Re: Determinism Fail

[Jordan Miller]

I listened to the determinism discussion today. I couldn't help myself to comment on it. I'm not a determinist but I needed to comment.

The issue is mere semantics.

From what I gathered Stef has deduced that choice is an emergent property - humans are able to compare pleasure with pain and therefore have choice.

The determinist didn't communicate his point well and that’s why I don't believe it was properly dealt with. The determinist's point of view is that all things behave according to physical law therefore man and his ability to feel pain or pleasure and make choices between the two are contained within a mechanistic universe. In other words the determinists deduce that a man cannot make a choice other than the one he prefers - he is predetermined to make it based upon every event that has transpired in the universe up to that moment.

 

I don't know if Stef would agree or disagree with that statement, but I do feel like he was just looking at the other side of the coin. My hunch is that he (being an atheist) would more or less agree and therefore the entire issue is only one of misunderstood semantics.

[Metric]

Yeah, I know you'd think it would be something simple like semantics, but it basically boils down to the fact that Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action.  He's been repeating this for years, and is apparently convinced that the rest of us are mentally defective because no one else finds it a convincing argument.

Anyway, the video demonstrates very well why his position has remained static for so long -- he gives opposing positions about 6 uninterrupted seconds to develop their case.

[Jordan Miller]

 

it basically boils down to the fact that Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action.  He's been repeating this for years, and is apparently convinced that the rest of us are mentally defective because no one else finds it a convincing argument.

 

Can you blame him? he is wrestling with the hardest question phylosophy has ever tackled! he is in an impossible position: either we're just matter with this emergent property of mind - or we are a body with a non-physical, eternal essence backing it.

in the first option gives no place for "free will" unless you define it as doing what you prefer, which incidentally is essentially determinism / causaliy.

Stef finds the second option repugnant, as he should, trusting only evidence and reason, and it calls into question his atheistic views.

Therefore what is he to do but become frustrated? I don't blame him - it's an impossible position.

 

I mean honestly, you said

 

Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action. 

 

Can you imagine how deterministic physics can give rise to consciousness? I can't! We haven't done it in the lab or ai, can it be done? It's an absolute conundrum. until we get some more data on the topic this question litterally has no answer.

 

 

[Guest darkskyabove]

And so the unanswerable debate rages on!

Am I a product of my DNA, cell configuration, neuron alignment, prenatal chemical influence, parental & societal conditioning, etc., etc. etc.; or, am I an individual capable of acting in ways unforeseen?

As a student of history (and of current events), I tend to give the unforeseen significant weight. It seems too easy to take a completely new phenomenon and claim some predisposition. "Hind sight is always twenty-twenty, but looking back, it's still a bit fuzzy." (Dave Mustaine, "Sweating Bullets", Countdown To Extinction, 1992, Capitol Records)

Claiming an explanation for events which have already occurred is a time-worn enterprise of the oppressor.

Assume I'm from Missouri. "Show me" where determinism has predicted what will happen. Isn't that the foundational premise; that events are predictable?

"OH, we don't have enough information to make predictions!!!"

Then you're just guessing, like everyone else.

Please stop insulting me by claiming your guesses are facts.

I live in a real world, with real events. No word, or deed, can change the nature of reality.

And the one thing that's constant in reality is that everything changes.

Where's the determinism in that?

[RestoringGuy]

Please stop insulting me by claiming your guesses are facts.

I live in a real world, with real events. No word, or deed, can change the nature of reality.

And the one thing that's constant in reality is that everything changes.

Where's the determinism in that?

I like your point of view.  It seems to me by abandoning determinism, things are much simpler.  If we keep determinism, and forget consciousness for a second, we could not explain matter without hidden variables which imply action-at-a-distance, and time travel and all sorts of paradox.  By finding that matter is not deterministic, we escape such paradox.  Human brains can be made out of matter, being atomic mechanisms, and do not need to be anything special in order to possess free will.  We have a result of matter doing what matter does, something determinists would like.  On the other hand, little bits of matter in the universe are not required to do what anyone can predict, so why should brains be limited in such a way?

