The Consequences of Belief in Determinism and Non-determinism
An attempt at a rewrite of OP for the sake of clarity (we shall see) :D
This is a thought experiment. Two quick caveats
1) Consequence is being used separate from any concept of causality.
2) The above statement becomes prevalent as we reach the point of contemplation.
The scenario:
- The world is populated with people whose choices are real.
- By real this means the choices they make are (at least in some part) free from the dictates of apparent physical causality.
- In this world people have two differing sets of beliefs.
Group A believe that causality is real and their lives are completely predetermined (a false belief).
Groups B believe that their choices are real and that they can alter their futures independent of apparent causal factors (a true belief).
Note: Neither group KNOWS if their belief is True or False.
The question is what Group belief is better?
In answering this open question maybe try considering the following:
- A choice not to choose is still a choice.
- A choice to deny that you can choose is a choice.
- A choice to believe their is no choice, against your better judgment, is a choice.
- Would person A and person B faced with the same scenarios act in the same manner assuming they were biologically identical BUT possessing the opposite beliefs as outlined?
- Is having the ability to choose your fate better than not having to choose your fate?
- If person A and person B live out their beliefs and then believed they were wrong and took on the opposing belief how would this effect them?
Original Post:
The question of free will has been one of contention for some time. This investigation sets the task of looking into the consequences surrounding the ideas of determinism and non-determinism.
First, we need to outline what is meant by these terms.
Determinism frames the premise that our futures are set and unchangeable (human choices are not real), whereas non-determinism frames the premise that humans can change their fate (human choices are real).
The question now is not about what is true because we have no current way of unraveling this question in any simple manner. The question posed here is what is better to believe.
To start, if determinism is true, it makes no difference what we believe as what we believe is preordained. If non-determinism is false, then it makes no difference as determinism would be true - the same situation as stated with determinism.
The issue is the effects of a belief in determinism and non-determinism if non-determinism is true. If humans have choices and believe in determinism, this is a choice they have willingly made (which is false). While if humans believe in non-determinism, they have willingly chosen to believe that they can choose and do so (because it is true).
Now comes the harder problem. Which is better to believe in the case that non-determinism is true? We can see clearly which is true, but truth does not tell us what is better. Some may be quick to argue that it is better to believe in what is true than in what is false. How can this be said with any certainty, though? It may just be that to believe in a determined world provides comfort and allows a kind of passive freedom, where a belief in non-determinism brings with it the stresses and strains of personal responsibility as the choices humans (rightly) perceive they make would bear the heavy weight of real consequences.
Before elaborating on further nuances, it is time to introduce Nozicks thought experiment, the Experience Machine. This was created as a means of disproving a certain kind of hedonism, but it will serve a good purpose here in developing the problems of choice in a non-determinist human life (a life of choice). Nozicks experiment revealed that people would generally refuse the perfect lived experience if they knew such an experience was disconnected from reality (in a Matrix movie fashion). Here there is a parallel with the idea of believing in determinism - entering the experience machine - in a non-determinist human world. The human choice of entering this machine is effectively a denial of reality in favor of a world where human experiences are determined by the machine rather than chosen directly by the human.
What Nozicks thought experiment was trying to reveal was that there is more to human life than the pursuit of pleasure. The pleasures of human life are not really considered of higher value if they deny reality and effectively unplug from reality (or plug into a false one). If the simple hedonistic pleasures he outlines are of no value over reality, then humans adhere to authentic experiences of reality even if they possess stresses and strains.
To look back at a problem of non-determinism for a human life. What needs to be considered here is the degree of choice and the degree of impact it has on the future, while for determinism there are no consequences to choices because the choices are illusions. From here, another potential layer of disillusionment can be placed on non-determinism for human life as they are stuck not knowing how significant their choices are and so under a different level of strain because of this.
So, are we really better off believing we are free or not? Or does it come down to the makeup of the individual and how best suited they are to coping with reality as to whether or not, in various instances of their lives, to believe or disbelieve in choice to placate overwhelming strains they would otherwise be victims to?
Then humans see that they are victims of lifes stresses and strains and confine themselves accordingly as a matter of personal survival and pain avoidance. Does this then mean that humans in a non-deterministic universe (with real choices) generally choose not to choose by being effectively dictated to by their need to refrain from too much stress and strain in life? by their need to refrain from too much stress and strain in life?
This is a thought experiment. Two quick caveats
1) Consequence is being used separate from any concept of causality.
2) The above statement becomes prevalent as we reach the point of contemplation.
The scenario:
- The world is populated with people whose choices are real.
- By real this means the choices they make are (at least in some part) free from the dictates of apparent physical causality.
- In this world people have two differing sets of beliefs.
Group A believe that causality is real and their lives are completely predetermined (a false belief).
Groups B believe that their choices are real and that they can alter their futures independent of apparent causal factors (a true belief).
Note: Neither group KNOWS if their belief is True or False.
The question is what Group belief is better?
In answering this open question maybe try considering the following:
- A choice not to choose is still a choice.
- A choice to deny that you can choose is a choice.
- A choice to believe their is no choice, against your better judgment, is a choice.
- Would person A and person B faced with the same scenarios act in the same manner assuming they were biologically identical BUT possessing the opposite beliefs as outlined?
- Is having the ability to choose your fate better than not having to choose your fate?
- If person A and person B live out their beliefs and then believed they were wrong and took on the opposing belief how would this effect them?
Original Post:
The question of free will has been one of contention for some time. This investigation sets the task of looking into the consequences surrounding the ideas of determinism and non-determinism.
First, we need to outline what is meant by these terms.
Determinism frames the premise that our futures are set and unchangeable (human choices are not real), whereas non-determinism frames the premise that humans can change their fate (human choices are real).
The question now is not about what is true because we have no current way of unraveling this question in any simple manner. The question posed here is what is better to believe.
To start, if determinism is true, it makes no difference what we believe as what we believe is preordained. If non-determinism is false, then it makes no difference as determinism would be true - the same situation as stated with determinism.
The issue is the effects of a belief in determinism and non-determinism if non-determinism is true. If humans have choices and believe in determinism, this is a choice they have willingly made (which is false). While if humans believe in non-determinism, they have willingly chosen to believe that they can choose and do so (because it is true).
Now comes the harder problem. Which is better to believe in the case that non-determinism is true? We can see clearly which is true, but truth does not tell us what is better. Some may be quick to argue that it is better to believe in what is true than in what is false. How can this be said with any certainty, though? It may just be that to believe in a determined world provides comfort and allows a kind of passive freedom, where a belief in non-determinism brings with it the stresses and strains of personal responsibility as the choices humans (rightly) perceive they make would bear the heavy weight of real consequences.
Before elaborating on further nuances, it is time to introduce Nozicks thought experiment, the Experience Machine. This was created as a means of disproving a certain kind of hedonism, but it will serve a good purpose here in developing the problems of choice in a non-determinist human life (a life of choice). Nozicks experiment revealed that people would generally refuse the perfect lived experience if they knew such an experience was disconnected from reality (in a Matrix movie fashion). Here there is a parallel with the idea of believing in determinism - entering the experience machine - in a non-determinist human world. The human choice of entering this machine is effectively a denial of reality in favor of a world where human experiences are determined by the machine rather than chosen directly by the human.
What Nozicks thought experiment was trying to reveal was that there is more to human life than the pursuit of pleasure. The pleasures of human life are not really considered of higher value if they deny reality and effectively unplug from reality (or plug into a false one). If the simple hedonistic pleasures he outlines are of no value over reality, then humans adhere to authentic experiences of reality even if they possess stresses and strains.
To look back at a problem of non-determinism for a human life. What needs to be considered here is the degree of choice and the degree of impact it has on the future, while for determinism there are no consequences to choices because the choices are illusions. From here, another potential layer of disillusionment can be placed on non-determinism for human life as they are stuck not knowing how significant their choices are and so under a different level of strain because of this.
So, are we really better off believing we are free or not? Or does it come down to the makeup of the individual and how best suited they are to coping with reality as to whether or not, in various instances of their lives, to believe or disbelieve in choice to placate overwhelming strains they would otherwise be victims to?
Then humans see that they are victims of lifes stresses and strains and confine themselves accordingly as a matter of personal survival and pain avoidance. Does this then mean that humans in a non-deterministic universe (with real choices) generally choose not to choose by being effectively dictated to by their need to refrain from too much stress and strain in life? by their need to refrain from too much stress and strain in life?
Comments (192)
I doubt that this is a common view among those who accept determinism. Results of the 2020 Phipapers survey were:
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?
