Determinism Dilemma?

[Breckmin]

Falling teaches us

becoming a born-again pentacostal in my late teens, dabbling somewhat with neopaganism and wicca and finally becoming enamoured of science.

I find it fascinating that you would dabble in neopaganism and wicca if you
knew that it was "the other side" as it relates to spiritual forces.

I know it is off topic in this thread to ask about what attracted you to
wicca once you spent time with a loving Heavenly Father like God.
I know what happened to me that caused me to once become a T.E.

I DO believe it was infinitely determined through an infinite set of circumstances
which taught me and brought about a greater good....
M

 

[The Atheist]

And TA, you're not getting determinism because you're not seeing how deep it goes. Even if you hesitate just a little when shuffling your cards, that very hesitation is itself determined. You can't make any decisions in a completely determined universe. The course of every atom is set on stone and cannot be altered.

Nope. The time delay is completely random. I can't see how any determination can cope with it, and while I can see a case for a determined deal, based on the physical factors involved - position of fingers, number of electrons present in the shuffler's eyeballs, etc - but I can't see that it has any meaning when the odds are increasing exponentially by 5000 combinations every hundredth of a second.

You'd end up with a quilliad of choices from just one game of cards. That being the case, what is determinism actually? Seems as though it should be replaced with "random chance according to physical rules and the time."

Douglas Adams would have said it much better, but he's spending the rest of eternity dead for tax reasons.

This is why most rational people believe that determinism is absurd. But if the universe is determined, that very belief would be determined as well. So like the old joke goes, it works even if you don't believe in it.

Sounds reasonable to me.

With all of the religions of the world that are easily demonstrated to be
inconsistent, it is interesting that you always pick on Christianity....

Well, where I live christians outnumber all other religions by a factor of about 20, and pretty much everyone at JREF lives in, or grew up in, a country where christianity is the overwhelming cultural religion, so it'd be a bit bizarre of we were discussing Vishnu, wouldn't it?

There are Buddhist threads every now and then.

When yrreg feels the need to have a crack at them.

 

[arthwollipot]

I know it is off topic in this thread to ask about what attracted you to
wicca once you spent time with a loving Heavenly Father like God.

I finally realised that the church was a hateful, hypocritical organisation that was telling me lies.

I suspect that much of it was the particular denomination that I was brainwashed by. I harboured some resentment for a while, then got over it all. Now I realise that not all Christans are like that, and I'm a better man for it.

 

[Rairun]

My question for determinists is if it is true, then where is culpability? Moral or otherwise?

(ETA: This isn't meant to be "debunking" determinism or anything, it is an honest question)

In general, we place the blame on beings who are rational. They are capable of interpreting the world in such a way that their reactions aren't bound to immediate events. A snake can't do much more than bite when you approach it; this reaction is hard coded into its brain. On the other hand, we humans have more sophisticated programing, and it allows us to consider the past, the present and the future in a much more complex manner. That doesn't mean our choices are unbound. It just means that we aren't programmed like a snake: THREAT --> BITE. We process a much larger number of variables, both learned and hard coded. If we change a variable, such as making murder illegal, it's less likely that people will go around killing each other, because they are sophisticated enough machines to respond to it.

You could say that it's unfair to blame someone if they are caused to have the programming they have. It's not their "fault". Well, that's true, it's not their fault, but laws are not supposed to be God's hand on Earth. We aren't judging anyone morally here. We are just locking up people who don't respond to social norms. We don't do this to make them suffer. We do it because there's no other choice to stop them from committing crimes.

The lack of free will, by the way, doesn't depend on determinism. It's a logically inconsistent concept.

 

[arthwollipot]

Nope. The time delay is completely random.

In a strongly deterministic universe, there is no such thing as "completely random". All outcomes are determined. Nothing is left to chance. The time delay is predetermined by the events that precede it. See? This kind of determinism is absurd.

 

[porch]

My question for determinists is if it is true, then where is culpability? Moral or otherwise?