[Arius]

...no one else finds it a convincing argument....

I changed my position, based on his argument as it was presented in the four-way conversation several years ago.

but it basically boils down to the fact that Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action.

What's the rule?  Whenever the phrase "...it basically boils down to..." is used, you know with near certainty that an argument is about to be misrepresented.

I don't believe "can't imagine", "deterministic physics", or "evaluate different courses of action" are part of the argument.

Have you considered the possibility that you disagree because you do not understand the argument?  Your lack of ability in reproducing the argument suggests a lack of comprehension.

[Kawlinz]

 

...no one else finds it a convincing argument....

I changed my position, based on his argument as it was presented in the four-way conversation several years ago.

but it basically boils down to the fact that Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action.

What's the rule?  Whenever the phrase "...it basically boils down to..." is used, you know with near certainty that an argument is about to be misrepresented.

I don't believe "can't imagine", "deterministic physics", or "evaluate different courses of action" are part of the argument.

Have you considered the possibility that you disagree because you do not understand the argument?  Your lack of ability in reproducing the argument suggests a lack of comprehension.

 

It's weird when determinists expect matter to conform to a concept

[Arius]

It's weird when determinists claim there are preferential states of human behavior.

[Formelyknown]

To find something Weird is not an argument. To not be able do imagine something is not an argument. To find prefereable or not a true statement doesn't make someone determinist or free-willist. It only mean it is true or false. We can right a buggy code without crashing and named it an error in a determinist universe. That question is coming from emtional scars and not reasoning. The answer from both side is only a way to avoid insecurity toward judging ourself in relation with others actions.

[LovePrevails]

I am not a determinist but listening to this debate was kind of frustrating because the caller was arguing his view so poorly

I was just thinking, that if I was a determinist I would argue far better.

 

Stefan says "Are you arguing that there is a preferential state called truth over the alternative, falsehood"

That seems to me a wrong-minded question to a determinist, I would say

"Preferential in what sense? to whom for what purpose?

If I am a Democrat I prefer if the Democratic candidate wins, I don't prefer is the Republican candidate wins

Because humans experience subjective states, even if those are just set up by pre-determined factors

Truth is what corresponds to reality. Falsehood is what does not.

If I like the truth I prefer it, if I don't like it I don't prefer it, but my preference has no bearing on what is true or what is false.

If determinism is true what I prefer as a determinist or someone who believes in free will has nothing to do with the fact."

 

Stefan says "You don't say to a rock move right move left"

Determinist philosopher: "Yes because I rocks don't experience subjective states, but humans do, so my predetermined inclination is to interact with other entities that do."

 

 

Responses?

[Kawlinz]

 

I am not a determinist but listening to this debate was kind of frustrating because the caller was arguing his view so poorly

I was just thinking, that if I was a determinist I would argue far better.

 

Stefan says "Are you arguing that there is a preferential state called truth over the alternative, falsehood"

That seems to me a wrong-minded question to a determinist, I would say

"Preferential in what sense? to whom for what purpose?

If I am a Democrat I prefer if the Democratic candidate wins, I don't prefer is the Republican candidate wins

Because humans experience subjective states, even if those are just set up by pre-determined factors

Truth is what corresponds to reality. Falsehood is what does not.

If I like the truth I prefer it, if I don't like it I don't prefer it, but my preference has no bearing on what is true or what is false.

If determinism is true what I prefer as a determinist or someone who believes in free will has nothing to do with the fact."

 

Stefan says "You don't say to a rock move right move left"

Determinist philosopher: "Yes because I rocks don't experience subjective states, but humans do, so my predetermined inclination is to interact with other entities that do."

 

 

Responses?

 

Id' say something like "so are you just making noises with your mouth and calling the noises coming out of my mouth incorrect? Or is "incorrect" just another noise you make with your mouth that has no bearinng to truth and falsehood?"