Accept or lean towards: compatibilism 59.16% (57.68%)
Accept or lean towards: libertarianism 18.83% (18.20%)
Accept or lean towards: no free will 11.21% (10.58%)
Other 13.54%
Compatibilism, in a nut shell, is the view that free will is compatible with determinism.
What you are describing as determinism I would call fatalism.
If determinism is true, then there is no good reason to deliberate because such thought will not change how I decide (I must choose, or "act" the same way whether I deliberate or not).
Then, deliberation is pointless and no one should ever take the time to deliberate.
But that is terrible advice; therefore, belief in determinism is counter-productive.
Do you think that you are able to make a free willed choice to stop deliberating?
Ok, do you think that you are able to maintain a free willed choice to stop deliberating for the rest of your life?
I'm skeptical. I don't think you would go all that long without deliberating about eating or drinking.
Quoting NotAristotle
... then involuntarily determined sometimes I deliberate and sometimes I do not deliberate; thus, it is an illusion (i.e. cognitive bias) that "retrospectively I feel" I could have "voluntarily" done A instead of B or "prospectively feel" I will "voluntarily" do X and not Y ... as if my volition is not embodied-conditioned-constrained (i.e. determined) by causes known and unknown to me moment to moment.
This is unreasonable. Human choice is real, determinism or no. Do not make the mistake of equating choice with free choice, responsibility with external responsibility. Your post seems to equate the two.
Secondly, even in nondeterministic views, one cannot change the future. One is a causal part of it, sure, but using the word 'change' suggests that it was one thing, and later the same future is different. That isn't true even if free will is presumed.
I do like your usage of 'our future', which doesn't automatically presume a view where there is a 'the future', having a different ontological state than the present.
Few ask this. In short, believe whatever makes you do the more correct thing. If your beliefs in this matter don't significantly influence your day to day decisions, then the beliefs don't particularly matter. If fear of the wrath of the FSM makes you a better person, by all means make that part of your beliefs.
Externally preordained, yes. This does not imply that your belief is not a choice.
Double negative? The lack of determinism does not necessarily imply free will, but again, your continued post obviously presumes otherwise. Maybe you should be asking about free will, and not worry about determinism at all, starting with a decent definition of what you think it is.
So this machine, unlike a video game where the player makes choices, is more like going to the cinema and having your experience done for your, except fully immersive. A story told is not a life lived. A purpose is served, but it's not your own. I agree with Nozick in this sense. But has he illustrated the difference between choice and free choice, or just choice and no choice?
Quoting wonderer1I googled 'compatibilism' and it ended with "Compatibilism does not maintain that humans are free.". I don't see much difference in this view and 3) no free will.
On a side note, I also don't in any way see why free will is a good thing.
My understanding of fatalism is that things will turn out the same in the long run regardless of the choices made. If you save a life of a person fated to die today, he'll die by another means shortly.
Quoting NotAristotleNonsense. Thought very much has a causal influence on decisions. If you deliberate, the choice will very much be different than if you don't deliberate.
I dont think we should frame things in the future.
If determinism is true then the present is set.
If determinism is true, at no time in the present is my state the result of my own choices. If I am eating chocolate ice cream and I think this is because I freely chose it over the vanilla, the truth is, I am eating it presently for other reasons.
I can only know that the future is out of my hands, but I cant say it is set.
All I know is that my present state is not the result of me being free from forces that always precede my present state, and free enough to insert my own choice into the chain and tide of forces that placed chocolate ice cream in my mouth.
But those forces could be random. They could be some other free agent, operating me like a puppet at their free will - who knows? But I need not conclude that my future is set; only that my present was constructed by other than my choices. And that my future is not mine to set by my choices.
Maybe this is the same result, but I think it makes it more scientific if a question, and less dramatic with words like fate.
Quoting I like sushi
I honestly think a conversation about whether or not we are free is like a conversation about whether or not there are words.
Do words exist?
Once you ask it, you are using the very objects you are looking for. It becomes absurd to speak this way.
Same thing with freedom. Stopping to deliberate IS freedom. We are free no matter what we choose or why we choose it once we deliberate, in that when we deliberate, we are no longer choosing or acting on choice but instead not acting yet as we deliberate.
So, instead of acting, we choose to deliberate. This sets us free.
Now if determinism is so thorough, each word my deliberation is bound to follow, then Inam not deliberating, but acting out a script forged in the moments leading up to that script.
Maybe.
Seems to me must make a choice on this question. Even if we deliberate and choose to believe that we are not free, that our thoughts and deliberations are determined, we are saying that, despite not being forced to KNOW this by reason, we BELIEVE it anyway, by choice. So we must even give our consent before we can accept we are determined.
This show to me the mechanism that is freedom. Thinking is free (or can be). In thought, is where a ground apart from all other forces can be born, and where one can claim chocolate need not be, but is nevertheless, my choice, as I claim it.
Maybe chocolate had to be, but at least in a compatibalist sense, I agree chocolate had to be if it was to be because of my choice. I agree. I take responsibility for it. I consent to the flow of forces.
I admit I havent shown anything, except that, like wondering if there are any words we seem to always use words, in wondering if we are free we seem to always be left with a choice.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting noAxioms
Yeah, I have not seen many ask this question. They just get tied up arguing about something they have no certainty about. Some prefer X and other mock X for thinking they can prefer X. The argument there is dead in the water.
I believe this problem is a kind of side door into the whole Determinism debate without really caring what is or is not correct.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Irrelevant. Except for part in bold. We do not know so let's not waste our time speculating and see if we can say more about how one belief may or may not be 'better' than the other.
The rest of your post is you arguing with yourself and moving beyond the question posed in the OP. I am REALLY not interested in anything other than the question I asked and its possible ramifications.
Clearly determinism for humans is a moot point if true. The question is really about the belief in either if determinism (as outlined in the OP) is false and non-determinism is true.
The entire point of this thread is to explore this. On the surface it may appear that it is 'better' to believe in Non-determinism. The question is can you provide good arguments for this belief and strongman the Determinism position too?
If determinism is true,then there wouldn't be a meaningful present to be set.
Quoting Fire Ologist
You just described dualism. Free will is typically framed in such terms, with the free agent operating outside the physical causal laws. No explanation as to how this agent is itself free from however it works.
Quoting I like sushiDoes the preference influence decisions? Then there's no basis for mocking it, unless I suppose if ones chosen preference influences decisions in a negative way. But even the negativeness of those decisions is a judgement being made by somebody else who likely holds different preferences about what is positive and negative behavior.
Quoting NotAristotle
Probably, yes. I'm sure you can find anecdotes illustrating the reverse, but in general, there would have been no point in evolving a fairly expensive mechanism for making choices if it didn't make better ones than choices made without said expensive mechanism.
Notice that this holds regardless of determinism or no, or regardless of free will or no. Hence my stance that free will is of no benefit to anything since I cannot think of a situation where it would help.
My anecdote: Many government decisions are made before deliberation. The deliberation is not a significant contributor to the decision (vote) submitted.
Quoting I like sushi
Again, it depends on how that belief, one way or another, affects one's choices. I personally cannot provide good arguments for this belief one way or another in the determinism issue since I cannot think of how it would make any empirical difference. But somebody else (Not-A above) might hold a belief that it does make a difference, hence the choice of position would make a difference.
Quoting I like sushi
We is a good starting point. Its not just whether it is better that I believe I am free or not, it is whether we believe we are better.
Just to float an answer, yes, it is better for us to believe we are free.
I, at times, feel like Im free. Im sure we all do.
And in a world full of creatures that could feel so free as me, I wouldnt want everyone running around without any sense of responsibility for those feelings. You feel you are free, you better believe I am going to react to you that way.
But If WE do not believe we are free then just as no one could hold you responsible for anything you do, you cannot hold anyone else responsible for anything they do.
So, gut reaction, its better if we believe we are free regardless of whether in fact we are determined or free. (Basically, I dont want to let anyone off so easily, not even me, sly dogs, not so fast.).
But there are many way to approach this question besides from the gut. And I threw out the word responsibility relating this conversation immediately to ethics/morality.
YET, I will admit, once you start talking directly about belief on the freedom/determinism question, you may as well be talking about agency (does agency pass through you, so you are almost not there, or are you an agent, an end point separate from the last link in the chain and with its own influence on the next link in the chain.). Its a natural digression to think what happens to ethics when wondering about better and worse and freedom and determinism.)
I think a better digression is to stick with the same question are we better off believing we are free or not? and spending some time defining:
free, not free or determined and believe.