(ETA: This isn't meant to be "debunking" determinism or anything, it is an honest question)

There is no morality or culpability in any ultimate sense. Purely subjective.

As far as something like justice goes: I don't want a rapist in my community going around raping people. It goes against my feelings and it goes against what seems like good sense. Lucky for me, the majority of people in my community feel similarly enough that we get together to overpower the rapist and stop them. I'm not saying that might makes right, since there is no right. I'm just saying it's good to be on the winning team.

eta: whups, didn't read the new thread memo in time.

 

[KingMerv00]

This is aimed at PJ too. I started a new thread for the morality discussion. I'm certain if I didn't it would lead to a derail.

In general, we place the blame on beings who are rational. They are capable of interpreting the world in such a way that their reactions aren't bound to immediate events. A snake can't do much more than bite when you approach it; this reaction is hard coded into its brain. On the other hand, we humans have more sophisticated programing, and it allows us to consider the past, the present and the future in a much more complex manner. That doesn't mean our choices are unbound. It just means that we aren't programmed like a snake: THREAT --> BITE. We process a much larger number of variables, both learned and hard coded. If we change a variable, such as making murder illegal, it's less likely that people will go around killing each other, because they are sophisticated enough machines to respond to it.

You could say that it's unfair to blame someone if they are caused to have the programming they have. It's not their "fault". Well, that's true, it's not their fault, but laws are not supposed to be God's hand on Earth. We aren't judging anyone morally here. We are just locking up people who don't respond to social norms. We don't do this to make them suffer. We do it because there's no other choice to stop them from committing crimes.

The lack of free will, by the way, doesn't depend on determinism. It's a logically inconsistent concept.

That's it, I give up.

 

[Rairun]

I'm a strong defender of determinism for the same reasons I'm a defender of behaviorism in psychology. If we are going to have a serious scientific discussion, I will actually argue against them. I'm neither a hardcore determinist nor a behaviorist. But when non-scientists feel the need to attack them, it's almost always exactly for the points they got right.

I'm for behaviorism not because of its simplistic account of learning in human beings, but because it takes a very strong stance against the soul, the mind, qualia, homunculi, etc. The same way, I'm not for determinism because it doesn't acknowledge the possibility of truly random events, but because woos try to claim randomness as evidence for free will.

Let me explain why free will is an incoherent concept:

1) An event is either caused or not caused.

2) If the event is caused, it's fully determined. Therefore there is no free will.

3) If the event is not caused, it's random. Therefore there is no free will. Saying that randomness is evidence for free will is the same as saying we are making a choice by throwing dice! It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Rairun]

That's it, I give up.

Ha, I'm sorry. I started writing it before you made that post. But then the board started giving me errors (saying there were too many simultaneous connections) and I gave up for a while. When I came back, I didn't read the rest of the thread before posting.

 

[The Atheist]

The same way, I'm not for determinism because it doesn't acknowledge the possibility of truly random events, but because woos try to claim randomness as evidence for free will.

Isn't just allowing them to incorrectly conflate the two things? The free will argument is just a refuge for ignorance. No, we can't prove it doesn't exist, so let's say goddidit.

 

[Breckmin]

The "state of determination" through chance and random processes

In a strongly deterministic universe, there is no such thing as "completely random".

Unless completely random is inclusive of the deterministic process. You will
say this is a contradiction. The problem is the English language in understanding
that completely random is still within a certain time frame to yield a result.
Just as a computer program would pick random numbers, there is still an
algorithm being used and there is a set time in both circuitry and mathematical
algorithm.

All outcomes are determined.

But the question is "how" are they determined. To they include random
intervals and absolute choices and what we refer to as "chance."

Nothing is left to chance.

Perhaps "chance" is an actuality which can be known "a head of time"
or observed outside of the experience of time (timeless transcendence).

The time delay is predetermined by the events that precede it.

Perhaps the problem is with the English word "predetermined" instead of
using "the present state of determination through random process(es)."

See? This kind of determinism is absurd.