 

As soon as you use concepts as a determinist, you lose.

[Kawlinz]

 

To find something Weird is not an argument. To not be able do imagine something is not an argument. To find prefereable or not a true statement doesn't make someone determinist or free-willist. It only mean it is true or false. We can right a buggy code without crashing and named it an error in a determinist universe. That question is coming from emtional scars and not reasoning. The answer from both side is only a way to avoid insecurity toward judging ourself in relation with others actions.

 

Never proposed it to be an argument.

[Metric]

 

...no one else finds it a convincing argument....

I changed my position, based on his argument as it was presented in the four-way conversation several years ago.

but it basically boils down to the fact that Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action.

What's the rule?  Whenever the phrase "...it basically boils down to..." is used, you know with near certainty that an argument is about to be misrepresented.

I don't believe "can't imagine", "deterministic physics", or "evaluate different courses of action" are part of the argument.

Have you considered the possibility that you disagree because you do not understand the argument?  Your lack of ability in reproducing the argument suggests a lack of comprehension.

 

Come on -- the actual argument is kindergarten stuff that doesn't need to be reproduced in detail every single time.  He always gives the same little argument:

1) deterministic physics doesn't have any "should" in the equations

2) you as a human being implicitly use "should" when you argue

3) therefore you aren't really convinced of deterministic physics

Yes, this does boil down to taking one's own "imagination fail" far too seriously -- it's an outline of an impossibility proof with "lack of imagination" substituted where you'd expect to see "proof" (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premise, but you can pretend it does if you don't think about it too much).  And it's just a bad way or arguing to begin with -- there are an infinitude of philosophical concepts that don't appear in physics (whether it is deterministic or not), and were never expected to.  If you want to actually convince people that the state-of-the-art understanding of physics is wrong (and determinism is right there in the middle of it), you need to clearly show that it predicts something incorrectly.  In the absence of this, you have a fake proof that is worse than useless, unless you are just really into chasing your own tail for ever and ever and ever.

Another way to look at it:  If successful physics (an experimental science) collides with philosophy (a bunch of conditional reasoning), guess which one is going to have to be re-thought?

[LovePrevails]

 

 

I am not a determinist but listening to this debate was kind of frustrating because the caller was arguing his view so poorly

I was just thinking, that if I was a determinist I would argue far better.

 

Stefan says "Are you arguing that there is a preferential state called truth over the alternative, falsehood"

That seems to me a wrong-minded question to a determinist, I would say

"Preferential in what sense? to whom for what purpose?

If I am a Democrat I prefer if the Democratic candidate wins, I don't prefer is the Republican candidate wins

Because humans experience subjective states, even if those are just set up by pre-determined factors

Truth is what corresponds to reality. Falsehood is what does not.

If I like the truth I prefer it, if I don't like it I don't prefer it, but my preference has no bearing on what is true or what is false.

If determinism is true what I prefer as a determinist or someone who believes in free will has nothing to do with the fact."

 

Stefan says "You don't say to a rock move right move left"

Determinist philosopher: "Yes because I rocks don't experience subjective states, but humans do, so my predetermined inclination is to interact with other entities that do."

 

 

Responses?

 

Id' say something like "so are you just making noises with your mouth and calling the noises coming out of my mouth incorrect? Or is "incorrect" just another noise you make with your mouth that has no bearinng to truth and falsehood?"

 

As soon as you use concepts as a determinist, you lose.

 

the noises that come out your mouth either correspond to an accurate reflection of reaity or they don't, if they do they can be described as true, if not they can be decribed as false, regardless of whether or not free will exists

you do not lose by using concepts because determinists admit that humans experience subjective states, its only that those states are preconditioned

[Stefan Molyneux]

 

 

...no one else finds it a convincing argument....

I changed my position, based on his argument as it was presented in the four-way conversation several years ago.

but it basically boils down to the fact that Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action.

