a fact beyond the shadow of a doubt in material reality, concentration on the subjective experience of the contents of consciousness conclusively points to the fact of non-self, impermanence, and hard determinism at play in our own experience, and if we extrapolate that conceptualization and take it seriously, we can utilize it towards progression to the heights of wisdom in uncovering the most optimal mode of being. For those that are able to view the belief in hard-determinism from this consequentialist perspective, in the manner it can inform our actions and our intentions to pursue what is meaningful, and take more responsibility for every moment of our experience, the pragmatic benefit exceeds that of the alternative “free will” perspective.     

In pursuing our highest ideal aim, we can rationalize steps towards getting there, in realizing the importance of every moment, in orienting awareness, concentration, thought, and action, we can attempt to pursue whatever aspect of existence we have developed to value, knowing that if we manifest the right action, its effect has the potential of leading us in the direction of our aim. This wouldn’t be possible without causality, and in viewing the world from this framework, we optimize our ability to pragmatically navigate existence. There is no more meaningful life than that which recognizes the potentiality of meaning within every moment of existence. Nothing is more fulfilling than the pursuance of what is individually significant to us, and recognizing the causal implications of every moment compels us to select for that which is in alignment with what we value so we can better ourselves in the domains of importance. Freewill lacks this causal connectivity between what we do, what we concentrate on, and who we are, and the progress to who we can become. By explicitly recognizing the implications of every moment, we are able to utilize them discerningly and prudently towards the aims which we have. This isn’t a pipe dream, but a rationally deduced emergent fact from the data of the objective validity of hard determinism. The scientist, the philosopher, and the spiritualist all can hold the conviction of hard determinism, and in so doing, on the question of free will, not only progress in their fields in the most optimal manner, but experience life in the most satisfying manner, that is, as being meaningful, from start to finish, no matter what the content of consciousness may happen to be. The layperson, the free thinker, the explorer, all can use the framework provided by hard determinism in living a life of wellbeing and fulfillment that caters to the individual.