Determinism

didn’t know humans had morality either. they eat animals but unlike the lion torture them in cages for years. id say humans have a kind of inverse morality, whereas the lion doesnt argue and pretend to be good, the human will stand up and try to defend their own holocaust as moral behavoir.

[b]

[/b]

Scare quotes here are always tricky. And that is because the meaning of the words inside them can become rather convoluted when we try to pin down precisely what the person using them is trying to convey. Thus what is the precise distinction between “free” and “will” inside the quotes and free and will that stand alone?

And yet over and again in arguments/analyses like this the discussion will go on and on without once situating this distinction in actual human conflicts – disputations that result in behaviors chosen as a result of clashing value judgments. The part “down here” that result in moral judgments. That can then result in blame and punishment.

And the word “random”. It would seem that in a wholly determined world nothing is ever random. It might seem that way to some, but everything is always accounted for by the laws of matter. And by everything that would seem to include every mental, emotional and psychological variable that compels us to choose this rather than that – whether it is Mary “choosing” to abort her baby or Jack “choosing” to rape Jane. Once the scare quotes are employed the “choice” would seem to be only an illusion given the manner in which the libertarian above construes these things.

Something occuring “by chance” means only that any partiocular individual has but so much understanding of the world around her. And thus only so much control. Mary might have become pregnant “by chance”. But the pregnancy itself doesn’t just happen “out of the blue”. It just means that she had not intended to become pregnant but did. And now she has to decided [willfully or not] what to do about it.

[b]In fact, if you are faced with the prospect of running across an open field in which lightning bolts are going to be a problem, you are much better off if their timing and location are determined by something, since then they may be predictable by you, and hence avoidable. Determinism is the friend, not the foe, of those who dislike inevitability.

Daniel Dennett[/b]

Back to this:

How, in a wholly determined world, are we really any different from the lightening bolts?

It would seem that how we perceive determinism is only how we ever could have perceived determinism.

And that would seem to be as predictable per the immutable laws of matter as the lightening strikes themselves.

Again, the only distinction being that unlike the lightening bolts the matter that has evolved into mind is able to delude itself into thinking that crossing or not crossing the field is something they can choose willfully.

[i][b]

[/b][/i]

Intuition is defined as “the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.”

Of course, just because you happen to have an intuition that such and such is true, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true. Instead, intuition is more like a frame of mind that somehow intertwines the conscious, subconscious and unconscious mind into a more or less perceptive “hunch” that involves both the faculty of reason [it must figure in here somewhere] and the more deep-seated emotional reactions – the objective, the subjective and the subjunctive.

And then there is the role that the “id” plays here.

But: however this might “work” – work “in reality” – it would still seem [to me] that if we live in a wholly determined world that reality would/must include intuition as well.

How then could discussions into the nature of intuition “have a major impact on debates about the compatibility of responsibility and determinism”…if in fact the discussions themselves are only what they could ever have been in a determined world?

From “Einstein’s Morality”
by Ching-Hung Woo

[b]

[/b]

This part I can understand. If all is governed by the immutable laws of nature, it certainly makes sense that this includes the phenomena embodied in human interaction.

As for the parts embedded in quantum interaction, Einstein suggested that what appears to be random is only a reflection of our lack of understanding of the deeper reality.

And that will, perhaps, always be there: the parts that we don’t even know that we don’t even know yet. Ultimately though, all philosophical quests come back to this.

But then comes the part about determinism and moral responsibility:

[b]

[/b]

This would seem to be just one more rendition of “compatibilism”. And I am still unable to “wrap my mind around it”. It just doesn’t make sense given the manner in which I think about these things.

Whether we focus on “retributive punishment” or are “guided by the welfare of mankind”, we are still doing [b]only that which we could not not have done[/b].

There does not seem to be a way in which to extract ourselves from that which, “for all practical purposes”, must be. Instead, some are able to “trick” themselves by creating this distinction between two different sorts of cause and effect that [to me] seem to be just a word game “in their heads”.

This in other words:

[b]

[/b]

This distinction seems like bullshit to me. Whether we call the laws of matter a manifestation of “prior causes” or “coercion”, we still do only that which we have always been “determined” to do.

As for so-called “self-affirmed” values, what the fuck can that really mean if the “self” itself is only as it could ever be?

Again, the compatibalists may be on to something here, but it has never seemed reasonable to me. So, I am back to either accepting or not accepting that it could never have seemed reasonable to me – in order that “I” be in sync with the immutable laws of matter. At least here and now.