What's the rule?  Whenever the phrase "...it basically boils down to..." is used, you know with near certainty that an argument is about to be misrepresented.

I don't believe "can't imagine", "deterministic physics", or "evaluate different courses of action" are part of the argument.

Have you considered the possibility that you disagree because you do not understand the argument?  Your lack of ability in reproducing the argument suggests a lack of comprehension.

 

Come on -- the actual argument is kindergarten stuff that doesn't need to be reproduced in detail every single time.  He always gives the same little argument:

1) deterministic physics doesn't have any "should" in the equations

2) you as a human being implicitly use "should" when you argue

3) therefore you aren't really convinced of deterministic physics

Yes, this does boil down to taking one's own "imagination fail" far too seriously -- it's an outline of an impossibility proof with "lack of imagination" substituted where you'd expect to see "proof" (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premise, but you can pretend it does if you don't think about it too much).  And it's just a bad way or arguing to begin with -- there are an infinitude of philosophical concepts that don't appear in physics (whether it is deterministic or not), and were never expected to.  If you want to actually convince people that the state-of-the-art understanding of physics is wrong (and determinism is right there in the middle of it), you need to clearly show that it predicts something incorrectly.  In the absence of this, you have a fake proof that is worse than useless, unless you are just really into chasing your own tail for ever and ever and ever.

Another way to look at it:  If successful physics (an experimental science) collides with philosophy (a bunch of conditional reasoning), guess which one is going to have to be re-thought?

 

even if my argument was that simplistic, you still haven't addressed it

[Kawlinz]

 

 

 

I am not a determinist but listening to this debate was kind of frustrating because the caller was arguing his view so poorly

I was just thinking, that if I was a determinist I would argue far better.

 

Stefan says "Are you arguing that there is a preferential state called truth over the alternative, falsehood"

That seems to me a wrong-minded question to a determinist, I would say

"Preferential in what sense? to whom for what purpose?

If I am a Democrat I prefer if the Democratic candidate wins, I don't prefer is the Republican candidate wins

Because humans experience subjective states, even if those are just set up by pre-determined factors

Truth is what corresponds to reality. Falsehood is what does not.

If I like the truth I prefer it, if I don't like it I don't prefer it, but my preference has no bearing on what is true or what is false.

If determinism is true what I prefer as a determinist or someone who believes in free will has nothing to do with the fact."

 

Stefan says "You don't say to a rock move right move left"

Determinist philosopher: "Yes because I rocks don't experience subjective states, but humans do, so my predetermined inclination is to interact with other entities that do."

 

 

Responses?

 

Id' say something like "so are you just making noises with your mouth and calling the noises coming out of my mouth incorrect? Or is "incorrect" just another noise you make with your mouth that has no bearinng to truth and falsehood?"

 

As soon as you use concepts as a determinist, you lose.

 

the noises that come out your mouth either correspond to an accurate reflection of reaity or they don't, if they do they can be described as true, if not they can be decribed as false, regardless of whether or not free will exists

you do not lose by using concepts because determinists admit that humans experience subjective states, its only that those states are preconditioned

 

My noises ARE reality. They can't reflect anything without concepts. Accuracy is a concept

[LovePrevails]

 

 

 

 

I am not a determinist but listening to this debate was kind of frustrating because the caller was arguing his view so poorly

I was just thinking, that if I was a determinist I would argue far better.

 

Stefan says "Are you arguing that there is a preferential state called truth over the alternative, falsehood"

That seems to me a wrong-minded question to a determinist, I would say

"Preferential in what sense? to whom for what purpose?

If I am a Democrat I prefer if the Democratic candidate wins, I don't prefer is the Republican candidate wins

Because humans experience subjective states, even if those are just set up by pre-determined factors

Truth is what corresponds to reality. Falsehood is what does not.

If I like the truth I prefer it, if I don't like it I don't prefer it, but my preference has no bearing on what is true or what is false.

