Darkneos wrote: ↑Wed May 14, 2025 2:42 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 10:39 pm
Darkneos wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 8:21 pm
Your explanation of meaning under determinism is exactly why it's meaningless. Brains that evolved to be that way, meaning there is nothing more to it than just programming, it's robotic. It would undermine how humans understand meaning on a societal level, that being choosing what matters to you. If everyone learned that it was just due to the evolutionary programming I promise society would look rather different today (in fact you can see the harm appealing to evolution does based on "Certain" social movements, men's rights being one of them).
The who you are is missing the mark as well. If there is no one in control, if there is no one acting or doing anything and it's all the autonomous processes and factors out of our control then "who" can one say is actually there. Like I mentioned, it stops becoming a person and starts becoming physics and nothing else. Without a soul or anything like that there is no difference in the grand sense between you and a rock. There is no "we" of whom is a sum total of anything, just physics. Again, you're baking in the fantasy to your explanations.
As for the part about pattern recognition, now you're getting it. Those models don't describe reality, they just model it. Hence why science never says it proves anything.
The same goes for the models, they aren't reality. An approximation is not the thing itself, it refers to a thing, and under the reductionism there is no "things" that's just another model to simplify the extraordinary amount of atomic processes at work. Still appealing to fantasy.
Yes, love and grief are illusions if they reduce to biology, a child losing their parent is due to the influences of evolution, not anything special about the parent themselves. The same goes for any "love" you feel toward a partner or family, it's chemicals and programming. Without the chemicals nothing they do would make you feel a certain way. Consequently what you feel for them is solely because of the the chemical and not them. If it could be reproduced in the lab it would torpedo the value we place on it because you could just replicate that feeling for anything or any one, it wouldn't matter what traits they have or their personality, nada. Just chemical and that's it. It would effectively end human relationships if it got out. The fact that evolution did it does make it fake, and as much as I hate Rick and Morty he made a point about love just being a chemical that compels animals to breed, nothing else.
Once you see through it it loses it's value, that's why we make it more than what it really is, we have to. If we recognize love are merely robotic drives that we don't control and was evolved for survival and breeding people would lose attachment to their partners and loved ones, because there was nothing special about the person themselves, it was just mechanistic forces and chemicals, nothing more.
Meaning isn't emergent in the way you think of it. It is made, but it's in making things more than what they are, which determinism and materialism fight against. Ironically to be human requires avoiding such thinking. You can literally see it in everything humans do, even from back then, stories and fantasies. You say we outgrew them but that's short sighted, your entire explanation depends on it to make the case.
Again you are appealing to fantasies: "ours", "dream", "grieve", these things are illusions under determinism. There is only the level of elementary particles, everything else is human fantasy.
You are just restating that these things are still special and meaningful even thought we "know how they work" but the problem is you don't really have a argument for that. You are only insisting it is so, which is the same attitude the religious take when their view is challenged. But I'm following what you say to it's logical conclusion, and I'm also explaining why that conclusion is counter to what we take to be human and all the evidence I've listed to make that point. Folks don't like to be considered puppets, and that's what determinism argues. Our society as it stands also operates under free will and choice, even our culture is affected by it.
I can promise if your view got out (based on the studies I've noted) it would undo meaning in life and value. Why? Because none of us chose it, or had a say in it, even got to have an opinion. In a sense everything "we" thought made us unique or special wasn't chosen, and our actions are just the robotic process of physics. People would lose care and concern for each other when they saw there was no choice in it, that there was nothing special about the person that drew them, it's all physics. That every emotion they felt that they thought told them something about themselves was just a chemical and not a reflection of some deep core or essence to them. Their partner isn't special and there is no bond, it's just chemicals doing that, you have no control after all...
If you want champion determinism you're going to have to actually give evidence to the contrary rather than simply insist it doesn't lead to what I say, even though almost every determinist I've heard talk about it says the same. You're the only one still clinging to human fantasy for the arguments, if all you can do is just insist it's not that then it's not very convincing. So far everything you've argued is incompatible with where determinism follows.
You’ve laid out a detailed, passionate case—and I respect that. You're not sidestepping the implications of determinism. You’re walking straight into them, asking the hard questions. And that’s exactly what we
should be doing.
But here's the crucial divide between us: you're treating cause and meaning as mutually exclusive. As if the fact that love
has a cause means it can’t be real. Or valuable. Or personal. But let’s flip that. What if what makes love powerful is
precisely that it emerges from something real? From biology? From our wiring, our histories, our vulnerabilities? What if its
fragility is what gives it depth?