Sometimes we need to step out of the box of three dimensional linear
time and look a little deeper and concepts that allow both to exist at
the same time.

M

 

[porch]

Isn't just allowing them to incorrectly conflate the two things? The free will argument is just a refuge for ignorance. No, we can't prove it doesn't exist, so let's say goddidit.

I thought that most people that invoked determinism these days meant it as shorthand for determined-or-random.

 

[arthwollipot]

Unless completely random is inclusive of the deterministic process. You will
say this is a contradiction. The problem is the English language in understanding
that completely random is still within a certain time frame to yield a result.
Just as a computer program would pick random numbers, there is still an
algorithm being used and there is a set time in both circuitry and mathematical
algorithm.



But the question is "how" are they determined. To they include random
intervals and absolute choices and what we refer to as "chance."


Perhaps "chance" is an actuality which can be known "a head of time"
or observed outside of the experience of time (timeless transcendence).


Perhaps the problem is with the English word "predetermined" instead of
using "the present state of determination through random process(es)."


Sometimes we need to step out of the box of three dimensional linear
time and look a little deeper and concepts that allow both to exist at
the same time.

M

Sorry Breckmin, but I've read your post three times and I still can't work out what it is you're saying. Could you try phrasing your argument differently?

 

[Breckmin]

The relationship between free will and ignorance

The free will argument is just a refuge for ignorance.

Let's ask a question RELATIVE to "ignorance."

CAN you HAVE true "free will" if you ARE ignorant?

If you do not know the consequences for your "choices" or the eternal
consequences for your "actions" which are most often based on your
volition, are you truly exercising "free will" at that point?

Can you have a "free" will without knowing the TRUTH of the end
results of your choices?

M

 

[linusrichard]

"A feeling" is not evidence.

On the contrary, feelings, in a broad sense, are the only evidence there is. That is, observations and experiences are really only perceptions, feelings. We have a feeling of making choices, of exercising free will. We experience this every day. Determinism would have us believe that this is an illusion. Perhaps I can refute the theory of gravity by pointing out the possibility that everything we observe consistent with that theory is an illusion. It could be. We don't get to to connect directly with the universe. It all comes in through our eyes and our ears, and other sense organs, and a lot of it is filtered through other things, cameras and microphones and microscopes and so on.

The point is, all we have to go on is our observations. Our observations might all be illusions, there is no way to know. But since we have no way to know, it's basically useless to worry about. I observe myself making decisions every waking second of the day. Those observations might be illusions, too. The determinists would have us believe that they are, based on the fact that we have no explanation for the origin of free will. Because the determinists can't figure out a causal mechanism for the phenomenon being observed, they assume the observation must be an illusion, and the phenomenon must not be real.

It would be like dismissing the process of evolution as an illusion before Darwin's ideas about natural selection were published. Just because people didn't understand how evolution occurred doesn't mean that it was reasonable for them to believe that the evolution they were observing wasn't actually occurring. Or dismissing Mendel until the arrival of Watson and Crick. Or whatever.

There's supporting evidence, too. Everything we do, even determinists, is predicated on the assumption that we have free will. Of course, the determinists will say that we can't help but act as if we had free will, and that it proves nothing. Which just goes to demonstrate that determinism is unfalsifiable and not so much worth talking about.

The good news is, if I'm wrong to believe in free will, it's not my fault!

 

[Breckmin]

This probably doesn't help much

Sorry Breckmin, but I've read your post three times and I still can't work out what it is you're saying. Could you try phrasing your argument differently?

You are asking for a series of really long posts here...