[b]

[/b]

But what here [including the words I am typing and the words you are reading] has anything to do with “ability”? As though what turns out to be could ever have turned out any other way. We “choose” for it to happen, but we really didn’t choose for it to happen.

But then I can see how a belief in this sort of deterministic approach to reality can be comforting for some. After all, they can’t really be held responsible for their fucked up, miserable lives because, well, because.

Hi everybody, it’s been a long time. I was wondering what position most people favor: libertarianism, compatibilism, or determinism? Obviously, I stand behind determinism because that’s what this thread has tried to demonstrate. Based on new evidence from neuroscience, has anybody changed their position regarding determinism? I realize that determinism poses a threat for some, because they believe there would be no accountability for one’s actions since they could say “I couldn’t help myself because my will is not free.” But this is a misunderstanding for the knowledge of determinism actually increases responsibility, when extended accurately.

Hello peace! Peacegirl.

I go with compatibilism since I feel that society as a whole has no real ability to live up to libertarianism , nor the nerve for always blaming others for their shortcomings, which is the unfortunate result of a wholly determined life.

Even constitutionally people prefer some element of self autonomy, and that is the problem with marching into this coming brave new brotherhood .

It has a sloppy design and a disk much to be improved upon. It is based on wish fulfillment , that the superintelligent machine will not let it get to its head. But since it is the head where it is , the doubt is great.

So for me, the ‘should’ trumps the ‘is’.
And this is really where we stand socially as well, we hope things will work out. What needs to be done is positioned on what should be done, whereas, what is done is not always desirable as the best choice retrospectively.

This is where definition is important to clarify. Determinism, in my way of defining it, does not mean that we all become robots with no self-autonomy or the ability to make choices. We all have the ability to make choices; they just aren’t free choices.

The best choice for whom? Obviously, when a person makes a choice, he is making the best possible choice under his particular circumstances. For example, when a person steals because he has no money to pay for food, society might not like his choice, but for him the choice was necessary.

What if all of the “shoulds” are causing a reverse effect than what society is aiming for? Please understand that determinism does not give people a free pass to hurt others with the excuse that they couldn’t help themselves. It is quite the opposite. The knowledge that man’s will is NOT free (when extended accurately) prevents those very acts of crime that required blame and punishment in our years of development.

I see the progression of Your argument, and it makes sense. But the sense is not qualified totally by 'Your definition 'of what is consistent with determinism. It isn’t that its inconsistent either, and the only beef I have with it that the idea of determined choice is that its deceptive or illusionary.

The example of the guy who robs with existential intent underlies such a quarry. How is society to measure the truth value of his claim toward his intent? The question can only proceed from societal values, since it is society who determine the effects which interpret what determinism is and how it effects individuals.

In some Middle Eastern countries theft is punished severely, and the only reason we can even talk about consequences between manipulating consequences or honest ones, is, that more liberal laws afford the opportunity for theft.

As mechanization progresses , such windows of opportunity close , and the difference between real and determined choices narrow as well.

I think Your idea is as of yet differentiable given today’s environment, but it is not to last, unless they become compatible .

In order to be at once determined to be both: humane and law abiding , the gage to measure this difference , in the U.S., at least, must determine the requisite means of analysis, which at the present time is posited more on assumption then reality.

So heads up for Your current analysis , but things are changing nowadays at a dizzying rate.

So then what do you mean when you say that the progression makes sense?

I think we are on the same page here. Determined choice would indicate that a choice is predetermined, whether I want to make the choice or not. Is that what you mean by deceptive or illusionary?

I offered an example of a situation that would mitigate society’s judgment against him, if the truth value toward his intent was established. But…what if we could prevent a situation such as this from arising, where a person would not need to steal for his survival? Then society would not have to make a judgment call (through the courts or any other established judicial system) as to his guilt or innocence.

It is true that strict laws that forbid theft are used to cause fear of punishment. This is a deterrent, especially if the theft is not being done for self-preservation such as the example above. And there are probably more thefts in those countries that have liberal laws. It makes sense that there is less crime in the countries that threaten harsh punishment as well. So is it your belief that threats of punishment is the only way to control behavior?

What is a determined choice? Do you mean a choice that is not of your own choosing? Is that what determinism means to you? And what do you mean by a real choice? Can you explain what your definition of determinism is?

Peace girl het back to You later don’t want You to get the impression that I ran out of ideas. But it takes more time to ponder carefully.

I don’t have that impression, but thanks for your response. It does take time to ponder because this is a difficult topic that requires careful thought.