If determinism is true what I prefer as a determinist or someone who believes in free will has nothing to do with the fact."

 

Stefan says "You don't say to a rock move right move left"

Determinist philosopher: "Yes because I rocks don't experience subjective states, but humans do, so my predetermined inclination is to interact with other entities that do."

 

 

Responses?

 

Id' say something like "so are you just making noises with your mouth and calling the noises coming out of my mouth incorrect? Or is "incorrect" just another noise you make with your mouth that has no bearinng to truth and falsehood?"

 

As soon as you use concepts as a determinist, you lose.

 

the noises that come out your mouth either correspond to an accurate reflection of reaity or they don't, if they do they can be described as true, if not they can be decribed as false, regardless of whether or not free will exists

you do not lose by using concepts because determinists admit that humans experience subjective states, its only that those states are preconditioned

 

My noises ARE reality. They can't reflect anything without concepts. Accuracy is a concept

 

this is just clever rhetoric, it's not a rational argument, there's nothing in it.

in a deterministic universe humans still experience subjective states, it has the experience of accurate/inaccurate within that subjective state, even though the states are predetermined,

thus concepts exist within the consciousness - You can see it kind of like watching a movie. I can't change the end of the movie but i still experience the movie.

I still hurt when the heroine hurts and feel glad when the guy finally gets the girl.

That doesn't mean I have any say in the movie.

 

[Metric]

 

 

 

...no one else finds it a convincing argument....

I changed my position, based on his argument as it was presented in the four-way conversation several years ago.

but it basically boils down to the fact that Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action.

What's the rule?  Whenever the phrase "...it basically boils down to..." is used, you know with near certainty that an argument is about to be misrepresented.

I don't believe "can't imagine", "deterministic physics", or "evaluate different courses of action" are part of the argument.

Have you considered the possibility that you disagree because you do not understand the argument?  Your lack of ability in reproducing the argument suggests a lack of comprehension.

 

Come on -- the actual argument is kindergarten stuff that doesn't need to be reproduced in detail every single time.  He always gives the same little argument:

1) deterministic physics doesn't have any "should" in the equations

2) you as a human being implicitly use "should" when you argue

3) therefore you aren't really convinced of deterministic physics

Yes, this does boil down to taking one's own "imagination fail" far too seriously -- it's an outline of an impossibility proof with "lack of imagination" substituted where you'd expect to see "proof" (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premise, but you can pretend it does if you don't think about it too much).  And it's just a bad way or arguing to begin with -- there are an infinitude of philosophical concepts that don't appear in physics (whether it is deterministic or not), and were never expected to.  If you want to actually convince people that the state-of-the-art understanding of physics is wrong (and determinism is right there in the middle of it), you need to clearly show that it predicts something incorrectly.  In the absence of this, you have a fake proof that is worse than useless, unless you are just really into chasing your own tail for ever and ever and ever.

Another way to look at it:  If successful physics (an experimental science) collides with philosophy (a bunch of conditional reasoning), guess which one is going to have to be re-thought?

 

even if my argument was that simplistic, you still haven't addressed it

 

Seriously?  I mean, conclusion failing to follow from the premise?  Conclusions about physical law requiring comparison of prediction to experiment?  I guess you want additional examples or something?

Fine -- let's take the same type of argument and apply it to "love."  There is no "love" in the equations of physics -- they are free of love.  Asteroids do not have love.  Yet I tell my wife I love her all the time.  Does this imply that I am secretly doubting the laws of physics?  Of course not.  It means that I'm applying a high-level label to some really complicated phenomenon involving 10^25 or so particles that tends to happen in brains rather than asteroids.  Exactly the same argument applies to "choice" -- there is certainly some phenomenon that requires a label there, but I have no reason at all to suspect that it contradicts basic (deterministic) physical law.  If you had evidence that it did in fact clearly violate physical law, that would be something else to be taken far more seriously -- but that's not at all the type of argument you have presented.

