The Democrat Party Hates America

[Immanuel Can]

What is energy, and how does it turn into matter?

That's a great question for the physicists to continue to ponder, since they can't answer it. Nor can you, by your own confession.

What physicists know is that if you smash particles together, you can create different particles.

That observation might be true, but still has absolutely no relevance here, or to the present discussion.

The question is only, "What field of phenomena does physics legitimately attempt to address?" And it's not the things I listed, such as mind, morals, consciousness, etc. That must surely be an obvious common conclusion to our discussion now.

[Belinda]

In some sense yes though humans are more complicated than dogs so the parallel isn't the same. The way dos works isn't like humans, they don't understand blame or responsibility.

Blame isn't always a projection of one's perceived failure, it can be a tool for personal growth as well. Sometimes it's for social control yes, but other times the only way people change is if they realize they're the reason for their problems and not projecting it to other people. When they accept blame for their circumstances they change.

Also praise is a means of social control too, so what now?

You seem to have a limited view of humans and society just like BigMike, which explains why Flash thought you were empty as well.

I can't really regard determinists seriously unless they have an actual plan for ordering society under their doctrine, because so far they just have foolish notions that nothing would change. Take for example your downplaying of blame, if you want that you'd have to render praise meaningless as well. And if you render praise meaningless you'd likely have to watch everything in society erode along with it. Sports, art, creative pursuits, schooling, inquiry about the world, so much would be undone if you got rid of praise and blame because it's "just physics playing out" and not personal choice or effort.

You haven't really thought your philosophy through nor seen it's consequences, like most determinists I've heard and talked to.

* young children don't have much sense of blame or responsibility.


*Determinists do NOT believe nothing would change. A determinist knows the future is open. It's a fatalist who believes nothing would change.

* what praise does is not social control, it's plain good manners that helps communication.

* Human behaviour is not "just physics playing out". We are free to choose our futures precisely because we cannot predict, as I said the future is open. Tools such as clocks and canals don't have minds. Minds evolved with life forms.

-Young children do have a sense of blame and responsibility, they are also fairly selfish.

-The line between determinism and fatalism seems more like semantics rather than anything substantial. If they believe the future is open they are being internally inconsistent. If your life is subject to factors out of your control then there is no open future. BigMike tried and failed to argue that point.

-Good manners and helping communication is literally the definition of social control. You reward behavior you want to see happen again. But that doesn't work if you want to rule blame out for being bad. If you want to get rid of blame then you have to get rid of praise.

-Under determinism human behavior is just physics playing out, again...bigmike tried and failed to argue otherwise. We are not free to choose under determinism, that would be compatibilism. Also mind would not exist under determinism as that is considered "folk psychology" when physical factors are the cause.

Like Mike you don't understand determinism.

Young children's moral sense is to do with fairness.
If you don't understand what determinism is, then so be it. I have tried to teach you using the simplest possible language, and failed .

[Walker]

Therefore, what’s the difference between choosing, and making a determination?

All the difference in the world, once we understand the difference between the two.

I disagree.

The only difference is the subjectivity of the internal mental machinations involved to arrive at the point of action.

Objectively, based on the hypothesis that physical action and not internal mental machinations is the final determinate of a course of action, there is no difference.

[Walker]

The point of Determinism is that a result has been and will be determined by natural processes. If a person makes a determination, then according to Determinism that determination is the result of an inevitable causal chain. Never-the-less, the action resulting from a determination is the same as choice, because neither the determinist nor the free-willer is omniscient.

Is God omniscient? If so, then we can say that knowledge of the future exists, whether or not humans have the capacity to access it, and if that is so, the future and thus the present has been determined.

Because of God's involvement, that knowledge is called fate because the future is then not wholly the result of natural processes.

However, God is a natural process, so that distinction for fate is a bit shaky.
The dualistic nature of humans is also part of the natural process that determines action, and because the future has been written by God's knowledge, every human action, no matter how motivated, is another step towards that inevitability.

Which kind of throws a loop in the atheists owning Determinism.

[Immanuel Can]

Therefore, what’s the difference between choosing, and making a determination?

All the difference in the world, once we understand the difference between the two.

I disagree.

Then you'll be wrong. You can choose to be wrong, and I can't stop you.

The only difference is the subjectivity of the internal mental machinations involved to arrive at the point of action.

There IS no "subjectivity" under the theory of Determinism. The "subjective," for them, is not a part of any material-causal chain. It doesn't do anything. It is not a "cause." They call it (their word) an "epiphenomenon," meaning "a thing that just appears when material things get to a certain level of complexity -- we don't know how or why".

So it's just an inexplicable seeming, they think. It can't be employed as any step in an account of why things happen as they do. Because the "subjective" is variable, non-material, unpredictable (even suppositionally), and person-based, the minute they admit the "subjective" as a causal factor, Determinism collapses as a theory. So they can't agree with you.