Believe all by itself seems to have an element of freedom to it. Very quickly, compare believe to know and you see the freedom in believing; when we know something, we are not free to believe otherwise, but when we do not know something, there is room to believe anyway. We freely choose to believe, in a sense. So freedom needs to be discussed along with whatever it means to believe, and believe needs to be discussed a bit in the context of know.
(Note to self:
Believe is to know
What freedom is to determined.)
As you said, it was the conflict between knowledge and belief that got us into this mess:
Quoting I like sushi
The other digression is that we cant really avoid speculating about what it means to be free and what it means to be not free. We are talking about being free or being determined. In the moment. Me included. You too. Right now.
If you are asking whether it is better to believe this or that, I need to know what this means and that means to some degree to process this question. Immediately when we make this and that freedom and determinism weve set two polar opposites against each other. There is no in between a belief in freedom or a belief in no freedom. They beg further definition.
What does not being free mean? So can I really not be free?
I am writing now. So if I am determined only, then these words as well and all above and below, cannot be otherwise than they are. If we are to decide if it is better to believe that we are determined, I still have to answer for this moment now, as I continue to write things like this moment now and say to myself and to you none of this is me and nothing could be otherwise in these words as all is determined. And you believe it too - your response to these words is not free and you will or will not post a reply, and you will or will not agree with me, or understand me, all minus you and your freedom as nonexistent as me.
I hope that made sense. (A further digression would be into how determinism destroys identity, or contradicts the we or the I, the subject of the sentence, the one who believes anything.)
If I am not actually free, then I might not be able to believe anything in the first place, because believing has a hint of free choice hiding in it. Yet I have to assume I believe, just as I have to assume I believe, in order to believe, either freedom or determinism is better (as here questioned).
But I digress again.
So I gave you my first answer, better to believe we are free, took it from my gut,
and then I showed you some of the many pieces that I think would have to be diced and sliced before I might give you the right answer of what is better.
Otherwise the answer to what it is better to believe could be psychological, or it could be political, but I like the metaphysical, epistemological, existnetial/ontological elements better, as I think you are trying to get at.
I guess I am particularly curious about the Purpose (teleological) and Value (axiological) aspects involved when applying the "Experience Machine" to this question.
Note: let us stick to plain English rather than throwing around jargon though for now (much like with various nuances of Determinism).
Nozick tried to show that raw 'pleasures' are not necessarily what humans are pursuing. He pointed at the belief in the reality of the experience as being a factor that outweighs a pursuit of 'pleasure'.
Extracting this idea and applying to what is 'better' to believe, for the problem I have posed, shift the focus of the argumentation. By this I mean that we decide what is 'better' so how we Value the different positions matters.
Assuming Non-determinism (in any degree) can we provide evidence to state that belief in non-determinism trumps belief in determinism (as outlined in OP). I think we can.
The dynamic between living a so-called good life and living a life adhering to reality seem to be entwined. Reality seems to expose itself as the Purpose we carry for living; or rather, exposing reality is the Purpose for living.
Future is certainly tied up within this. Many people's access to 'pleasure' is generally in the immediate now, in temporal isolation, and in sensation. The Purpose is something more substantial as it is reality seeking.
The pleasure is ephemeral and perhaps an immediate reactionary guide; focus on the visceral experience. The Purpose both concrete and expansive in a temporal incompletion - we are always seeking reality through the real rather than abstractly measuring it in terms of 'pleasure'.
Note: I am trying to be concise here so as not to muddle the line of thinking.
Now, if we view Purpose as both reality led and reality leading - instead of goal driven - believing in no temporal Purpose (Determinism) clearly defeats Purpose as a led and leading aspect of human life. For non-determinism we then have the task of what that means as a Purpose led and leading being and to what extent our strain and stresses of responsibility factor in or not, then provide the evidence for this (if possible).
As an example of the ideas above (in case it is difficult to follow): I had a gut feeling that I should apply the thought experiment of the 'experience machine' to determinism vs non-determinism. The gut feeling is merely 'pleasure' directed, but the underlying mechanism of all this is Purpose. This reveals that a 'better' belief is the belief that drives Purpose, therefore believing in having purpose is certainly better than not believing in Purpose.
The only remaining question then is whether or not there is an optimal degree of belief in non-determinism and whether or not an argument for belief in determinism can be realised within these bounds?
You can't just cut out deliberation if deliberation is part of the determined process.
@flannel jesus Same for you. The conditions are given in the OP and it is quite clear that 'Determinism' in the sense I am categorising it is of consequence ONLY from the proposed 'Non-Determinism' being true.
Quoting I like sushiIt's not. You said:Quoting I like sushiI disagree, and am telling you why. What is able to be experienced in the real world is the result of certain factors, and quite a bit of it is outside of my control. What is able to be experienced in this machine is the result of other factors, also largely outside of my control. Either way, I don't make the rules/laws of nature, but would be experiencing what could be experienced. Assuming I had the same consciousness and free will in the machine that I have now (regardless of how much I have now), as those plugged into the Matrix do, then the setting of my life isn't important. How I chose to live it is.
Maybe there are people who wish to float in a vat until they die completely oblivious to reality. I have a pretty strong feeling these people are in the minority though. Their are drug users, so it is not too much of a stretch to conclude that some would opt out of living a genuine life.
If you are a hedonist you are a hedonist. I am not really here to argue against hedonism as the topic is focused on the 'what if non-determinism'.
Do you think someone who believes in Determinism compared to Non-determinism would be more or less likely to enter the 'experience machine'?
How about looking at it this way... If you were forced into the machine against your will, and you had reason to believe you would never be able to escape it, what would you do? Become catatonic because of the horror that your life would never be "real" again? Perhaps even kill yourself? Become an e-junkie so that you wouldn't be able to think straight, hoping you wouldn't remember the horror of your plight?
Could you not have a meaningful existence in the machine? Could you not be happy? Is that existence of no value? Would it be worth trying?
More to the point, do you think someone who believes in Determinism would put up more of a fight than someone who believes in Non-determinism? That is what I was asking.
I said, plain and clear, that a believer in Determinism would not because they would not believe they are losing anything.
In other words, on Philosophy Forums folks will state that humans don't actually make true decisions, but everyone goes through the motions of decision making all day, every day as if they do, regardless of their stated stance on this topic.
I made it clear what I was talking about.
It is not "incorrect" you just did not read how I was using the terms.
Between a series of specific brain states, compared to pondering and weighing the options in ones mind.
Who is to say that the entire experience of pondering and weighing ones options in the mind doesn't emerge from, and is entirely supervenient on, a sequence of brain states, pushed forward by physical causality?
Choice is real.
Choice is not real.
The idea is then to argue why, or why not, BELIEVING in Determinism or Non-determinism is better than the other; if at all?
Just because some person wrote that there's a difference in some OP doesn't make it so
There's these apparently competing ideas of how the world works. One idea is, we are "agents", and agents have minds and make decisions and use the bodies they're commented to to enact those decisions in the world.
The other idea is, the world chugs along via physical causality.
And then there's the compatibilist approach, and one way to frame it is as a combination of both of those statements. There are agents who are enacting their decisions in the physical world, but the implementation of an "agent" is also entirely physical and happens in brains. So you have the agential view of the world simultaneously with the physically-casual view of the world.
Go here: the-argument-there-is-determinism-and-free-will
You made an op in which you talk about determinists and what they think and what their ideas are, and the consequences of their ideas - whether you like it or not, some determinists are compatibilists. You don't have to reply to me if you don't like what I'm saying.
Your time, your words.
You didn't ... make an op in which you talk about determinists and what they think and what their ideas are? Come on dude.
Your op talks about determinism as if compatibilism isn't a type of determinism. It's not off topic to point out, hey, compatibilism actually is a type of determinism! And a compatibilist determinist would answer some of the questions of the op differently from how a non compatibilist determinist would.
But if you know that determinists do deliberate, despite being determinists, then you know that that's not an example of determinism leading to imprudent decisions.
Even putting compatibilism aside, I have spoken with many determinists in my life, and not a single one of them came to the conclusion that "determinism is true, so I should never deliberate" - so if that's the argument you have that determinism leads to imprudent decisions, it seems empirically that that's just simply not true.
In my experience, the kind of thought process that leads to things like "determinism is true, so I should never deliberate" isn't generally a thought process determinists usually think, it's usually a thought process non-determinists imagine determinists think. I don't know where I'm going with that train of thought, but I think it's interesting nonetheless. Non-determinists think, "If I was a determinist, I would think this", but determinists themselves almost never actually think this...
Surely this is not true. If determinism is true then what we believe is preordained along with what we decide and what we do, but all these things still make a difference in the sense that they are determining causes of what happens. My belief that you have gone wrong here determines my act of writing this particular response. If I happened to believe you were right, I would not write this.