[Formelyknown]

 

 

 

...no one else finds it a convincing argument....

I changed my position, based on his argument as it was presented in the four-way conversation several years ago.

but it basically boils down to the fact that Stefan just can't imagine how deterministic physics could possibly give rise to beings who can imagine and evaluate different courses of action.

What's the rule?  Whenever the phrase "...it basically boils down to..." is used, you know with near certainty that an argument is about to be misrepresented.

I don't believe "can't imagine", "deterministic physics", or "evaluate different courses of action" are part of the argument.

Have you considered the possibility that you disagree because you do not understand the argument?  Your lack of ability in reproducing the argument suggests a lack of comprehension.

 

Come on -- the actual argument is kindergarten stuff that doesn't need to be reproduced in detail every single time.  He always gives the same little argument:

1) deterministic physics doesn't have any "should" in the equations

2) you as a human being implicitly use "should" when you argue

3) therefore you aren't really convinced of deterministic physics

Yes, this does boil down to taking one's own "imagination fail" far too seriously -- it's an outline of an impossibility proof with "lack of imagination" substituted where you'd expect to see "proof" (i.e. the conclusion does not follow from the premise, but you can pretend it does if you don't think about it too much).  And it's just a bad way or arguing to begin with -- there are an infinitude of philosophical concepts that don't appear in physics (whether it is deterministic or not), and were never expected to.  If you want to actually convince people that the state-of-the-art understanding of physics is wrong (and determinism is right there in the middle of it), you need to clearly show that it predicts something incorrectly.  In the absence of this, you have a fake proof that is worse than useless, unless you are just really into chasing your own tail for ever and ever and ever.

Another way to look at it:  If successful physics (an experimental science) collides with philosophy (a bunch of conditional reasoning), guess which one is going to have to be re-thought?

 

even if my argument was that simplistic, you still haven't addressed it

 

I think he did. Stefan says he follows scientific method + Scientific method contradict Stefan's invalid theory = Stefan ignore science.

[Formelyknown]

 

 

To find something Weird is not an argument. To not be able do imagine something is not an argument. To find prefereable or not a true statement doesn't make someone determinist or free-willist. It only mean it is true or false. We can right a buggy code without crashing and named it an error in a determinist universe. That question is coming from emtional scars and not reasoning. The answer from both side is only a way to avoid insecurity toward judging ourself in relation with others actions.

 

Never proposed it to be an argument.

 

Which bring to my other point. It is emotion and not reason that drive the question of free will vs determist.

[Pepin]

I can't believe in determinism simply because it would put me back into the stoic void I have been for most of my life. What I believe/accept is highly correlated with how I act.

I am quite certain that I have a personal prefrence in favor of the position because of the comfort it would provide me in regards to my past, present, and future, and life in general. Others might fear that it is true, and some might be positively influenced by the idea, but that doesn't describe me.

[Formelyknown]

I'll stop discussing this by taking one of  Stefan's analogy:

Don't you see my friend that while we are debating this question we are just 2  falling rocks bouncing on each other. Sometime your sharp edges are chipping away a piece that changed me. But you keep telling me that Sometime you choose to slowdown because of that flatted hill side below you. That your free - will make you stopped at the bottom of that cliff so that you can polish yourself with your  introspection made of wind and sand.

[Arius]

 

1) deterministic physics doesn't have any "should" in the equations

2) you as a human being implicitly use "should" when you argue

3) therefore you aren't really convinced of deterministic physics

 

I'd say: 3) therefore your argument contradicts one of it's own necessary assumptions.

But yeah, that's a much more accurate reproduction.

Strictly speaking, the argument isn't pro-free-will or anti-determinism.  Physics aren't involved in the argument as it is presented.  It's actually an argument that no argument can be constructed against the validity of alternate states without first assuming alternate states exist (via the necessity of the "should" feature of arguing).  It's an argument about types of arguments.

