JanC

I may have missed one or two, but I believe I've seen most of them, including his introduction video's and the debate he had with 3 determinists. So I didn't just barge into this debate. Anyway, thanks for the video's. I'll be checking them out at a later time, because I'm away for a few days. Cheers man!

Maybe, but the same goes for indeterminism, right? Still, determinism get's a bad rep, especially on this forum. I don't find determinism counterintutive at all. Apart from quantum fluctuation on a subatomic level (correct me if I'm wrong), everything does seem to be operating in a deterministic fashion. Astronomers and chemists never bicker about these things. They simply assume all matter behaves according to the laws of physics in a potentially predictable way. The weather is hard to predict, but we can make pretty good estimations for a few days ahead. We can only do that because of cause and effect. And the only reason why it stops there is because we lack information. What's the point of predicting the whether if it will be random chance anyway if tomorrow the sun will shine or not? But like I said, I don't know for sure determinism is true. Maybe the universe really is indeterministic (because of quantum fluctuations). But that's actually not the issue here. This isn't about determinism, it's about free will. And the dichotomy between determinism and free will is a false one. A true dichotomy would be determinism vs indeterminism. And I agree, this may not even be an interesting question, because either worldview is quite problematic for free will. Whether your brain is deterministic, indeterministic or a combination of both, it still operates according to the laws of physics. And afaik, science has shown that the conscious realization of making a decision comes after the actual moment that your brain has made the decision. But it's not like it all happened already and we're just watching a film from a third person perspective. We are agents in the present that make the future (Dennett once used the term 'probabilifiers'). At least we become conscious about the thing our mind decides. With respect to the past: No, we can't.With respect to the future it's nonsensicle, because the future hasn't happened yet. No no no! You're combining past and present again. People can be confronted with their (determinist) actions, which might change their mind with respec to future events. Last thing: Can you explain to me why Stef keeps saying that determinists are debating the weather or shouting at rocks to go left or right? Do you think this is a fair and valid reaction to the determinist position? Would it be any more sensible to try to debate people if indeterminism were true? What's the point of having a debate, if convincing someone will be determined by random chance? It's especially this last part that bothers me, and I'd like to get it out of the way.

Ok, it's just that if everything moves according to the laws of physics (the rules), I don't see how they can have any freedom to 'roam'. But there is, this is crucial. Because if we move to a later moment, the conditions would have (slightly) changed, and those conditions would've become part of the decision-making process. I've said over and over that states of minds change over time. No determinist will claim that people will always make the same decision over multiple periods of time. That's really not where the disagreement lies. We are talking about a specific moment in time when a decision was made, and what would happen if we could go back to that exact same moment with everything back in it's place. No I'm not. You yourself listed a variety of variables leading up to the moment of decision. I acknowledged this and summarized it by saying: 'ALL these variables together determine your final decision and actions'. ALL variables includes all of the choices made leading up to the event. Like I said to TheRobin, I'm not sure about determinism. Maybe there's indeterminism at some level. Maybe quantum fluctuations would result in a different outcome, but that's irrelevant to the question at hand. How you end up in a decision-making situation doesn't matter. With all molecules back in place, could you have made a different decision? And maybe you'll say that a quantum fluctuation might have influenced the decision at that moment. Maybe, but would it then be any more YOUR decision? Yes, automatons following programming, combined with past experiences and current input (all the variables you listed). Because we are complex information-processing automatons. Like mosquitos in a way, but way more complex. In light of eternity and the fact we only live a couple of decades, we pretty much are as insignificant as mosquitos. Apart from leaving behind a shithole (why would we?), aren't we all doing this anyway? I could ask you the same question, but what's the relevance? Even if I was feeling guilty about something, that doesn't invalidate my arguments. Anyway, I have answered your question to some extent (see my reply to TheRobin). I'm willing to elaborate on it some more if you want me to, but it simply is another topic, and it has no bearing on the validity of my arguments in this topic.

What rules? I thought the laws of physics were the rules. Sure, because those two situations are not the same. The relevant question though is: What if you did choose Brand A and we would rewind the clock to that exact same moment, with all molecules back in place. Do you believe then that you could have made a different dicision? I just find that hard to believe. Based on what could it possible change? But this is what determinists are saying. All these variables together determine your final decision and actions. What's not deterministic about this?

I still don't see the relevance of talking about this, but if you like to know I'll try to answer your question (based on what you say further on). Hard to respond to this, because there's already a lot in it. First of all, what is a choice? And what does it mean to say that people couldn't have made a different choice? What happened, happened, right? So no, people couldn't have made a different choice, or they would've done it. When it comes to future events, I'd say that people do choose from multiple options. It's just that based on their configuration (DNA), experiences (past life, upbringing, etc.) and current information (everything possibly included), there can only be one result. Do we call that a choice? I do. What if we could rewind the timeline to a point where you made a dicision. All molecules, also in your brain, will be in the exact same spot. Do you believe you could have made a different dicision? And afaik, the definition you gave of determinism is not correct. That no other choice can be made and that free will in the classical sense does not exist, is at best conclusion from determinism. And like I said in my last post, indeterminism won't make free will any more logical or possible (imho). Short definition from wikipedia that seems ok by me for now: "Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen." I don't know if that's true, maybe you can elaborate on this? Look, I don't know for sure if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. Science seems to be based on the assumption that everything has a cause. That seems deterministic to me. But if we put quantum mechanics in the mix, it might be indeterministic at some level. I don't know, I'm not a physicist. Either way, I don't see how either worldview can give us free will in the classical sense. Question: What is your definition of free will? Well, it is about the nature of reality. I just find that very interesting. Are people like Dan Dennett, Sam Harris all nuts for writing books about this? And Stef for that matter, because he's been talking about his for years, making numerous video's about it. Well, I could understand it if I was being very dishonest in the way I was debating. If I came up with straw-man after straw-man, or if I ignored specific arguments. But otherwise I really don't see why it's relevant. You either are interested in the subject or not. It's interesting on some level I guess, but not much. At least not for me. This is just one of those subjects that people disagree on, and I like disagreements to be resolved. Isn't that one of the reasons for the call-in show? Isn't that why we debate on this forum in the first place? Call me naive, but I really hope that we can come to some common ground on this subject. One thing that does bother me is Stef's approach (especially the 'shouting at rocks'-metaphor). In a deterministic universe people still influence each other and sometimes change each other's mind over time. Why is that controversial? In the world as we know it, it happens all the time. So if it's true what you say that determinism can't be proven or disproven either way, then you concede that it's at least possible that the world as we know it is deterministic. And given that, you'll also have to concede that in a deterministic universe people can change each other's mind over time. Because it simply happens.