When I do my accounts, the result is predetermined on any view of determinism v freedom, because all the transactions have already happened. Nevertheless, I still have to do the sums, and doing or not doing the sums is necessary and makes a difference. In the same way, I have to actually tell the waiter the predetermined order that I will make from the predetermined menu that he has to show me, because that is how these things get determined, by my choosing act, that has to be primed with the menu information.
What is true is that determinism makes no difference to the decision making process that one is constantly going through, as that process is the determining of our actions; unless one falls into fatalism, which is false. "Waiter, don't bother me with the menu, bring me whatever my predetermined choice will be." The waiter cannot oblige.
Anyway, have at the rest of it if it tickles your fancy :)
I do not believe a believer in Determinism would necessarily not put up a fight for the reason you state any more than they would not put up a fight if I tried to cut their arm off. Even if they were tied down with no possibility of avoiding the fate, they would not simply go along with it just because they believe it is preordained.
In essence, you are saying, "I am defining a Determinist as someone who will not fight this particular thing, and a Non-determinust as someone who will. My question is, do you think the person I've defined as someone who will not put up a fight will put up more of a fight than someone who I have defined as someone who will put up a fight?"
This is why you are not getting the kind of answer from some of us that you want.
Okay, now extrapolate this view and apply to the question I have been asking.
Is it 'better' to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism assuming Non-determinism is true? Why? Why not? If neither why?
Quoting Patterner
I want any answer given with some kind of reasoning. The I have given there (in a round about way) is that those that believe in a preordained future are more likely to act in such a way (given that their beliefs effect their actions). If this is 'better' or not is not clear.
Neither. It is better to become informed about relevant science than to settle for adherence to a simplistic philosophical position.
If neither, then you are saying there is no difference if you believe one or the other. I did not mean believe neither, I meant believing in one or the other were as good as each other(if so why?)
I was hasty and misread your "assuming Non-determinism is true" as "assuming determinism is true".
In any case, from my perspective you still seem to be asking about a false dichotomy between libertarian free will and fatalism, and I think it is better to understand that it is a false dichotomy and look beyond it. Thus my "neither".
To my understanding everything is a false dichotomy.
It is a thought experiment essentially. You can leave it if you wish just like many leave the Trolley Problem alone.
For myself...
If Non-determinism is true, then whether or not it is 'better' to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism is a matter of opinion. My opinion is it's better to believe in Non-determinism.
If Non-determinism is not true, then the question is meaningless, since all any of us 'believe' is actually nothing more than the way the physical events play out.
Why?
I would rather know what's going on, and base my decisions on that. The truth shall set you free, or some such crap. Let's say I'm happily married, crazy in love with my wife. Let's also say she cheated on me, and I don't know about it. I would rather find out, and have my life turned upside down with a divorce (if that is, indeed, the decision we came to) than go the rest of my life happily ignorant of the truth.
It more or less sounds like you are arguing with yourself about entering the experience machine or not. The only difference being one is willfully living a lie and the other choosing not to. This is besides the point of the question though.
Which is better to believe in a non-deterministic world: Determinism or Non-determinism? Not which is 'correct'. If one is 'better' why? You cannot know which is better so the truth of the situation is irrelevant. We are talking from a position of ignorance regarding the actual world.
Not my point. Say you're absolutely correct. Believers in the idea that thoughts are "pushed forward by physical causality" could just coast along believing that their cascade of brainstates are going to arrive at the inevitable conclusion. Yet they don't. They fret about making "wrong" decisions (making mistakes), just like the 99% of the non philosophical who've never heard of Determinism.
yet they don't what?
Quoting LuckyR
yes, that's certainly part of the process.
Quoting I like sushiNot in the least. I would enter. I think it would be an amazing experience.
Quoting I like sushiThere is no lie. It is another setting in which to experience. Putting on VR goggles is not a lie. Entering the Matrix is not a lie.
Pardon me, but that sounds like a post hoc rationalization (not an explanation).
Nope, the most free of Free Will folks.
Its a trick question to me.
If determinism is true, then, along with my choice, the illusory agent making my choice vanishes along with the illusory choice. So there is no I that believes in anything anymore.
As soon as you reintroduce the I you introduce an agent, which is ground for freedom, and so why be so quick to use this freedom to choose determinism?
All of this is to say that, you cant avoid the elephant in the room and ask your question - the better choice (ironically) or argument between believing in determinism or non-determinism can only be made by assessing which one of the two is in fact the case.
Unless you want to ask the question for political reasons (are citizens to be treated as able to follow or break laws), or psychological reasons (is this person an adult or just a child, or like a mole rat); once you go philosophical, you are asking Are you free or not? first, before any question that follows makes sense. Especially if the answer to the first question is no you are not free.
I find it very funny how often non-determinists tell determinists how to think, or explain to them how they do think.
If determinism is true, arent we all, in a sense, always told what to think?
I'd think it more accurate to say that we think as it is our nature to think. I'd add that that nature, is to a substantial degree, determined by the environment our thinking developed in.
I certainly don't have a sense of always being told what to think. I'm curious as to why you would think of it as you described above.
Note: In answering this question those choosing would not know that Non-determinism is true. It is not a trick question.
I can put this even more simply:
Choices of agents can actively effect future events without being influenced by what proceeds them OR they are nothing but illusionary and all past and future events were 100% predetermined (like a movie).
Assuming no one knows that the first condition is true would it be better for them to believe in the first or second condition?
Is it better for them to wander into the future under the assumption their actions have zero causal effect on anything or is it better for them to believe their choices are meaningful and can effect outcomes?
Why? You must have some form of reasoning behind this. Why is it so hard to show any kind of reasoning?
Quoting I like sushi
Your thoughts?
Note: I framed Determinism as preordained and Non-determinism as agency that is not effected by previous conditions and able to direct the path to the future. Which is better to BELIEVE?
People can derive psychological comfort from determinism as well as from libertarianism. And?
Well, if, in fact, all action is determined, its the exact opposite of wandering anywhere.
There is no more wandering in a deterministic world, where nothing can possibly wander off course and everything remains set on a fixed immutable path.
Quoting I like sushi
Belief itself is a type of wandering off course. How are we to think we are doing anything at all when we say I believe about anything at all, when everything is determined and fixed? What can we make of the moment of choosing? Is it my belief anymore if I was destined and determined from outside this my to have this belief?
Quoting I like sushi
Didnt you say to assume we do NOT know whether non-determinism is true or not?? I think you mean: whether determinism or non-determinism is true, is it better to believe in one or the other anyway.
And I answered you clearly, and gave you my reasoning. I said its better to believe non-determinism is true, because this allows me to hold other people accountable. I can say to some idiot stop it! and the idiot might actually stop because we both believe non-determinism is true (he is free to do it just as he can freely chose to stop it).
But I needed to narrow the question before I could start to answer it, because of the use of the word better. I had to fill in politics or ethics to as accountability to determine which is better.
However, I think you are looking for a logical answer - which is logically better; which is most reasonable.
I dont think you can answer your question on those levels without addressing whether determinism or non-determinism are even adequate to describe the experience of having any beliefs in the first place.
Which is better to believe: X or Y?
I think a belief is a choice. I believe there is biological-like life somewhere else besides earth. I choose this, freely, as my belief defining a belief of mine, and so carving who and what I am in some small way. Thats what a belief does and where it lives.
So now you ask Which is better to believe: X or Y?
What if X stood for there is no such thing as choice. (no choice is synonymous with no freedom and synonymous with non-determinism).
Now the question itself is confused. Because you havent addressed the the elephant that sits prior to a question about whether X or Y is better - the elephant of whether X or Y each are and if so, what they are.
If to believe requires a choice, or if believing is choosing, then how can it be possible (let alone better) to believe we are determined?
How is belief possible, in a world where each event is determined, or where at least some events are not determined?
Better for what?
I have stated repeatedly in this case it is NOT deterministic.
For the last time.
If everything is predetermined then it makes no difference what you believe because your beliefs are also predetermined (obviously).
If nothing that came before directs your choices 100% then what you believe effects your course of action. From this perspective (assuming a non-deterministic world) what is better to believe?
"better" can mean whatever you want it to mean.
Quoting Fire Ologist
No, I said what I said. To be honest I am kind of getting bored of saying the same thing and people constantly thinking this is some kind of trick. Maybe I worded it badly but cannot think of a better way to word it. If you do not get it then nothing I can do I guess. I have tried.
The reaction up to now has been along the lines of I won't give reasons for my answer OR I will argue for some form of determinism or non-determinism OR will argue over which is true.
Metaphorically.