[Immanuel Can]

...the action resulting from a determination is the same as choice, because neither the determinist nor the free-willer is omniscient.

Irrelevant. You're confusing epistemology with ontology again.

Determinism, if true, would be true even if NOBODY knew it. And if everybody believed in Determinism but it isn't true, then it STILL would not be true. What people know has zero to do with either case.

The earth was still round when nobody knew it was; it wasn't flat then, and round now. That's the difference between epistemology and ontology.

Is God omniscient?

Yes, but even knowledgeable Calvinists, who are theological determinists, admit that "foreknowledge" is not "predetermination."

I KNOW you will object to that. That doesn't mean I am PREDETERMINING you to have to object to that. My knowledge, even if perfect, does not make you do things.

However, God is a natural process,

Not according to Christianity. Nature is a created entity, created by God; so God is not natural, but supernatural...that is, transcendent and above everything we associate with "nature." He's certainly not a "process," nor is God "natural" in that sense.

[Darkneos]

* young children don't have much sense of blame or responsibility.


*Determinists do NOT believe nothing would change. A determinist knows the future is open. It's a fatalist who believes nothing would change.

* what praise does is not social control, it's plain good manners that helps communication.

* Human behaviour is not "just physics playing out". We are free to choose our futures precisely because we cannot predict, as I said the future is open. Tools such as clocks and canals don't have minds. Minds evolved with life forms.

-Young children do have a sense of blame and responsibility, they are also fairly selfish.

-The line between determinism and fatalism seems more like semantics rather than anything substantial. If they believe the future is open they are being internally inconsistent. If your life is subject to factors out of your control then there is no open future. BigMike tried and failed to argue that point.

-Good manners and helping communication is literally the definition of social control. You reward behavior you want to see happen again. But that doesn't work if you want to rule blame out for being bad. If you want to get rid of blame then you have to get rid of praise.

-Under determinism human behavior is just physics playing out, again...bigmike tried and failed to argue otherwise. We are not free to choose under determinism, that would be compatibilism. Also mind would not exist under determinism as that is considered "folk psychology" when physical factors are the cause.

Like Mike you don't understand determinism.

Young children's moral sense is to do with fairness.
If you don't understand what determinism is, then so be it. I have tried to teach you using the simplest possible language, and failed .

You've only shown how YOU don't understand determinism.

Your version of it is the same misunderstanding that BigMike had. You want freedom of choice when the according to determinism there is no choice because everything is due to factors you don't control. That's why they're opposite sides of the debate: free will vs determinism.

[Darkneos]

* young children don't have much sense of blame or responsibility.


*Determinists do NOT believe nothing would change. A determinist knows the future is open. It's a fatalist who believes nothing would change.

* what praise does is not social control, it's plain good manners that helps communication.

* Human behaviour is not "just physics playing out". We are free to choose our futures precisely because we cannot predict, as I said the future is open. Tools such as clocks and canals don't have minds. Minds evolved with life forms.

-Young children do have a sense of blame and responsibility, they are also fairly selfish.

-The line between determinism and fatalism seems more like semantics rather than anything substantial. If they believe the future is open they are being internally inconsistent. If your life is subject to factors out of your control then there is no open future. BigMike tried and failed to argue that point.

-Good manners and helping communication is literally the definition of social control. You reward behavior you want to see happen again. But that doesn't work if you want to rule blame out for being bad. If you want to get rid of blame then you have to get rid of praise.

-Under determinism human behavior is just physics playing out, again...bigmike tried and failed to argue otherwise. We are not free to choose under determinism, that would be compatibilism. Also mind would not exist under determinism as that is considered "folk psychology" when physical factors are the cause.

Like Mike you don't understand determinism.

by "social control" is usually meant control by fear of an authority. Good manners is well within the democratic canon. Everybody can influence each other by good manners.

Determinism does not imply prediction: fatalism implies prediction

A determinist estimates probabilities: a fatalist believes in certainties.

Good manners is also done under fear from authority, be good or else sort of thing. Democracy can be enforced by several means. But under determinism democracy would not really hold any water because no one is making a choice, it's more like external factors are playing out. In fact it could mean you can just engineer the outcome you want.

Determinism DOES imply prediction, otherwise you wouldn't be able to know if something is determined or not. Most of what humans do on the daily involves prediction based on past data, that's determinism. That was also what BigMike was gassing on about. You are laughably wrong there.

Determinists don't estimate probabilities, they believe in certainty, if it was probabilistic then it's not deterministic. The limit is information and under determinism if you had all the data at hand then you could predict and determine what will happen every time.

You want a version of determinism that is simply not what it is in practice or reality. There is no freedom or choice under determinism, by definition. Like BigMike you simply don't get it.

[Walker]

A determinist knows the future is open.

The reverse is true: the Determinist believes the future is predestined to be nothing but the one thing that prior causes make happen. Nothing else. There's nothing "open" or changeable in any way, in a predetermined universe.
What is "open" is knowledge of the future for both determinists, and free-willers.