Hey peacegirl, I remember this thread. Are you still promoting your father’s book?

How 'bout: compatibilism. I’m partial towards determinism but I also believe the concept of free will is gravely misunderstood. I don’t think free will (the kind we have) is the power to violate the laws of nature, but just the psychological state of our wants and our intentions being able to satisfy themselves.

I also wonder sometimes how much quantum indeterminism plays a role in the human brain. And what role does it play? Is it enough to, as the quantum consciousness theorists believe, amplify indeterminism to the level of whole neurons? And if so, does this account for free will? And is it real indeterminism? Or just indeterminable by us?

Good point gib.This answers the postponed answer to Peacegirl as well, at least try to.

A determined choice may be an assumed relation of the very small quantum uncertainty to the hypothesized pre-determination which had a solid basis even back in the day when thought used to have a certain formal solidity , or , thingness.

A determined choice appears to be a contradiction, but as the logical system of contradiction(deduction) gave way to identification through similarity by resemblances (induction)
the mind appeared to fuse the two, so as to given the appearance of freedom of choice.

How this was overcome, albeit as an illusive effort, was through language .
Highly controlled social systems like Communism, were analytically appeared to loosen the ties of central control by the use of such cliches as ‘self determination, and collective consciousness’ It was done by constant reiterated ideograms, which were accepted as truisms.

Freedom is another word, became the rallying cry, where theories of mind were found to be inconsistent with the trumped up rhetoric.

But the contradiction never left the larger context of its derivation, and the result is the arrival within expected symptomatic limits of believability. The New World Order is precisely, the only way to legitimise the abhorrent social conditions in the U.S., over the requirement to place immigration under the microscope where social elements purify over how best to fit into their new adopted countries.

The point to it is, to demark the regional social economic absolutes into the new uncertain ones, by the importation of indigenous outsiders, whose problems only increase their newly thought up innovative ways to get in.

The bar is raised for this issue, contrario, knowing human nature to find even more ways to immigrate illegally, and for the purpose to relativise and revitalise a dying formula.

This is all in the conscious periphery, and sets new limits to and within pre-determined choices, accompanied by changing national and international boundaries.

I did venture outside the basic fragments, in order to bring them together, here, down to earth , as some critics may pounce on any indemonstrable proposition.

This is why the suggestion that a determined choice is illusionary, to cover not only inconsistency, but of basic negation. So if a compromise has to take place, it will be in the ‘should’ course of Kantian argument.

The illusion is hidden, and the argument goes: well truth is contextual and relative, and pragmatic considerations should influence the new vision of what a standard should consist of, as a measure of what a rational man may accept in a governed and determined social construct.

Absolutely!

Me too.

No one is disputing that.

If you want to learn more about this, go to Trick Slattery’s website. He knows more about this than I do. I am only discussing human choice on a macro level. The rest is just theory and is actually getting in the way of practical change for the betterment of all mankind.

breakingthefreewillillusion.com … -freewill/

These are interesting videos regarding compatibilism

youtu.be/VA9jaGBKsmE

youtu.be/lnQ5Eg_PDsU

Hello again. I’m surprised no one has shown any interest since I posted here recently. I thought people would be interested in the subject of free will and determinism, since this is one of the most longstanding debates in philosophy. I would like to converse with anyone interested in this topic.

philosophersmag.com/essays/ … never-ends

It’s ongoing in various threads under tangential titles.

The debate never ends because freewill and determinism are two poles of the same magnet: one can’t exist without the other. We can’t have the voluntary without the involuntary nor the involuntary without the voluntary.

Push determinism and we arrive at freewill; push freewill and we arrive at determinism. The two cannot be separated.

If people are determined, then there are no people, but arbitrary continuations of the deterministic process. If the universe is a mechanism, then so are you. In which case there is no one being pushed around, because no one exists.

On the other hand, you can’t push the universe around because you are it. Freewill can only manifest if there is something that is not under your control, but if everything is you, then how can that be?

It’s not freewill or determinism, but both and neither.

That’s actually not true. The two must be separated because one cancels out the other. Can you not do something and do it at the same time? That’s exactly what you’re saying. We can be free and not free simultaneously. The two are polar opposites.

I don’t get what you’re saying. Are you saying we don’t exist because we’re just part of a deterministic process that eviscerates us as individuals?

I’m not understanding you.

It IS determinism that is true, but the problem is that the conventional definition is not totally accurate. We are led to believe that determinism means we are just puppets on a string. That’s not what I am suggesting.