You read what I wrote, and you replied. And I read what you wrote. I am replying now.
If, as I reply now, all is determined, not by choice or free will, but out of some conditions and functions and circumstances forming this reply, then either I am being told what to say or maybe, I dont exist at all, and I is just as illusory as choice, in a deterministic world.
Its like we are in the causal chain so deeply, that even if we suppose anything we say is something in itself, those words did not come from us, they just happened like everything else is happening. Determined.
.just like metaphorically, if determinism is true, and just for a moment you pretend you are an agent such as me or electron or planet, arent we all, in a sense, always told what to think and do?
Either I am told what to do, or there is no I at all, and cause/effect seizes all free agency, if all things are determined.
:up:
In my case, I have answered you as clearly as can be. What is 'better' is a matter of opinion. You seem to be looking for an objectively correct answer. There isn't one.
Not at all. That is an assumption you inserted.
From my perspective your reply looks a little like this example (as with many others here):
What is your favourite film genre? Why?
Answers:
- Horror films.
- I like rock music.
Why?
Answers:
- There is no objective answer
- I like rock Music
See my frustration now?
I can ask the question again here and see if you do or do not understand it ...
If the world is non-deterministic is it better to believe your choices have an impact (which they do in said 'non-deterministic world') or that they have no impact (which is false, because they do)?
Note (you should completely ignore this but if it helps): Your choices are not necessarily determined by previous events. This is a scenario where you can actual and real choices that can lead to different future outcomes. If there is any argument against this principle then refer back to OP where I stated we do not really know one way or the other how the universe operates and probably never will. You have to accept a degree of ignorance regarding ideas of causality.
I apologize for being difficult to understand. I'm not dictating how Determinists think (since as a non Determinist I have no firsthand experience), I'm reporting my observations of Determinists. If you disagree with those observations, I welcome your insight as a Determinist. Perhaps you DON'T worry about making poor or erroneous choices, since you're not really making "choices" because decision making is an illusion, we're all going to do what we're determined to do (by our initial brainstate). I don't know. You tell me.
If we are free, is it better to believe we are free, or to believe we are not free?
So thats your question.
If I assume I am free, am I still free to believe I am not free?
If so, how could it be better to believe what I already assumed cannot be?
If I assume X so I can move on and base a question on that assumption, dont I already believe X to be the better assumption?
How can I choose to believe X or not-X, if I assumed X in order to ground the possibility of choice? Not-X cant be believed anymore, as it is already assumed not to be believed.
Are you asking a sociological, or political, or ethical, or psychological question? Seems they would only be worth pondering if we dont assume anything. If we assume we are free, then we should ask what is the function of that assumption if we could also believe we are determined?
Once you assume freedom, you cant believe determinism is better (youve ready made the best assumption in order to pose your question).
So your question is already answered by your assumption of non-determinism. Of course it is better to believe your are free - you already believed that was better before you asked your question.
You need to state clearly what you are looking for - what is your hypothesis? What is the object of your question? Ethics?
Because none of my answers seem to make sense to you. And I keep trying to connect.
I agree better raises the subjective, or at least the relative- better for what? For instance.
I also agree it is unclear what is being asked.
I see that Im frustrated.
We dont understand the question anymore. And this analogy isnt clarifying.
(Why did you place I like rock music under both sets of answers? Confusing.)
Im sure you have something you are going after, but Im not seeing it.
This is a thought experiment. Two quick caveats
1) Consequence is being used separate from any concept of causality.
2) The above statement becomes prevalent as we reach the point of contemplation.
The scenario:
- The world is populated with people whose choices are real.
- By real this means the choices they make are (at least in some part) free from the dictates of apparent physical causality.
- In this world people have two differing sets of beliefs.
Group A believe that causality is real and their lives are completely predetermined (a false belief).
Groups B believe that their choices are real and that they can alter their futures independent of apparent causal factors (a true belief).
Note: Neither group KNOWS if their belief is True or False.
The question is what Group belief is better?
In answering this open question maybe try considering the following:
- A choice not to choose is still a choice.
- A choice to deny that you can choose is a choice.
- A choice to believe their is no choice, against your better judgment, is a choice.
- Would person A and person B faced with the same scenarios act in the same manner assuming they were biologically identical BUT possessing the opposite beliefs as outlined?
- Is having the ability to choose your fate better than not having to choose your fate?
- If person A and person B live out their beliefs and then believed they were wrong and took on the opposing belief how would this effect them?
But if determinism is true, the obvious answer is "because I'm not determined to".
You've observed determinists doing... what exactly? "They fret about making "wrong" decisions" - yes, this isn't the part I'm arguing with. It's the part where you implied they somehow shouldn't.
I think "the point" of fretting about things for determinists is, perhaps counterintuitively, exactly the same "point" as it is for non-determinists. What do you think the point of fretting about things is for you? Does fretting about things ever help you produce better results than if you counterfactually had not fretted about things?
Quoting I like sushi
That you focus on the means of judging better as determined by what is true is interesting. Even more interesting that you assume everyone does this and only this.
Thank you :)
It depends. Freedom of choice isn't always great. Nonetheless, it is generally better to have choices.
So you are free to either think or not think, and nothing but free will decides when you think or dont think.
So how is that a world of determinism?
A consequence is an effect. So consequence is being used separate from causality is confusing and needs more explanation.
And I have no idea why that is important to your experiment.
Quoting I like sushi
If neither group knows the truth of freedom or determinism, then, to them, the truth of freedom is irrelevant. Your question in the thought experiment as THEY would put it is : since we dont know whether freedom or determinism is true, which is better to believe?
Or Quoting I like sushi
But you are asking me, from outside the two groups, which groups belief is better.
So I get to know choices are real, but the people in the experiment dont know this.
Quoting I like sushi
So all of the people in the Group that believe in determinism are morons, making all of these choices, in a world they dont know choices are real.
Quoting I like sushi
I have no idea. Your first and third questions seem like psychology questions to me.
The second question is ability to choose fate better than not choosing your fate? Why is the scenario relevant to this question?
Your fate can sometimes suck - so wouldnt it be better if, when it looked like it was going to suck, you had the ability to choose your fate?
But if you have the ability to choose, or change your fate then it wasnt really fate at all.
So this question is not clear enough to me even though I tried to answer it and gave you my reasons.
I dont think I ever had sight of it.
Anyway, thinking, to me, is the ground and a condition of freedom. It is because we can think at all about anything, that we might be free. So having your own thoughts are determined, and then basing choices on those thoughts as determined, (so no choice), makes no sense to me.
This conversation means we have access to freedom from the causal chain. We are freeing ourselves right now.
So I am having a hard time deliberating (building a free choice) over whether it is better to believe in freedom or determinism.
This conversation seems predicated on causality to me - if it were free of the casual chain, we would just be writing random stuff. You're writing to me as if you read what I wrote, indicating that your words are not free from the casual chain.
That's not meant to be a proof of determinism, for the record, just causality operating in the context of your thoughts and words.
That is beautiful!
I agree language is functioning to convey meanings and yours and my logic is functioning to respond meaningfully to each other. All can be causally determined steps.
But to say what I just said, I had to step out of the causal chain, look back on the causal chain, and then re-enter the chain with this post. So whether I post anything is not determined. I am in the act of freely choosing to respond. My response has its determinants. But responding at all is not determined by anything other than my free choice.
I dont know how this is the case. But to say I am not free would seem to mean I am not since of all is determined, this post was not my choice, and the I that chose to post did not so chose.
Determinism means there is no I, the agent that is free from the causal chain to deliberate about when to think, choose which thoughts to believe, and choose which thoughts to express.
Maybe I am not free, but that means maybe I am not me.
And that means this whole conversation isnt a conversation between two individuals, but an outpouring of many many other causal determinants.
I am saying that one is true and they are both ignorant of the truth. We (us now) are viewing this scenario from outside. I do not care what they say, but I can (I believe) make some predictions about how they would act differently in identical situations because believes their actions are irrelevant towards the effect of future events.
So this is a thought experiment in psychology?
Do you really have a solid reason to believe this? What is it? Why did you step out of the casual chain? Did something... cause that?
No. Its like proving matter exists. Seems plain to me that there is a me as a distinct body and my awareness of this (my mind) is distinct within that body, but I cant prove it.
That fact that I can believe I am free means to me that I have to be free, because I have a belief without causes. So that is the best proof.
My beliefs define or carve out the me - when so believe, I create myself, and this creation is outside the causal chain, or it wouldnt by my.
The issue is are they my beliefs. Not whether they are based on reason. What causes you to claim your beliefs are yours. Regardless of whether they have been built of rational thought and evidence. How are they your beliefs if they are wholly determined by a causal chain?