It is entirely possible that the whole of the universe is just a series of highly abstract dominoes, constructed in such a way that no alternate states are possible.  In fact, there are volumes of information (state-of-the-art physics) which people interpret as having that meaning.  However, it is necessarily contradictory to argue that anyone should believe that to be true.

Either argumentation is somehow broken ([shocked]), or the relationship between physics and reality doesn't necessitate exact, present states of human behavior...  I'm up for a third option if you have any suggestions.

 

 

[Kawlinz]

 

 

 

the noises that come out your mouth either correspond to an accurate reflection of reaity or they don't, if they do they can be described as true, if not they can be decribed as false, regardless of whether or not free will exists

you do not lose by using concepts because determinists admit that humans experience subjective states, its only that those states are preconditioned

 

My noises ARE reality. They can't reflect anything without concepts. Accuracy is a concept

 

this is just clever rhetoric, it's not a rational argument, there's nothing in it.

in a deterministic universe humans still experience subjective states, it has the experience of accurate/inaccurate within that subjective state, even though the states are predetermined,

thus concepts exist within the consciousness - You can see it kind of like watching a movie. I can't change the end of the movie but i still experience the movie.

I still hurt when the heroine hurts and feel glad when the guy finally gets the girl.

That doesn't mean I have any say in the movie.

 

 

Show me the rhetoric. If you say my noises are not an accurate reflection of reality, and I say my noises are reality, what do you mean when you say my noises don't reflect reality?

[Kawlinz]

Actually don't worry about replying. I don't want to spend another 10 days trying to iron out details but ending up in the same place. I stopped my last debates about determinism because they stopped being fun, and I don't see how that will change now.

Anything that proclaims determinism is true - I'll accept as noise without a concept behind it, not worth repsonding to

[MooMoo]

 

even if my argument was that simplistic, you still haven't addressed it

 

For the purposes of this conversation, would you mind succintly stating your argurment?

[Stefan Molyneux]

A system without free will cannot have a preferred state.

Determinists argue against free will.

Determinists propose preferred states (determinism is true, free will is an illusion, truth is infinitely preferable to falsehood, etc. etc.)

Thus determinism fails.

Imagine me saying that the solar system would be infinitely better and truer and more correct and accurate if the moon didn't exist, and then endlessly talking at the moon trying to convince it to cease existing.

Determinists look about as sane as that.

[LovePrevails]

 

A system without free will cannot have a preferred state.

Determinists argue against free will.

Determinists propose preferred states. (determinism is true, free will is an illusion, truth is infinitely preferable to falsehood, etc. etc.)

Thus determinism fails.

Does that really follow? I can understand if the conclusion is "Therefor determinists believe in free will"

This looks like a scope shift to me

"Determism is true" =/= "truth is a preferred state" 

 

with a tu quoque fallacy:

 My doctor says smoking is harmful to your health

My doctor smokes

Therefor the smoking-is-harmful hypothesis is wrong

 

I know you will probably respond that by trying to change you're mind they are implicitly stating that truth is a preferred state,

but that is not to prove your conclusion -> that is a subjective preference not 'an objectively preferable state for "the universe as a whole" ' or something like that
the determist does not deny that people have subjective experiences, only that their subjective experience is more akin to watching a really realistic movie than playing a computer game 

 

 

 

can you explain if I'm missing something?

[Stefan Molyneux]

no, it's like your doctor telling you that there is no such thing as smoking, and then offering you a cigarette and a light

[Kevin Beal]

 

"Determism is true" =/= "truth is a preferred state" 

 

 

Arguing that "determinism is true" is necessarily saying that you prefer people accept determinism on the basis that it's true, because truth is preferred over falsehood. The person can be (and is) wrong or they could be manipulative or something like that or whatever other unfalsifiable motivation we want to give them, but it's the act of arguing that's being looked at which is something we can look at and evaluate. They cannot continue to argue without accepting the premise that truth is preferred and thus their argument false apart.