Because here’s the thing—yes, I’m a physical system. So are you. So is everyone you’ve ever loved. And no, we didn’t choose to be born, or to inherit our instincts. But what we do with those instincts—how we express them, who we express them toward, how those expressions ripple outward in time—that
matters. Not in some cosmic ledger, but in this very real, very finite world we live in. Meaning doesn't require magic. It requires
consequence.
Now, to your broader point: if everything reduces to physics, then what’s the difference between a person and a rock?
Simple. Structure and function. We are matter, yes—but we are
organized matter. We maintain homeostasis, we process information, we adapt, we remember, we reflect, we suffer, we plan. A rock does none of those things. A brain is a pattern engine built by evolution to run complex, feedback-driven simulations of the world. It doesn’t need to be “free” in some spooky metaphysical sense to matter. It just needs to
work. And it does.
That’s not baking in fantasy. That’s physics doing what physics does—producing, over time, systems complex enough to ask why they exist. And no, we didn’t “choose” our values. But we can understand how they came to be. And in understanding them, we can refine them. That’s not puppetry. That’s growth.
You say if people fully grasped determinism, they'd collapse into nihilism. But I don’t buy it. That assumes that humans only care when they believe in illusions. But many of us care
more when we understand the stakes—that this life is brief, this connection fragile, this moment unrepeatable. You don’t need to believe your partner was destined or chosen outside of physics to love them. You just need to
know that in this vast, indifferent universe, the odds of meeting someone you care about—truly care about—are astronomically small. That’s what makes it precious. Not fantasy.
Rarity.
And to be blunt, yes—society runs on fictions. Free will. Souls. Just deserts. But the job of philosophy, and science, and human maturity isn’t to keep doubling down on useful delusions. It’s to replace them with deeper truths—truths that might be less comfortable, but far more honest. That’s what I’m doing. That’s what determinism demands.
If you think that robs life of meaning, then you and I define meaning differently. But if you think love has to be “uncaused” to be real, or that grief must defy biology to matter, then you’re chasing a ghost. I’m not. I’m here, in the world that actually exists. And it’s more than enough.
What makes love powerful ironically is not understanding it. Because we feel and believe it to be more than mere chemicals, something...transcendent. It is valuable because we believe it to be magic, but if people realize it's nothing but a chemical it sorta loses it's power for what I said. It means there is nothing about the thing or person doing it to you, it's just a chemical compelling you to, and that...poses serious issues for human interaction. What you wrote isn't really an argument against that, it's still just insisting otherwise, which I told you isn't very compelling.
Love isn't powerful because it emerges from something real, that's not only simplistic but greatly overlooking everything around love that we have built. It's the dream, the story, the fantasy, not the reality that makes love powerful.
Because here’s the thing—yes, I’m a physical system. So are you. So is everyone you’ve ever loved. And no, we didn’t choose to be born, or to inherit our instincts. But what we do with those instincts—how we express them, who we express them toward, how those expressions ripple outward in time—that matters. Not in some cosmic ledger, but in this very real, very finite world we live in. Meaning doesn't require magic. It requires consequence.
Not really. Consequence is just what follows, it need not mean anything. You are also arguing for "what we do with" in determinism which is incompatible with the view. If there is no free will then "We" don't "DO" anything, physics just plays out.
That’s not baking in fantasy. That’s physics doing what physics does—producing, over time, systems complex enough to ask why they exist. And no, we didn’t “choose” our values. But we can understand how they came to be. And in understanding them, we can refine them. That’s not puppetry. That’s growth.
It is by definition puppetry when you don't have a choice or control over it. You are still baking in fantasy by making organized matter into humans and suffering and reflection, this is still mental concepts we project on reality.
https://www.lesswrong.com/s/p3TndjYbdYa ... mwnF7SBwkM
You say if people fully grasped determinism, they'd collapse into nihilism. But I don’t buy it. That assumes that humans only care when they believe in illusions. But many of us care more when we understand the stakes—that this life is brief, this connection fragile, this moment unrepeatable. You don’t need to believe your partner was destined or chosen outside of physics to love them. You just need to know that in this vast, indifferent universe, the odds of meeting someone you care about—truly care about—are astronomically small. That’s what makes it precious. Not fantasy. Rarity.