Of course I use reason and evidence to base my beliefs. But one they are my beliefs and I act on them, I am the cause of those effects, I am the determinant. Not the causal chain without me.
Without? No, of course not. We're part of the causal chain, not merely victims of it.
What do you add to the causal chain, if your choice is determined? What happens when the chain bumps into you if the effect of you is determined?
If my choice is caused by something that is not my choice, it is not my choice.
The answer to me is that the act of choosing is the same act of creating the self that chooses. I exist while I am choosing. I individuate myself in the moment of choice. If all is determined, the I is not individuated, and my choice are illusions at best but not existing and not part of the causal chain.
Self detemination is self creation.
I'm not adding to it, i'm part of it, I'm a piece of it. It defines me, I am defined as a part of it.
If your choice is not part of the causal chain, then you're not causaing it.
Wondering if I am free requires freedom to happen. A machine that honestly wonders whether it is free or not has freed itself from the machine. Otherwise, it wouldnt have found space to outside of the causal chain to wonder about anything.
Thats a contradiction. You say you are a part of the causal chain. All of the parts add up to the chain. So what do you add to the chain of determined causes and effects? All of the other parts add up to the state of affairs. You say you are part of the causal chain - what part is you specifically. What is individuated as you in the causal chain?
Im saying, once you admit there is a you - a thinking, deliberating, believing thing - you have individuated a thing that can be free to choose, not a thing that can only serve as a pass through for causes from outside it to effects following it.
If we were things like robots, wed be part of the causal chain. Self awareness breaks the chain, can make a rational decision as my choice and by acting on that choice rejoin the causal chain.
the part here, now, where i am. I'm not some addition that someone decided to add in, that wasn't previously there. Everything that is "me" has always been part of the causal chain of the universe, and is now "me", and will continue to exist after I'm dead and those parts are no longer "me". The thing I call "me" is not separate from everything else. I don't think that's a contradiction.
Quoting Fire Ologist
I actually DO think I'm free to choose - I just mean something different by 'free to choose' than you do, because 'free to choose' to me doesn't involve negating my place in the causal chain. What it means for me to choose is precisely for the part of the causal chain that is "me" to causally go through a decision making process, and then interact with other things that are also part of the causal chain to enact (or try to enact) the output of my decision making process.
You come to a fork in the road and the cart is rolling forward and you may either go left or right.
Left or right is going to happen. So when you go left and the fork is behind you, what caused this left?
To me, in a deterministic world, there was no choice made here. What caused left can be found by adding up all of the things in the causal chain.
If one of those things in the causal chain is your choice, then youve added in an individuated you who made that choice. If this you is only comprised of causes before this you (like everything else must be comprised) and if this you functions only accordingly to necessity (as everything else functions), then there could never have been a you that could have possibly made any other choice but to go left. So there was no choice, and choice is an illusion having nothing to do with where you went at the time you hit the fork in the road. You didnt choose left, you played out the deterministic forces that pushed things left.
If you think you live in a wholly deterministic world, then the notion of a choice, and a free agent who claims my choice, are unicorns, not actual efects, not actual causes, not part of any chain, just words.
Happy to hear I communicated accurately, yes the fretting thing. Also glad my observations (despite your, warrantless as it turns out, concern) turn out to also be accurate. Lastly, as I predicted, the way Determinists approach decision making (as you confirm) is similar, if not identical to that of everyone else.
As to why folks who believe humans can't actually choose between options would "fret" about making "wrong" choices, I have no answers (never did). It's just a question.
Determinism isn't whispering suggestions on what or how to think in anyone's ear.
No idea what this means
I answered that, but I'll try to answer it more clearly:
Either a) fretting about decisions frequently produces better decisions than not fretting, in which case it makes perfect sense for EVERYONE to fret about decisions
or b) fretting does not produce better decisions, in which case it doesn't make sense for ANYONE to fret about decisions.
Determinists share the same basic human psychology as non determinists. They react emotionally to the same types of things in the same types of ways. They aren't zen monks who spend a lot of time meditating and gaining complete control of their emotional state. If they fret, they fret for the same reasons as non determinists, and if it's not beneficial, it's also not beneficial for non determinists. This whole "fretting" conversation doesn't seem to have any sensible lines to draw in the sand between determinists and non determinists.
Quoting flannel jesus
Holding such diametrically opposed beliefs does kind of suggest a line in the sand somewhere don't you think?
As an example. If we had someone with a strong libertarian belief and someone with a strong utilitarian belief it would be in error to suggest they would deal with every choice in the same way. Granted, when we are talking about 'choice' itself then maybe you feel this comparison is ill-fitting?
When a tough decision presents itself it is completely justified to say that a deterministic mentality and a non-deterministic mentality could easily present with the same solution (ie. 'its a toss up'). Ata deeper level it could also be considered the same form the point of view of unconscious preferences surfacing to tip the balance. Meaning a deterministic mindset may consciously act as if their decision is arbitrary when in fact it is running on the subconscious basis of previous experiences in the decision making process.
It hasn't been made to fit yet. I still don't see any sensible lines to draw between determinists and non determinists in regards to fretting. Either it's beneficial or it's not - if it's beneficial, it makes sense for everyone to do it. If it's not, it makes sense for no one to do it.
And determinists aren't zen monks, so talking about determinists as if they have more conscious control of their emotional state seems entirely unjustified to me.
Quoting flannel jesus
You think none are or cannot be zen monks? In the extremes we can reveal a lot about the world. This is apparent in physics at least.
Plus, I am not really sure why you would think anyone is suggesting 'more conscious control'? Maybe someone else suggested this.
The entire context of this conversation is one person suggesting determinists not fret about decisions - that is the same as saying "determinists should have more conscious control of their emotions". It requires control over emotions to not fret over decisions. You've been talking past me this whole time because you've missed the context apparently.
I think they aren't all zen monks. Some are - in fact Zen Buddhists generally believe in determinism - but clearly not all determinists are zen monks
I do not think so.
Quoting flannel jesus
That is your interpretation. One does not necessarily follow the other. I can see quite clearly another way of viewing how someone does or does not fret about something based on differing foundational beliefs that has no primary bearing on controlling emotional states. Although, to be generous, it seems all conscious states are emotional states if you follow what I believe is the current scientific consensus on this.
No need to be generous, just Google what it means to fret about something. First result is "to be constantly or visible anxious" for me. Anxiety is an emotion. Being anxious is an emotional state. I'm not saying anything wild with my interpretation, I'm using the very most basic straightforward definition of "fret".
You're being the exact opposite of generous if you are arguing this much about not fretting being a matter of controlling emotions.
Maybe they meant that determinists are less likely to fret about certain situations not that they necessarily have more or less emotional control, but that their belief in a deterministic world means they are more easily able to let go. Maybe we can call this the "Que sera sera!" reaction to some given situation. This would be the more rationally weighted choice for a deterministic mindset than a non-deterministic mindset.
But that's not what he said. He said he's observed that they do fret, he didn't say he's observed that they're less likely to fret. If anything, he's expressing consternation that he HASN'T observed that they fret less.
He says he has observed no real difference. He then asked if you fret less. So you are effectively trying to counter my argument.
My argument would still stand that there is no reason to assume that determinists and non-determinists have the same emotional reactions to different situations.
A pure fatalist would have no way of accepting this though because they are pure fatalists.
We all do, I appreciate the acknowledgement.
But the context is that we do have a consciousness literally telling determinists what to do, here in the thread. So comparing THAT - a real thinking entity actually telling people what to do - to determinism "telling people what to do", just doesn't make all that much sense to me.
As an example someone might say: "My liberal views tell me what to do." as a figure of speech it is perfectly reasonable to say this.
Intended by whom?
In a deterministic world, equating I choose with consciousness telling me what to do is a metaphor. Nothing is actually telling anything. Its cause and effect. Determinisim.
I dont tell my heart to beat, or my stomachs acids to break down food. That just happens in my body.
If I have to choose vanilla or chocolate ice cream and I choose the vanilla because I there is only enough chocolate for one serving and I want my wife to have the option of chocolate or vanilla, in a deterministic world, I didnt choose - vanilla was bound to be what I ate because of all the things the led me to that fork in the road. Its not because of what I want that after eating ice cream there is still both chocolate and vanilla left for others. I can believe I was a great guy leaving others both flavors, but due to all of the influences and motions in my brain, just like I dont tell my heart to beat, I dont tell my mind what to think, and so the choice of vanilla was not because of anything I decided - it was determined, as I was determined to think and believe what I was determined to think and believe. My choice really just happened in my body like everything else about me - caused with or without my consciousness.
