Determinism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:13 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Hello peace! Peacegirl.

I go with compatibilism since I feel that society as a whole has no real ability to live up to libweoteeoanism , 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.


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.

Meno wrote: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.


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.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3790
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:37 pm

Meno_ wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Hello peace! Peacegirl.

I go with compatibilism since I feel that society as a whole has no real ability to live up to libweoteeoanism , 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.


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.

Meno wrote: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.


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.


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

Meno wrote: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.


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?

Muno wrote:The example of the guy who robs with existential intent underlies such a quarry. How is society 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.


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.

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


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?

Muno wrote:As mechanization progresses , such windows of opportunity close , and the difference between real and determined choices marrow as well.

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


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?
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Thinker
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:53 pm

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.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3790
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:59 pm

Meno_ wrote: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.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Thinker
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby gib » Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:13 am

peacegirl wrote:Hi everybody, it's been a long time. I was wondering what position most people favor: libertarianism, compatibilism, or determinism?


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?
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
- unknown source

Men must be taught as if you taught them not. And things unknown proposed as things forgot.
- Alexander Pope

Here lies the body of William J, who died maintaining his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
- Boston Transcript
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8773
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: in your mom

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:22 am

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.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3790
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:46 pm

gib wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Hi everybody, it's been a long time. I was wondering what position most people favor: libertarianism, compatibilism, or determinism?


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


Absolutely!

gib wrote:How 'bout: compatibilism.[./quote]

What about it?

'quote="gib"]I'm partial towards determinism but I also believe the concept of free will is gravely misunderstood.


Me too.

gib wrote: 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.


No one is disputing that.

gib wrote: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?


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.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Thinker
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:53 pm

peacegirl wrote:
gib wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Hi everybody, it's been a long time. I was wondering what position most people favor: libertarianism, compatibilism, or determinism?


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


Absolutely!

gib wrote:How 'bout: compatibilism.[./quote]

What about it? Determinism and free will (no matter how you define it) are incompatible because they are polar opposites. If one is true, the other can't be true.

'
gib wrote:I'm partial towards determinism but I also believe the concept of free will is gravely misunderstood.


Me too. A lot of people define free will as the ability to choose A or B. But just because people are able to choose does not mean they are choosing freely.

gib wrote: 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.


No one is disputing that. In fact, saying that I did this or that of my own free will is not violating the laws of nature if it means "I did this or that because I wanted to, nothing forced me [against my will] to do it. Once again, the way the term is used needs to be carefully defined, for being able to choose this or that without restraint does not equate with actually having freedom of the will. Determinism (the way it is presently defined) implies that something is causing or forcing us to do something without our permission. This is causing great confusion.

gib wrote: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?


If you want to read about quantum indeterminism, you may find Trick Slattery's analysis on the subject interesting. I am only interested in 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.


https://breakingthefreewillillusion.com ... -freewill/
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Thinker
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Nov 27, 2018 3:22 pm

These are interesting videos regarding compatibilism

https://youtu.be/VA9jaGBKsmE

https://youtu.be/lnQ5Eg_PDsU
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Thinker
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users