You keep saying people only care when they believe in illusions, which means you're missing the point. People care when they believe they have agency and choice over their lives, and there is psychological evidence to show that robing people of that agency has serious mental health consequences. So what do you think would happen if it was proven to them they never had it? You aren't thinking broad or far enough.
You say you don't have to believe you partner was destined or chosen to love them, but in a sense...yes. Sex and sexuality has a strong mental component to it, and there is evidence for it.
Again you are appealing to magic with the story, about someone you care for in a vast universe, and that being precious. Again, it's just matter, arranged into patterns, and a chemical that compels breeding and makes us act whether we want to or not. You're still not making an actual argument but appealing to "magic": ie "beauty", "meaning", majesty, all that stuff without evidence for that claim. This is not determinism.
And to be blunt, yes—society runs on fictions. Free will. Souls. Just deserts. But the job of philosophy, and science, and human maturity isn’t to keep doubling down on useful delusions. It’s to replace them with deeper truths—truths that might be less comfortable, but far more honest. That’s what I’m doing. That’s what determinism demands.
Then it's a dead end philosophy then. The job of philosophy isn't to discover deeper truths, it's about how to think, which might involve challenging the utility and endpoint of truth. Science is also not about deeper truths, it just models reality but it cannot tell us how to live it (that's philosophy). Buddhism for example doesn't say anything about metaphysics, only about the end of suffering. Pragmatism says to believe what is useful for living, that is the measure of truth. Some branches of Nihilism deny truth is possible at all.
You have an incorrect view of what philosophy does and what science does.
That is not what you are doing. You are insisting determinism leads to your claims about meaning when it doesn't, quite the opposite in fact. And it runs counter to the evidence. Again, make a real case with evidence, because all you've done is just insist otherwise and appeal to the story and the magic. You are ironically proving the point about Death's speech from Discworld.
Personally I don't see the point of pursuing truth for it's own sake because that's a dead end, nor do I see the value in "truth" if it just leads to people suffering. You have a horribly narrow view of truth and life. I have family members who are Christian whom I don't care to "shatter the illusion" because I know it would not only do nothing to help them, but their belief is a positive in their life.
You and I have no choice but to "double down" on "useful delusions". We believe we'll survive to the next day even though there is no proof of that, that the food you eat is not poisoned, that even though you cannot read minds you believe someone when they say they love you.
As Death put it "You need to believe in things that aren't true, how else can they become"? Life is not so simple that there is a clean divide between truth, illusion, and falsity. If you want to be blunt about it, your current experience is a "delusion" and controlled "hallucination" your brain constructs out of sense data to make sense of the world and navigate well. Our vision relies on the brain to make predictions about what's gonna happen and it corrects them when sense data shows otherwise.
If you think that robs life of meaning, then you and I define meaning differently. But if you think love has to be “uncaused” to be real, or that grief must defy biology to matter, then you’re chasing a ghost. I’m not. I’m here, in the world that actually exists. And it’s more than enough.
I'm not saying it has to be uncaused, but the source of that cause matters. IE: that it is the other person and not just a chemical doing it. The same with grief. The cause is, shall we say, "magical" loosely speaking, but when it's reduced to a mere chemical it feels...fake. Like it wouldn't matter what the person was, so long as the chemical is there...BAM, love.
You haven't really proven your point so far, your entire post can be summarized as "because I say so" which is just insisting it's not the case. But not only do other determinists argue otherwise, the evidence is against you. So like I said, you have to make a point that isn't just insisting to me it's not. Even then you are still appealing to the fantasy, the story humans tell about their lives and the meaning, and not what's actually going on.
It's why I'm not a fan of this line of thinking, and why when I talk to some who think they are determinists don't see they aren't quite there yet. And the ones who are...well lets just say they're rather bleak folks. Robert Sapolsky is one that comes to mind, dude is ok with telling everyone there is no free will but doesn't have a plan for AFTER that, which to me is moronic.
Wanting to undo one of the cornerstones of society with no plan for helping folks after the fact shows you don't care about society, just perpetuating your version of reality.
It's why, even though I don't know how to argue against it, I still wouldn't promote it. Human life is better off without it, and determinists so far don't have evidence to back their view that it's helpful, the evidence just isn't there. I mostly care if people live well and happy, it's why I don't bring up half the philosophical issues I know because...what's the point? I know how I reacted and I don't see the value in doing that to people, honestly sounds like ego stroking for those who do.
I think you might have to seriously reevaluate where your philosophy takes you, because the evidence doesn't back it.