Determinism is just lazy: "There is causation, therefor free will doesn't exist" or some other convoluted way of saying essentially the same thing. These same determinists talk about the irrationality of god as being some kind of "uncaused cause" without looking at themselves freely accepting the "logic" of determinism.

Nathaniel Branden also has a good argument against determinism in The Psychology of Self Esteem.

[Jordan Miller]

 

A system without free will cannot have a preferred state.

Determinists argue against free will.

 

does that necessarily mean a system with a preferred state must have free will?

 

And besides, isn't it a non issue? I mean isn't the most prefered and possible state always chosen? The way I see it... that is precisely what determinists really argue - that man will always choose what he wants to all things being equal. and in this they languish, saying their 'free will' is an illusion.

[Kevin Beal]

 

I mean isn't the most prefered and possible state always chosen? The way I see it... that is precisely what determinists really argue - that man will always choose what he wants to all things being equal. and in this they languish, saying their 'free will' is an illusion.

 

You can define choice as determinism, but then you're contradicting yourself saying that choice is the opposite of choice at the same time, hence the yelling at the moon and the smoking doctor metaphors.

[TheRobin]

Maybe someone of either position can explain to me this:

Hypothetically: How would you differentiate between a higly complexly programmed organic humanoid robot (which presumably is still deterministic) and a equal highly complex (non-robot) human being (which presumably isn't deterministic)?Or alternatively (and in regards to the "change one's mind"-argument): How do you differentiate between someone who literally can't change his mind (due to say brainchemistery or neurological (i.e. determinstic) reasons) or someonw who doesn't want to change his mind (i.e. but still had the free will to do it regardless)? Because I just can't find a criteria that really works, and if I can't differentaite between a determinstic state and a non-deterministic one then I don't see what is really argued about to be honest.

[Jordan Miller]

 

 

I mean isn't the most prefered and possible state always chosen? The way I see it... that is precisely what determinists really argue - that man will always choose what he wants to all things being equal. and in this they languish, saying their 'free will' is an illusion.

 

You can define choice as determinism, but then you're contradicting yourself saying that choice is the opposite of choice at the same time, hence the yelling at the moon and the smoking doctor metaphors.

 

That helps, now I see what you're saying, and what stef is saying. What I'm saying is that both opinions are essentially the same - they just use different definitions of the word choice, therefore its a non-issue because any friction in the discussion is really just semantics. I say they're essetially the same because they both agree with this statement, "man will always do what he wants to most, all other things being equal."

The determinist takes it one step further though. Its as if the determinist believe that for free will to exist choices must come from a deeper level than what we can observe, a deeper level than preference and choice. it must come from some unphysical-non-causal-realationship-space. That is where they go wrong; inserting that definition of choice.

ps. if indeed that was the definition of free will our choices would by default be perfectly random therefore even with that definition there could be no "free will" as the determinist define it. 

[prohexa]

I suspect that I'm missing something from the big picture, and I'm afraid I might blind you with the obvious, but aren't we just splitting hairs and discussing irrelevant "what-if's"?

According to our best understanding of physics today there really is true randomness in quantum mechanics, and this is obviously incompatible with determinism. Couldn't we just say that until we know better we will assume that we live in a non-deterministic universe and move on?

On the other hand - this is not an argument against the (remote) possibility of some future scientist coming up with a deterministic explanation for the seemingly random properties of matter. But even if that would happen, would that really change anything? We will still behave, and always have behaved, as if we had free will; the latest and greatest therory of physics will not change the nature of man.

I don't see how argumenting for determinism would be contradictory in itself - if determinism really is true, wouldn't that only mean that the determinist in question was doomed to argue for determinism since the birth of the universe?

I'm sure that even the most stubborn determinist feels and acts as if he has free will, be there determinism or not. "Particle physics made me do it" is not a valid excuse for being an asshole.