And I agree with Patterner that I have no idea how to explain the ontology of non-determinism. If I am free, then no matter what causes lead me to a fork in the road, in order to be free, choosing X or Y at that fork comes from nowhere else but me.
The way I see it, one needs a self in order to make a choice, and this self must be able to account for all causes prior to it (or enough of them) to seize control of the causal chain and insert this self in it by making the sole determination of outcome. The self seizes control, and the self creates its own choice; then the body acts. I dont know how, but if the world is deterministic (and it may be), then there is nothing real about myself or my choice or freedom.
It is just as hard to explain what is going on in my head when I delude myself into making a choice in a deterministic world, as it is to explain what is going on in my head in when I make a choice in a world where there is room for freedom. Its a bitch. But if the world is deterministic, there need be no talk of I and choice and I am responsible or anything that springs from or includes I. That seems delusional to me as well.
If I can be undetermined by the world, free to deliberate and make a choice, talking about what I do makes more sense to me, but talking about how this can even be possible sounds delusional.
So I choose to believe I can choose and demonstrate what is the case in so doing, but not how that is possible.
But how does the phrase make sense TO ME make sense in a deterministic world? How do you make sense to you, if there is only a causal chain - where do you fit in there any differently than a heart beat? And the word choice becomes a metaphor for simply two relay racers passing the baton of cause and effect.
Once you have a fully featured model of what it means to make sense in any world, I think you'd find it means the same thing if we're deterministic or indeterministic.
I think that what I think is determined by me.
In a deterministic world, me is determined just as much as the thoughts thrust upon it, so me may as well drop out of the equation - me cant direct or redirect any cause to any effect, because me is determined to choose exactly what was caused. So choice is non-existent, and me is metaphor for it which is now simply consciousness sensing as much of the determined flow as it can fathom, never able to learn more than it has been determined to learn, never able to step aside and direct even itself.
And they think the self is an illusion as well. And desire, which supports choice, is a frustration of the real.
Quoting flannel jesus
Maybe Im wrong. Maybe these thoughts and expressions have been determined since my youth and I am taking credit for them like a fire takes credit for boiling water. In any case, since you are giving me credit for my thoughts, you are welcome.
Heart beat was a good thing to mention. In a deterministic world, a certain group of physical events takes place, and we call the overall activity a heart beating. Another certain group of physical events takes place, and we call the overall activity thinking. If Determinism is correct, there is no "me" aside from the physical processes. The "me" [I]is[/I] the physical events.
Yes. I think I understood that.
Quoting Patterner
Yes, and in another certain group of physical events we call the overall activity me choosing.
So if all of the physical events are deterministic, what do we make of that choice?
If we say that choice can still be made out of me thinking, but me thinking is in turn made out of deterministic physical events, what do we make of that me?
I think the difficulty here is determinism makes it hard to explain what we experience (objects like me and activities like deliberation); non-determinism makes it hard to explain how our experience is even possible (who/what the hell am I to influence the causal chain).
Yes. I agree with you entirely. I argued the same position in another thread not long ago. The problem, I believe, is that languages were developed by beings who believed as you and I do. If, for many thousands of years, anyone had any inkling of determinism, or thought we did not have free will, they probably didn't have many serious conversations about it with many people. So we're stuck trying to discuss things with language that can't easily express the ideas. I was saying choices don't have meaning, and aren't "actual" choices.
:up:
In not remotely. I just thought FO didn't understand what fj was saying, and tried to get them on the same page.
https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/phimp/article/id/782/
It is worth considering the manner in which the terms 'reactive' and 'responsible' are used in distinguishing between deterministic and libertarian attitudes towards the broader question of free-will.
I don't think this really bears out. Many ancient thinkers were deterministic, both from a causal point of view and also a theological point of view - ie, "I believe in an all-knowing God, and all-knowing means he knows what's going to happen too". In fact many even argue that a lot of the earliest writings we have on Free Will were written by compatibilists.
It wasn't this underground idea nobody dared to say aloud.
I'm not remotely knowledgeable enough to debate it. I'm just thinking we don't have words for the competing ideas being discussed. We have a word for [I]thinking[/I]. We don't have one for [I]thinking with consciousness[/I], and one for [I]thinking without consciousness[/I]. We don't have one for thinking [I]independent of[/I] the physical events of the brain, and one for thinking that [I]is[/I] the physical events of the brain. The ideas of thinking without consciousness and thinking being nothing but the physical events of our brains are not parts of our culture, or our language. Is this because our culture and language grew in a people who, rare individuals aside, never considered these concepts? The things we have words for are the things the people assumed were true without even saying.
Thinking that is not in a state of consciousness is not thinking - dreaming is a conscious state btw.
Quoting Patterner
Because such would be fairly nonsensical so specificity would be required to distinguish such ideas.
Quoting Patterner
They exist is specialised fields but are often uncommon in colloquial speech. An example of a technical jargon being transferred to daily parse is "meme," but it did lose a fair bit of its meaning once taken into colloquial speech.
If terms are rarely used they quickly die or are repurposed. A great many philosophical idea from people like Kant or Hegel are often construed in many different ways by different people.
Time is probably the most troublesome concept philosophers have to deal with.
It seems to me that to some degree "intuition" is a word we use for speaking about thinking without consciousness.
And if you don't mind multiple words being used, Here is some recent casual discussion of thinking without consciousness.
Quoting wonderer1It may be that the word applies at times. But I'm not sure that's the intent of the word, though. The definitions I'm finding are about knowing without conscious reasoning. Does that fit the bill? I'm not sure. I've never posted this kind of thing before.
Quoting wonderer1We can definitely discuss the idea with our language. My point is that we don't have words for things that weren't part of the, shall we say, collective consciousness. Like I've heard there's are many words for "snow" in the Inuit language. Knowing about the different types of snow was extremely important to them. So the language has words for each. Closer to the equator, it wasn't as important. Certainly not a matter of life and death on a daily basis. So, while the people noticed the differences, only major categories got specific words. Snow, slush, ice... The variations only get adjectives. Things like powdery snow and packing snow.
Since determined thinking and thinking without consciousness were not a big part of the collective consciousness, we don't find specific words for them in the language.
This is all just seat of my pants thinking. I couldn't guess how much I have wrong.
I don't suppose people, as a whole, have *ever* had a complete model of what it means to think. We experientially understand what thinking is like, but there's never been a complete coherent view of how thought actually works, what makes it work, how subjective experience can happen. I think you're arbitrarily carving out this exception for determinism that isn't there - like we've never understood thought for determinism, when we have understood thought from other perspectives. I think the reality is, we've had a lack of understanding of thought period, determinism or not.
Well, not having had an inkling of this whole line of thought until a couple days ago, plus not having ever read a word about such things, I'm going to ask for some slack. :grin: Certainly, I'm not claiming any great revelations. I just think humanity, as a whole, has always taken the default position that we have free will, and thought is not simply brain states. I think we would have words specifically for that idea if any significant number of people thought it in the language's younger days.
Like what? Coin a new word, maybe "jiggerston", and tell me what it would mean if it were coined in that context. I'm not understand what new words you think would be useful so maybe an example would help.
It's not a need for a word for thinking in the Determinist sense. It's the fact that there isn't one. Because the idea is not something that has been a part of humanity all along. Which makes sense. Because we don't feel determinism. I mean, everybody who grows uo without ever hearing anything about these ideas is going to take for granted that, faced with different options, although they chose one, they could have chosen another. It doesn't feel as though the choice we make is the only one we possibly could have made.
It's an intellectual idea. One people came to think of after seeing it's how everything we observe and study with our science works, and wondering if it's how our thinking works, too. The idea wasn't originated by someone who felt that's how it works, and started trying to tell everyone.
At least that's the way it seems to me. Even now, having heard this idea for some time, I can intellectually understand it, but I can't feel it.
Do you have strong evidence of that?
Upon googling, I see that both ancient greeks and buddhists were contemplating determinist world views hundreds of years before christ, so pretty much for almost the entirety of our history of written philosophy, we've had these thoughts.
I think the stuff you're saying in this vein is speculation, and I mean this bluntly but not as an insult, it seems like speculation based on ignorance. Which is fine, it's normal to be ignorant of the things you've never heard of before. But now you've heard of it.
Quoting Patterner
Quoting Patterner
So yeah. I live in bliss. :grin:
Still, I think it's an interesting thought. Stop random people in the street and ask them about consciousness. Even if they haven't thought about it in depth, or tried to understand aspects of it that are often discussed here, it's unlikely they'll say they haven't heard of the topic. I suspect many will express the thoughts that consciousness is self-evident, and it is a more important part of their identity than things like their height and eye color.
