Thoughts on Determinism

[Skepsis]

@Pa3s
I did want to comment that I only just started to read the paper you had a link to in your original post and I have found it to be quite informative. I should've done this first before even posting, but in my haste I wrote myself right into some conceptual traps and logical errors. This thread has led to me having a renewed interest in the arguments for/against free will and determinism, and even epistemology.

Nice job

[Skepsis]

I have a tendency to see concepts such as determinism and free will as beliefs that depend upon individual perspectives and tend to not care as much about the logical consistency of adopting one point of view over the other. They both seem to have their strengths and justifications for their belief. To me, ultimate reality cannot be understood or explained logically. I personally belief that the universe is indeterministic, but localized events can be deterministic. I also believe that there is a spiritual layer to reality that we cannot directly perceive and the existence of this realm contains a will that guides the development of living organisms. Higher organisms have a greater cognitive function that allow a greater awareness of themselves and the consequences of their behavior, which gives the will of humans a distinct flavor when compared to most other living organisms. We are not purely the results of physics, nor are we purely spiritual beings. We are mostly beings of matter during life and mostly beings of energy before and after life. This is my own subjective perspective and highly is unscientific, even though I largely subscribe to empiricism when making most of my decisions in life. Sort of odd really.

[Skepsis]

Lately, I've been thinking about belief in free will and how its related to a belief in duality. I think it would be safe to say that hard determinist do not believe in a mind/body duality, but there seems to be those that believe free will exists and there arguments seems to coincide with a belief in duality. I think compatibilists make good arguments to believe in free will and not believe in dualism.

Any thoughts here?

[Pa3s]

I did want to comment that I only just started to read the paper you had a link to in your original post and I have found it to be quite informative. I should've done this first before even posting, but in my haste I wrote myself right into some conceptual traps and logical errors. This thread has led to me having a renewed interest in the arguments for/against free will and determinism, and even epistemology.

Nice job

Thanks, I'm glad this thread sparked new interest in the subject.

I have a tendency to see concepts such as determinism and free will as beliefs that depend upon individual perspectives and tend to not care as much about the logical consistency of adopting one point of view over the other. They both seem to have their strengths and justifications for their belief. To me, ultimate reality cannot be understood or explained logically.

I think a person's convictions are like a house of cards. Fragile, carefully constructed and each element is built on another one. For my own opinion, I can list several arguments which may seem compelling to me, but irrelevant to others. Some Atheists think if religious people just listened to reason, they would suddenly realize the error of their ways. But it's not that easy. Because deep down, every group has its house of cards built upon a belief that can not be known for certain. Atheists too. Even if they base most of their beliefs on science, the very core, the foundation still remains unanswerable. And if they were wrong about this one question, all else must be questioned.

Werner Heisenberg put it nicely: "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."

I personally belief that the universe is indeterministic, but localized events can be deterministic. I also believe that there is a spiritual layer to reality that we cannot directly perceive and the existence of this realm contains a will that guides the development of living organisms. Higher organisms have a greater cognitive function that allow a greater awareness of themselves and the consequences of their behavior, which gives the will of humans a distinct flavor when compared to most other living organisms. We are not purely the results of physics, nor are we purely spiritual beings. We are mostly beings of matter during life and mostly beings of energy before and after life. This is my own subjective perspective and highly is unscientific, even though I largely subscribe to empiricism when making most of my decisions in life. Sort of odd really.

If you want to hear my personal opinion: I tend to prefer straightforward concepts. If a system has too many insecurities and ambiguities (even more than usual regarding metaphysics, that is) it seems artificial and weak to me. This might be a simplistic view, but it makes sense to me.

The realization that humans, animals, plants and even lifeless matter might actually be all the same deep down blew my mind. Yes, you can define differences between all these things. But change your perspective and the differences fade into the background. One day, people might be able to construct cybernetic humans which fulfill all the defining aspects of life. This belief answers many difficult questions and ends tedious discussion about morality by negating its basic concept.

You don't have to feel bad if you harbor beliefs which are unscientific. Science can't answer everything. I have believed in souls and the afterlife for years for no apparent reason. And yet, I still don't know what will happen after death even if my beliefs have changed.

Lately, I've been thinking about belief in free will and how its related to a belief in duality. I think it would be safe to say that hard determinist do not believe in a mind/body duality, but there seems to be those that believe free will exists and there arguments seems to coincide with a belief in duality. I think compatibilists make good arguments to believe in free will and not believe in dualism.

Any thoughts here?

Yes, as far as I know, hard determinists agree with metaphysical materialism without exception. Nothing beyond matter exists. I have to admit that I don't know how compatibilists think about this issue, though. As I have already said in this thread, both types of determinism believe in basically the same in my opinion. Free will, as it is commonly defined (i.e. truly free) is impossible. And if you believe in dualism and have a soul which is both immaterial and not subject to the laws of nature, isn't this soul also able to transcendent them? This would make "ideal" free will possible again. I don't know if that's what you expected to hear. Perhaps I need a few more details/context.

[QuickTwist]

Hi, got done reading the whole paper and skimmed the comments. Have some questions.

Lets say things can be predicted. Would your whole theory collaps?

What do you think about this: Humans, as well as anything else in the universe have no capacity to understand objectively. Because we cannot predict, we cannot see objectively.

You sum up everything in the same way: there is not difference between intangibles. This takes away the subtlety that is found to us. Would you amount language to the same intangibility? Just because we cannot control it doesn't mean it is negligible.

Logic does not presuppose purposelessness. Thoughts?

I'm just a friendly fellow determinist seeing what you have to say about this stuff, cheers.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

i find the text to be a good starting point for the development/analysis of the issue, pretty much opening the way to hypotheses.

how can we ever ensure omniscience? it is easier for a second party (up to interpretation) to map out our sensemaking processes (up to interpretation) and persuade us that we know everything.

by using words such as ''predict'' we create a timeline-bound understanding. overall, i think that the text implies a common understanding of concepts (role of language/semiotics/representation) and targets the perceived end-point why's.

i somehow see logic as the creation of path-dependency, which on a certain modulus/context can actually mean creation per se .


purposelessness is hard to grasp. reminds me of the buddhist concept of emptiness

edit: then again i just saw that you said

If you want to hear my personal opinion: I tend to prefer straightforward concepts. If a system has too many insecurities and ambiguities (even more than usual regarding metaphysics, that is) it seems artificial and weak to me. This might be a simplistic view, but it makes sense to me.

[QuickTwist]

I wrote about determinism on another forum. Here is what I wrote:

Some people think we have choice. Some people think it is the very essence that gives us being. I am going to challenge that.

So when tackling a question on a matter of something like this we must first have adequate dichotomies so that people can understand what we are really talking about. What then can we say of choice? In the most simplest of terms it is selecting one possibility over another.

A common example in defence of choice is to say "here we have a fork of possible things to select from where there is a moral dilemma in as to what to do becomes problematic in that there is really no clear rational favorable outcome". But here in saying there is no advantage over selecting one option over the other how can we say there is choice? We first must presuppose that this individual has the freedom to do as they please and are not hindered from making one choice over another. All things being equal without the premise of what one knows about this situation it is impossible to determine what any given person will choose in the situation.

Given that the individual can predict with some form of certainty what the outcomes will be of their action we then must look at outside factors that may play a part in this person's action. We must look at the possible motives of the person who is making the action. Such things are the true maker in this situation. One cannot first approach a situation with the outlook of the evidence alone of the situation, but must also take into account what the person's character is like.

Now look at it from the perspective of the person who is put in such situation. Before this person makes their action and after they have all necessary information to act the person must first ask what do they use to base their action on. In asking what to base their action on they must first ask what is important to them. How does one know what is important to them? They must first ask themselves what they think of themselves. How does one go about analyzing what they think of themselves? They must first ask themselves who they are if they are to have any idea of what is important to them. So what information does one use in determining what they are? It is largely dependent on what they have done in the past. So what is what they have done in the past determined by? What they have done in the past is determined by their experiences. What are their experiences determined by? The answer that is random chance. It has little to do with what that individual has chosen to do and everything to do with what this individual has learned from what they have randomly been exposed to. How do we determine what an individual has learned? What we learn is determined by possibilities we are exposed to and our capability of understanding the consequence of our action.

Within the confines of an upbringing an individual is exposed to more and more possibilities from birth and this is the basis that they are to make all other decision on, moral dilemma or not. All a person's choices can be summed up by are the experiences of their existence and What they can rationally determine through either conscious thought or otherwise in finding patterns that they can reliably gauge through our anamnesis from past situations.

So then what are we to gauge when finding patterns of past situations? The determination of future outcomes is solely determined by similar situations we have had, the action we chose when doing so and whether that had a favorable outcome or not. People constantly are being exposed to new possibilities and they are also constantly measuring what the outcomes of these results are. Over time an individual will learn through experience what is to be expected when they are exposed to similar, but not the same possibilities. This constant measuring of what they did and the result of their action all goes into an anamnesis storage of what is to be expected in any given situation. Soon enough this person feels like they have the power to choose what to do when in fact they are simply doing what they believe has the best possible outcome, even in the case where there is no clear advantage over one result or the other. Belief has the best possible outcome, even in the case where there is no clear advantage over one result or the other.