Yes, you're right, there is a diference, but like I said, is it a fundamental difference? Is it relevant in the context of free will vs determinism (which is a false dicotomy, but let's forget that for now). Is putting a new file on a computer so much different then putting a modified file on there? What's so special about changing opinions? It's still the result of input plus processing.

Maybe not on this subject, but I already have changed your mind. You konw now that I exist. That is an example of a mind changing. You gained knowledge. Changing someone's mind in the sense that he will change his opinion an a subject, is just another example of a mind changing. I'm not saying these forms of changes are exactly the same, but I also don't see a fundamental difference between them. But your still laughing! :-) Look, I get what you're saying. Debates can be frustrating, but is that a reason to stop the conversation? Not for me. And like I said, it was all still very friendly. So what's the big deal?

Sorry, didn't know it was a forum rule, because I didn't read them. But I guess that's not an excuse, because I could/should've read them. So I'll apologize for that. I did have a feeling it might not sit well, but then again I didn't know why the thread was closed. Nothing bad happened in it right? Everything was pretty friendly? So I thought it might be because there were two topics with roughly the same name. And besides, this is a topic about determinims, it's still open, so why not conitue the convo? That's easy, I find it an interesting topic and I can't understand why people cling to Stefs take ont he matter. Because you believe morals are out of the window when determinism is true. I agree we would have to reevaluate the meaning of the word morality, but it would still exists, pretty much in the same way it exists now. Yes, I think so, but why is that relevant for the discussion?

Ok, I'll take the chance of posting this here. I'm not sure if it will be allowed. It's the last post Stef made in the other thread about determinism, that was recently closed. Stefan: "Right, like if you lecture a rock that fell on your car, it might fall differently next time." Stef, in the debate you had with Miles from New Zealand, you clearly stated that you think that it's at least possible that determinism is true. If that's the case, than you'll also concede that it's possible that what I'm typing here now was pre-determined. Still, the very fact of reading this post will (probably) make you accept the fact that I exist. Doesn't that mean I've already changed your mind, because you didn't know of my existence before? Interaction (all kinds of interaction, including having a debate) changes people's minds. Even coming into contact with a rock: Aron Ralston got his right hand pinned against a canyon wall and eventually decided to amputate it himself to get free. I'm pretty sure that whole experience changed his mind in a significant way. It's just that the kind of ways an entity can be effected, is dependent upon it's characteristics. Now, do I still have to point out that rocks don't have brains, so lecturing them will not have any effect, but launching a 2nd bolder at it might actually change it's trajectory (if it rolled further down the hill towards another car)? Regards, Jan

Sorry, need to clarify this. It depends on what you mean by responsible. People are not responsible in the sense that they couldn't have acted differently at the time. But they are responsible in the sense that they did it (e.g. act unkindly). Confronting people with that might make them act differently the next time. No double standards here.

True, what's your point?

Because the future hasn't happened yet, and we're all part of the future unfurling in front of us. People's behaviour matters with respect to what's going to happen, even though they may not have the fundamental free will to decide what they're going to do. Me deterministically writing down these argument for you may effect your mind in such a way that you become convinced of my position. Deterministic processes can change minds.

Of course rain can't be rude and it can't effectively be changed in the future, but rain can be pretty annoying, therefore people have umbrella's. Now we know that people can be effectively changed (from present to future), and that they respond to sensory input. That's way people say to you things like: Stef, you're rude, change your behaviour. If you're saying that's not possible for your behaviour to be changed, then you're saying that in a deterministic universe, people would always display the exact same behaviour form brith to death, which would be ridiculous. Minds change over time.

So emotions don't exists in a determinist universe? Emotions that I have can not be caused by deterministic processes? Cutting someone of in a conversation is annoying for the other party, it causes emotion. Such behaviour can be called 'rude'. Calling you out on it might cause you to behave differently next time. (again, not saying you did cut someone of, just for arguments sake)

Yes, but now that Stef has been made aware that he was kind of rude (if he was, I don't know, but for arguments sake), maybe he'll act differently in the future (= changing his mind/behaviour). And even though the future has already been set in stone, it doesn't mean Stef behaviour in the future is going to be the same as in the past. At least that's not what determinism is saying. We don't know what's going to happen and we don't know what will trigger, in this case, Stef's behaviour. Determinists are not saying that they or anybody can change what's actually going to happen, but we are all part of what's going to happen.