The "predestined to be" future is an matter of speculation to humans, not a matter of certain knowledge even though humans can predict with some accuracy based on determination of patterns, thus uncertainty makes the future, "open." Therefore every action is a step closer to the unknown predestination, the unknown aspect causing the openness.

[Walker]

The earth was still round when nobody knew it was; it wasn't flat then, and round now. That's the difference between epistemology and ontology.

Well, we can say that the future was still predetermined when nobody knew it was; it wasn't chosen then, and predetermined now.

[Immanuel Can]

A determinist knows the future is open.

The reverse is true: the Determinist believes the future is predestined to be nothing but the one thing that prior causes make happen. Nothing else. There's nothing "open" or changeable in any way, in a predetermined universe.
What is "open" is knowledge of the future for both determinists, and free-willers.

The "predestined to be" future is an matter of speculation to humans, not a matter of certain knowledge

You're not getting it. "Knowledge" is irrelevant. That's epistemology. Determinism is a statement about ontology.

And being confused, if that's what humans become, will not change ontology. If the universe is predetermined, it will be predetermined whether they know it is or not. And if it is not, then their believing in predetermination it won't make it so.

[Immanuel Can]

The earth was still round when nobody knew it was; it wasn't flat then, and round now. That's the difference between epistemology and ontology.

Well, we can say that the future was still predetermined when nobody knew it was; it wasn't chosen then, and predetermined now.

That's exactly right. Human knowledge, or lack of knowledge, cannot change the truth or falsehood of Determinism. If the universe is predetermined, it's predetermined; if it's not, it's not. What we know or believe about it cannot change what's true, anymore than it can make the earth flat or round. It will be round (or more precisely, roughly spherical), whether we like it, or know it, or not.

[Belinda]

-Young children do have a sense of blame and responsibility, they are also fairly selfish.

-The line between determinism and fatalism seems more like semantics rather than anything substantial. If they believe the future is open they are being internally inconsistent. If your life is subject to factors out of your control then there is no open future. BigMike tried and failed to argue that point.

-Good manners and helping communication is literally the definition of social control. You reward behavior you want to see happen again. But that doesn't work if you want to rule blame out for being bad. If you want to get rid of blame then you have to get rid of praise.

-Under determinism human behavior is just physics playing out, again...bigmike tried and failed to argue otherwise. We are not free to choose under determinism, that would be compatibilism. Also mind would not exist under determinism as that is considered "folk psychology" when physical factors are the cause.

Like Mike you don't understand determinism.

Young children's moral sense is to do with fairness.
If you don't understand what determinism is, then so be it. I have tried to teach you using the simplest possible language, and failed .

You've only shown how YOU don't understand determinism.

Your version of it is the same misunderstanding that BigMike had. You want freedom of choice when the according to determinism there is no choice because everything is due to factors you don't control. That's why they're opposite sides of the debate: free will vs determinism.

I don't want absolute freedom of choice. I prefer to be constrained by the terms of my natural existence (including finality.) I do want relative freedom of choice and this I have as a determinist . I keep telling you the future is open. You can't predict your future. I can't predict my future. True, death is as certain as any prediction can be and death is when your and my future stops, which I expect you will agree is highly probable.
Some future events are more probable than others. This fact is why most of us who are not moribund try to avert the catastrophes we fear and enable the joys we wish for. Hope is caused not by so-called 'free will' but by natural selection.

[Walker]

The reverse is true: the Determinist believes the future is predestined to be nothing but the one thing that prior causes make happen. Nothing else. There's nothing "open" or changeable in any way, in a predetermined universe.
What is "open" is knowledge of the future for both determinists, and free-willers.

The "predestined to be" future is an matter of speculation to humans, not a matter of certain knowledge

You're not getting it. "Knowledge" is irrelevant. That's epistemology. Determinism is a statement about ontology.

And being confused, if that's what humans become, will not change ontology. If the universe is predetermined, it will be predetermined whether they know it is or not. And if it is not, then their believing in predetermination it won't make it so.

No, I understand. I’m drawing the distinction between action and thought. Classifications of Determinism don’t count for much when it’s action that defines a decision. A choice is not a thought, a choice is action.

[Walker]

The earth was still round when nobody knew it was; it wasn't flat then, and round now. That's the difference between epistemology and ontology.

Well, we can say that the future was still predetermined when nobody knew it was; it wasn't chosen then, and predetermined now.

That's exactly right. Human knowledge, or lack of knowledge, cannot change the truth or falsehood of Determinism. If the universe is predetermined, it's predetermined; if it's not, it's not. What we know or believe about it cannot change what's true, anymore than it can make the earth flat or round. It will be round (or more precisely, roughly spherical), whether we like it, or know it, or not.

Whether it is or not makes not a whit of difference when it comes to Determinism, or free will, other than as a thought.

On the other hand, I'd venture that the difference between a round and flat earth would be rather significant.