Ask random people about determinism, and I think a much higher percentage will say they never heard of it. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe most will be able to discuss it in some depth, and a good percentage will say that they feel it is, indeed, how all their thoughts and actions come about.
If your entire point is "consciousness is a more widely known idea than determinism", then... it hasn't seemed like that's what you were saying up until your most recent post, but that's probably true. Yes, consciousness is probably more widely discussed. I don't know what that's an important comparison to make.
I'm not trying to compare them. And no, they are not opposites. I'm just noticing that both are about our identity and thinking, but one is a commonly known idea, and the other, despite having been written about for millennia, is not. Why is that?
Or am I wrong in thinking that, if asked about determinism, most people would say they have not heard of it, and would need it explained?
I also suspect that, once determinism had been explained to them, most would not say it reflects how they feel their thinking works/is accomplished.
This itself is evidence for determinism, in that you can't choose what it is that you find to be intuitive. Intuitions, being a matter of deep learning that occurs subconsciously in our neural nets, can take quite a long time to change.
Not sure what you mean. Why would our deep learning/intuition telling us determinism is not correct be evidence that determinism is correct? Or is that booty what you're saying?
I wasn't referring to intuitions related to determinism specifically, but to intuitions in general and how slow they can be to change, and the changing of our intuitions not being a simple matter of choice on our parts.
If we don't have conscious control of how our intuitions shape our choices, do we have free will?
:rofl: :rofl: I don't know why. Someone explain to me why my phone types "booty" when I swype "not"! I don't think I've ever intentionally typed "booty" other than when I have to explain this. I usually catch it, but was in a rush that time.
I don't know enough about intuition to know how to respond. How does the "deep learning" about non-determinism take place?
I think most people see consciousness as something they know, and determinism as something they have a sense of, but dont really know (as most people arent philosophers) but they get the idea of fate and lack of real control, and illusion sometimes defeating what was thought to be a free choice.
We dont know where intuition really comes from just like we dont know where desires come from - so the question of do we have free will remains unanswered, but I dont think intuition makes it more difficult to answer - it was always difficult/impossible.
Other times the answer someone's intuition gives them is the answer they get when they consider it and explain reasoning behind it. And a lot of people have some pretty faulty reasoning. I assume a lot of people here will be happy to say mine is faulty. :grin: Perhaps others think I generally do ok. Mainly, we will say someone's intuition is wrong when it leads them to an answer we disagree with.
I guarantee my intuition leads me astray at times.
In short, I don't consider intuition to be very useful. But I don't know what @wonderer1 has in mind.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/
There's No Free Will. What Now? - Robert Sapolsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvDrFwyW4k&t=2804s
Thank you. It's confusing me right out of the gate, but I'll see what I can do.
I didn't watch the video, but I've read his book - so I assume it's the same message. It appears to me Sapolsky deals only with the dichotomy: Libertarian Free Will (LFW) OR No Free Will. He also considers there to be no agency unless there is LFW.
He doesn't write about compatibilism...but his description of behavior seems perfectly consistent with compatibilism.
In fairness to Sapolsky he makes no claims to be a philosopher.
This is actually really common. A lot of determinists have compatibilist intuitions but just don't like the word 'free will' because it's too tied up in the libertarian definition. I've even met people who argue for libertarian free will, and then upon some investigation it turns out all of their intuitions about free will are compatibilist too (but that's a bit rarer).
Are you familiar with Molinism? William Lane Craig is a Molinist, insisting that we have LFW despite the fact that each choice could not have differed from what it actually was - because you can't do something contrary to what the omniscient God knew you would do. He nevertheless insists choices are freely willed: God just happens to have magical knowledge of what freely willed choices you will make.
In other "possible worlds" you might have made different choices, but that would be because the circumstances were different. This is nearly identical to compatibilism. The only real difference is that Craig assumes the mind/will operates independently of the deterministic forces of the universe. So although one's past "determines" (loosely speaking) ones choices, the determining is not exclusively due the necessity of laws of nature.
Sounds like quite the pretzel he's twisted his brain into.
I would just call that identical to determinism. If the system we live in isn't just physical determinism, but physical determinism + soul determinism (or whatever independent realm he thinks the mind exists in), that's just... determinism.
Pretty much, except that under physical determinism, it is (in principle) possible to predict all future decisions given perfect knowledge of initial conditions and laws of nature (set aside quantum indeterminacy). Not so with soul determinism: God isn't algoritmically figuring out what choices will be made, he just "knows" by magic.
Why the mental gymnastics? : to rationalize various theistic beliefs. IMO, these tortured rationalizations are good reasons to reject the nonsense.
I think there is, as long as when you say the words "initial conditions" and "laws of nature" you're also including the initial conditions and laws of the soul realm. You have to include it in everything, rather than treat it separately, because it's causally intertwined with the physical.
To a significant extent I agree:
Quoting wonderer1
And yet our intutions (or what Kahneman refers to as fast thinking) provide a necessary basis for us to be able to think at all, and logic (Kahneman's slow thinking) can work synergistically/critically with our intuitions, and lead to us developing more reliable intuitions. For me, understanding 'the scientific method' and the role of observations in testing the reliability of intuitions, and achieving recognition that one of my current intuitions is faulty has been something which had enabled me to improve the reliability of my intuitions over the long run.
I'd suggest not being too dismissive of the value of one's own or other's intuitions, or their potential for improvement. That said, I also advise keeping a grain of salt handy. :wink:
This reminds me of Karl Popper's "Bold Conjectures," which he posited as an important, initial part of doing science that is then put through the rigors of testing, observation, measuring and other rational methods. In short, "intuitions" are (or can be) "bold conjectures," and can therefore be very useful in pursuing and obtaining knowledge.
Other times, when thinking things through thoroughly, intuitive knowledge is seen to be false. Maybe a science experiment.
"What do you think will happen when x, y, and z?"
"Intuitively, I think it will ____."
Wrong often enough. Our intuition doesn't suggest time works the way Einstein tells us it does.
Sometimes it's unprovable. Like someone's intuitive knowledge of whatever deity they believe in.
Intuition has lead people into terrible romantic relationships now times than we can count. "My intuition tells me he's a great guy."
And, of course, sometimes intuition is correct. You said "achieving recognition that one of my current intuitions is faulty has been something which had enabled me to improve the reliability of my intuitions over the long run." I'm thinking you mean something like recognizing a flaw in critical thinking?
First, let me state that unusual intuitive abilities is an aspect of how autism affects me, so it is certainly something where YMMV. However, I've good reason to think everyone has somewhat similar intuitive capacities, on the basis of human neurology, talking with diverse others about their experiences with intuition, and introspection, amongst other things.
Yes, recognizing flaws in critical thinking is an aspect of it, but there is a very significant subconscious aspect as well. Conscious recognition that intuitions I hold are not logically consistent with each other seemingly affects my subconscious so that it works in its mysteriously subconscious way to eliminate the cognitive dissonance. Sometimes the result can be the development of a new intuitive perspective which is free of the logical inconsistency that my older set of intuitions had. Sometimes the new intuitive perspective seems to arise out of the blue from my subconscious, in which case it is what I experience as an epiphany.
Having improved intuitions in some realm is a key aspect of having expertise as explained here:
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
So if you want to grok what I am saying, it might be worth considering your thinking with regards to something that you have expertise in.
Srap's whole post is excellent.
If intuition is, as it says in the part you quoted, "zipping through the analysis," that's fine. That doesn't make it any kind of mysterious sources of knowledge. And the many times people's intuition leads them to the wrong answer would be explained by the fact that their careful analysis also leads to the wrong answer. As you say, whether the answer comes from intuition or analysis, you'll be correct more often in areas where you have some expertise.
I'm not aware of ever coming up with an answer intuitively. Even areas in which I have some knowledge, I get the answer because I remember some information, or do the multiplication quickly, or whatever. I'm always aware of the analysis.
That should be "@Srap Tasmaner's whole post is excellent."
Legend has it, that if you say it just like I did, he will appear.
Quoting Patterner
I wouldn't describe it that way myself, though as a metaphorical way of describing it, I think it is pretty good.
I think it is more a matter of subconscious pattern recognition developing in the process of gaining expertise and stored as deep learning in the expert's neural nets.
This is a relevant article.
I was lounging comfortably in my bottle, thank you very much, but I honor the code of my own free will.
Quoting wonderer1It seems fascinating. Probably moreso for those who know how to play Go. I imagine there are online groups to play, so I really don't have an excuse.
:sparkle: :pray: :sparkle: