Determinism

[pgrmdave]

The difference between beliving in determinism versus fatalism comes down to how much you allow it to affect you. In fatalism, you allow it to affect you, in determinism, it's merely an acknowledgement that there is no free will. The fatalist says "I have no free will, so I will not be held responsible for my actions", the determinist says "I have no free will, but since I have no control over that, I will continue to live my life as I always have."

 

I have found that the easiest way to explain my view is that while I believe that determinism is true, and that I have no free will, I live my life as though I did have free will. Freewill is simply a higher layer of abstraction. It's kind of like a calculator - when I push 2 + 2 =, the calculator adds the numbers and displays 4. But that's not true, it adds the binary forms togeather and gets 4, but that's not true, it simply moves the binary information around and then spits out the results, but that's not true, it simply moves electrons around and some LED's light up. Each layer there is a layer of abstraction, and it is enough to say that it adds 2 + 2. Similarly, it is enough to say that I make decisions, even though I know that at the simplest level, it is deterministic.

[IDMclean]

What makes a Deterministic Physical System mutually exclusive of a Indeterministic Thought System?

 

I have never had it explained, proved, evidenced, or otherwise satisfactorily shown:

what a thought is

where it arises from

how it arises from said place

why it arises in the first place

 

I know the general accepted is "oh, thoughts arise from the neural network!"

I have seen, and heard of evidence that throws a shadow of a doubt on this. I know we are sensor driven machinations, but we are also part of this universe and likewise it is a part of us, so why then do thoughts have to arise from something so obvious as the neural network... I mean maybe we aren't looking at the whole picture.

[pgrmdave]

Because if the universe is entirely deterministic, and thought is a part of this universe, then thought must be deterministic. And there is a good deal of evidence linking thought to the brain. I think that brain damage, drugs to treat mental illnesses, lobotomies, MRIs, fMRIs, and other test show quite conclusively that thought occurs within the brain.

[IDMclean]

Ok Ive been working really hard on some other thinking type stuff for the last week or so, so I am very lazy at the moment. So if you want evidence, find it yourself, just trust me in that I have heard claims and looked at research into the matter.

 

It is in the Neurology branch of science at current that perhaps thought is not infact centered simply in the brain, but may come from multipul other sources within the individual body. There is some interesting research regarding the neuroglia, that suggest that they do more than we think they do. It is becoming increasingly apparent that our early assertion that the neural network is the totality of the mind is not entirely correct.

 

Oh and I am entertaining an idea that perhaps the systems that regulate the physical may not regulate the ephemeral. Anyway some things to think about the nature of thinking and the nature of choice.

[ughaibu]

If reality is deterministic, a person does not choose to believe in determinism or in indeterminism, neither do they choose how to deal with their deterministic or indeterministic views, so it makes no sense to say that they believe in determinism and deal with it in a certain way, if they believe in determinism, it only makes sense to say that their beliefs and reaction to those beliefs are determined by the system. Unfortunately this makes discussion of determinism, in a deterministic system, a question independent of the merits of argument, as people will say what it is determined that they will say, not what makes sense. A person can only allow things to effect them in an indeterministic system, unless that act of allowing is determined in and by a deterministic system. A deterministic system can only be absolute.

[Kriminal99]

Unless the deterministic system produces a human being which has an understanding that models said system.

 

For instance:

 

Humans could have evolved a fairly simple motivational system that causes you to look for ways to experience things determined by some evolved algorithm to be beneficial. For example things that you have experienced early on, or experienced so far many times and not died while experiencing, or perhaps the algorithm is intergenerational.

 

Maybe the sound of beats, or a general shape of a smile etc would be often results of this algorithm. These could then be recognized to be caused by other things and those other things themselves could become things a person wishes to experience.

 

Each persons early experiences could predispose them towards a certain method of trying to achieve these goals. Some people might have experiences that teach them that true understanding of the world around them and/or the ability to communicate it is the way to achieve their goals and this itself could consequently become their goal... all using the same simple system which motivates everyone's behavior in this model. This might be realized by a child watching someone like socrates in action.

 

But as a result, the human would go to great lengths to truly understand the same deterministic system they are a part of.

 

I strongly agree with the distinction between belief in fate and determinism. It's not a new thing either from what I have heard. Apparently the pilgrims who founded the USA were christians who did not believe in free will, but also took responsibility for their actions.

 

The idea of taking responsibility for your actions parallels to private ownership in economics, and the idea of intellectual property as well. Noone is responsible for the physical land we live on or the nature of the universe which makes some ideas valuable either one. But by giving a person ownership of land or ideas they can benefit from work they do to make them useful and since people do what benefits them according to this deterministic system the idea of private ownership is a means to an end.

 

If a child could claim he didn't know he wasn't supposed to steal crayons and get away with it, then he would continue to steal crayons. That is because "didn't know he wasn't supposed to" really means "didn't know he would get in trouble for it". Its true he didn't know, but if you don't punish him he STILL won't know. So punishing him for what he deterministicly did, causing him to take ownership of that action is a means to an end and can be justified no more than that.

[ughaibu]

A deterministic reality is, on the face of it, a simple idea, if at any one point in time, the universe (including individual mental worlds) exists in a particular state, that state will follow and precede another state, accordingly, determinism states nothing of independent interest as it is implicit in the definitions. Within the definitions, there is scope to challenge determinism, by questioning the mechanism of procession, the nature of points in time or the state of things, my question about infinite elements concerns the latter.

Infinite elements are undemonstrable, the idea of an infinitometer is absurd, so determinists must deal with the possibility of infinite elements theoretically, otherwise determinism can be considered to be undecidable. The problem could be dealt with either by arguing that infinities are impossible or by arguing a mechanism by which determinism can reasonably derive the succeeding state of the universe from infinite conditions.

[Kriminal99]

Infinite elements are undemonstrable, the idea of an infinitometer is absurd, so determinists must deal with the possibility of infinite elements theoretically, otherwise determinism can be considered to be undecidable. The problem could be dealt with either by arguing that infinities are impossible or by arguing a mechanism by which determinism can reasonably derive the succeeding state of the universe from infinite conditions.

 

Well, if a subset of "state of the universe" could be determined by a finite set of conditions then its not really a problem. After all noone could be worried about the entire state of the universe anyways.

 

And this is exactly what engineers do already. Also keep in mind that subset means limited precision as well as just limited parameters.

[pgrmdave]

It is in the Neurology branch of science at current that perhaps thought is not infact centered simply in the brain, but may come from multipul other sources within the individual body.

 

So long as thought comes from within a physical, deterministic universe, then thought is deterministic. Whether it comes from the brain, the gut, the organs, or the fingers, thought would still be determined.

[ughaibu]

Kriminal99: Fine, but a subset of the universe says nothing about whether or not reality is deterministic.

[Pyrotex]

First let me say that I am not aware of your point, in fact, I have difficulty make sense of nearly everything you say. Your manner is aggressive and confrontational, and you seem so bent upon peddling your own beliefs, that you are unable to see anything else. You do not seem to understand even the most basic logical operators, such as the conditional “if” in my pervious statements. You have somehow inferred that because I have a deep understanding of eastern metaphysics, that I must be expounding “religious beliefs”, which merely illustrates you lack of proficiency in inductive reasoning. You state that my logic “seems plausible”, but you reject it without providing so much as a hint as to why, let alone a refutation. Now I would ask you to either engage me in a meaningful way, or be so kind as to simply ignore me, for it is clear that you think me a fool.

Jehu,

I hope you read this response. First, let me say that I apologize for my belligerent attitude. Well, mostly. It was on purpose.

 

Your response above was a breath of fresh air, and I read it with a degree of relief. I wasn't "glad" that I had made you uncomfortable or angry, but I was glad that you had changed your "tone" of writing. You had gone from the mechanical to the personal. Your response above was the FIRST post I could read and understand.

 

So :thumbs_up I apologize -- but I'm glad that you finally posted as a "person". Hello, Jehu, glad to meet you. How are you? May I offer a suggestion? I guess I will anyway. Put something in your profile. I had no idea WHO or WHAT I was talking to. Adolescent with a big vocabulary? Wise old sage who had seen it all? A farmer, an engineer, a mob hit-man, a minister of some arcane religion? No idea. Interpretation is always done in a context of identity. Not knowing who you were made interpretation even more difficult.

 

Do you have any idea what a difference there is in your previous post and all those that went before? Like night and day. I can see your humanity now. All I could see before was a mechanical prose generator. And it was utterly opaque prose. The reason I did not attempt to point out any "errors" I found was that I had not a CLUE what you were saying or why. I could see no meaning no logic no flow of thought at all. Sorry about that. I'm not actually stupid. It was as if you were speaking in a foreign language that just accidently used words spelled just like English words.

 

I encourage you to keep posting. And post as yourself, not as some infinitely wise psychological-spiritual-all-knowing-guru-machine. And NO, I don't believe you are a fool.