Suppose you are a three dimensional being observing an imaginary two
dimensional being on an imaginary two dimensional x,y graph traveling from
one point on the graph to another point. Suppose also there are an infinite
amount of mathematical equations between the two points which can be
graphed and you know all of them; and this imaginary being, no matter what
random path they choose (even if they go backwards and come back around
again), is going to be on a path which can be mathematically determined
based on an equation which is unknown to such imaginary being. but is
known to you because you have already seen the imaginary being finish
and reach the final destination. Suppose you can go back in time during
this imaginary beings journey on this infinitely complex mathematical
equation which this imaginary being is traveling on with full knowledge of
the finishing point that you observed when you were in the future.
Suppose also that there are "random" factors from other imaginary two
dimensional beings which interacted with the imaginary being you were
following which contributed to them following along the infinitely complex
mathematical equation which you had calculated because you had been
in the future and seen the finished product.

The problem with this analogy is that "you" are a three dimensional being
and you have to travel in time to the future to see the final destination
of the imaginary being and chart its path mathematically, and then go
back in time during the imaginary beings point of travel and observe the
course which this being has "traveled" (from the POV of the future) but
is actually still in the process of traveling. The point is, YOU know the
infinitely complex mathematical equation which the two dimensional
being is traveling to go from point A to point B. The imaginary two
dimensional being does NOT know the path he/she is on because they
do not know the finish line (future) NOR do they know what "random"
factors will contribute to them traveling the course of this infinitely
complex mathematical equation which can be graphed on the x,y axis.

It is completely random to the imaginary two dimensional being because
he/she does not see point B, NOR does he/she know the infinitely
complex mathematical equation he/she is traveling along. To YOU,
you know the equation, because you were in the "future" and saw the
imaginary two dimensional being reach the destination of point B, and
then you calculated the infinitely complex mathematical equation, and
went back in time to observe the imaginary two dimensional being
traveling along on it.

Choices that are made now, no matter what the reasons, affect
choices of others that will be made tomorrow. If we were in the future
and we saw the end results of such choices, we would claim that they
were inevitable because they HAVE TO take place to get to the final
destination we are AT (in the future). Not so when you are making
such choices with NO knowledge of the "final destination" of where
those choices are leading.

I know I have a lot more to explain regarding the two dimensional
example given above, but the "point" is that once point B is reached
and then you go back and calculate it in retrospect, you CAN make
a mathematical equation which graphs that exact line of travel.

Then, once it has an infinitely complex mathematical equation
which plots its line of travel, we no longer think of it as random.

The issue is the POV and the difference of the POV of the three
dimensional being who could observe the finish line, and the limited
two dimensional being who could only "experience" the path chosen
and could NOT step out into the Z of the x,y,z axis and see point
B from the third dimension.

M

 

[The Atheist]

I thought that most people that invoked determinism these days meant it as shorthand for determined-or-random.

I'm not sure it can't have elements of both, but I'm nobody's philosopher.

Let's ask a question RELATIVE to "ignorance."

CAN you HAVE true "free will" if you ARE ignorant?

I don't think ignorance is relevant - the question is simply, "Does free will exist?"

If you do not know the consequences for your "choices" or the eternal
consequences for your "actions" which are most often based on your
volition, are you truly exercising "free will" at that point?

Can you have a "free" will without knowing the TRUTH of the end
results of your choices?

M

Sorry, but I don't get the correlation between consequences & truth and free will. Some people don't care about consequences. Or truth. Most people in the case of truth.

 

[arthwollipot]

You are asking for a series of really long posts here...

I'm really not. I'm asking for a clear and concise clarification of what it was you were trying to say.

 

[Breckmin]

Infinite Determinism and its relationship to matheostiacism

I'm really not. I'm asking for a clear and concise clarification of what it was you were trying to say.

Believe it or not, I actually spent quite a bit of time on explaining it
over the last 10 minutes or so, and lost it all when I went to save
it (my browser went to a go back somehow).

It happens quite a bit when I'm on JREF for some reason. Maybe
I should be taking a hint or something.

M

 

[The Atheist]

Believe it or not, I actually spent quite a bit of time on explaining it
over the last 10 minutes or so, and lost it all when I went to save
it (my browser went to a go back somehow).

It happens quite a bit when I'm on JREF for some reason. Maybe
I should be taking a hint or something.

M

You're not related Radrook are you?