Philosophy Now Forum

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:22 pmWell, he'll speak for himself. But I think 1) he finds it a bit depressing and 2) he thinks that other people seem not bothered by it and even, perhaps, on some level people haven't really faced the implications of determinism. IOW they get it in their heads (that was metaphorical), but don't really believe it on an emotional level, or they would be bothered more than they seem to be.

So, if they seem very proud about being smart, perhaps they don't quite get that this is being proud of something that simply happened, like the weather. You won the lottery of genes and parenting. Or the lottery of genes that gave you more discipline than your peers.

A domino that hits two dominos in a chain of dominos has no reason to be more proud than the one that hits just one in a chain.

Stuff happens and you got that vantage point on the unfolding inevitable chain.

I don't have his reaction, on an emotional level. I am not sure why, but I don't. But I can understand it, I think.

And I do think that people can have a belief in their thinking verbal portions of their brain without really, deeply feeling the implications of their beliefs. In fact I think most people don't really FEEL the implications of their beliefs. They are compartmentalized and may not even know this. So, much as I can find communicating with Iambiguous a cross-purposes confusion, I can connect with him on this issue.

You may be right. I just couldn't tell if he was arguing against determinism, just amazed by it in some way, or thinking that we ought to be more shocked than we are.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:34 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:46 am

BigMike wrote: ↑Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:45 pm

There he goes again...

On the other hand, okay, sure, as with those like phyllo, maybe he is on to something really, really important that I'm just not able to grasp yet.

But it still seems to me that if the brains of the smart people are hardwired by nature in exactly the same way as the brains of the dumb people, then smart and dumb are really interchangeable in the only possible reality. You can think of yourself as one of the smart people but that's only because you were never able to not be one of the smart people...and were never able not to think that.

Surely you can see where that line of thought goes wrong. Your assumption that "the brains of the smart people are hardwired by nature in exactly the same way as the brains of the dumb people" is completely false.

Surely as a hardcore determinist you are compelled to tell me that I am compelled to see things only as I am ever able to see things.

Or: click

Please link us to the peer reviewed scientific experiments that you have conducted demonstrating conclusively that the brains of those you call smart people [the ones who agree completely with you] are hardwired differently from the brains of those you call dumb people [the ones who don't completely agree with you].

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:34 amFirst, our brains are different at birth because our parents gave us different genes, and different brains to start with. Second, the brain is continuously "hardwiring" new memories. Your brain is hard-wired with each of your long-term memories, or memories that last longer than about 30 seconds.

Okay, so note for us in a second set of scientific experiments whereby the part some called "autonomy" or "volition" or "free will" came into play. How, chemically and neurologically, did that all unfold step by step when non-living matter became living matter became conscious matter became self-conscious matter.

In other words, something other than that "somehow" it all happened.

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:34 amHow can our brains be hardwired "in exactly the same way" if we don't have the same parents and memories? The answer is that they can't. So, people who remember the "smart" things to do in a given situation will act and be seen as smarter because of it. There is no mystery there; it makes perfect sense.

Come on, "exactly in the same way" in that every single brain shares in common the fact that everything that every single brain compels us to think and feel and say and do is wholly in accord with the laws of matter. Creating the only possible reality in the only possible world.

And with a straight face -- in a "free will determined" world? -- are you telling us that there is no mystery here regarding how the human condition itself fits into an understanding of material existence itself?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 3:22 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:56 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:45 pm Nope. And no, those ideas are not hard to grasp. But they are not responses to what he was saying there.

Well, I don't see any problem with determinism at all. So I'm struggling to see what his problem is.

Well, he'll speak for himself. But I think 1) he finds it a bit depressing and 2) he thinks that other people seem not bothered by it and even, perhaps, on some level people haven't really faced the implications of determinism. IOW they get it in their heads (that was metaphorical), but don't really believe it on an emotional level, or they would be bothered more than they seem to be.

So, if they seem very proud about being smart, perhaps they don't quite get that this is being proud of something that simply happened, like the weather. You won the lottery of genes and parenting. Or the lottery of genes that gave you more discipline than your peers.

A domino that hits two dominos in a chain of dominos has no reason to be more proud than the one that hits just one in a chain.

Stuff happens and you got that vantage point on the unfolding inevitable chain.

I don't have his reaction, on an emotional level. I am not sure why, but I don't. But I can understand it, I think.

And I do think that people can have a belief in their thinking verbal portions of their brain without really, deeply feeling the implications of their beliefs. In fact I think most people don't really FEEL the implications of their beliefs. They are compartmentalized and may not even know this. So, much as I can find communicating with Iambiguous a cross-purposes confusion, I can connect with him on this issue.

Okay, now take this over to a free-will world.

People would still have different genetics. Some would win "the lottery of genes" and have more discipline than others. Some would win "the lottery of parenting".

A chess player would still win a tournament because of factors which he did not choose and which were beyond his control.

How is his victory not hollow as well?

He would have to believe that he freely chose something which overcame all the other factors and that was the reason for winning. But that free choice still came along with the unchosen factors.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:48 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:34 am

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 1:46 am

There he goes again...

On the other hand, okay, sure, as with those like phyllo, maybe he is on to something really, really important that I'm just not able to grasp yet.

But it still seems to me that if the brains of the smart people are hardwired by nature in exactly the same way as the brains of the dumb people, then smart and dumb are really interchangeable in the only possible reality. You can think of yourself as one of the smart people but that's only because you were never able to not be one of the smart people...and were never able not to think that.

Surely you can see where that line of thought goes wrong. Your assumption that "the brains of the smart people are hardwired by nature in exactly the same way as the brains of the dumb people" is completely false.
First, our brains are different at birth because our parents gave us different genes, and different brains to start with. Second, the brain is continuously "hardwiring" new memories. Your brain is hard-wired with each of your long-term memories, or memories that last longer than about 30 seconds. How can our brains be hardwired "in exactly the same way" if we don't have the same parents and memories? The answer is that they can't. So, people who remember the "smart" things to do in a given situation will act and be seen as smarter because of it. There is no mystery there; it makes perfect sense.

He's not saying that there is no difference between the brains. Nor is he saying that some are not smarter than others. The last line of his post should have made this clear.

It's like patting yourself on the back for winning the chess tournament when you were never able to lose it. It all strikes me as a hollow -- a really, really, really hollow -- "victory".

See, it's in the context of determinism. It's like the slightly taller mountain being proud of being two meters higher than the one beside it. When really, it's just two inevitable consequences not set in motion by the mountains themselves.

It's like two people falling from an airplane and one feeling proud that they will land and die a couple of second after the guy across the aisle who got sucked out first.

Of course he can't help but feel proud, if he does, but it's silly.

Yeah, something like that. Or, for all I know, exactly like that. The part where, for some determinists...

Asolutely Nothing

...that we think, feel, say and do from the womb to the tomb isn't entirely fated/destined by the laws of matter. Why? Because the human brain is just more matter.

But, sure, like everyone else here, there is clearly a part of me that "just knows" that this is complete nonsense. Otherwise, why on earth would I continue to post here over and over and over and over and over again. Other than because I am never able not to.

In the end [whatever that means] it's all an entirely surreal and staggering mystery. We're probing the ontological -- teleological? -- meaning and purpose of the human brain. Only it's the human brain itself that is assigned this task.

By who? By What?

And, by far, the candidate of choice [the libertarians], "choice" [the determinists] and "choice" [the compatibilists] is God. At least on this planet.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:44 pm Okay, now take this over to a free-will world.

People would still have different genetics. Some would win "the lottery of genes" and have more discipline than others. Some would win "the lottery of parenting".

Well, first off, one can react to and be depressed by one world view, even if other worldviews lead to other unpleasant conclusions. Often if someone writes something about determinism, it is as if this is not important since it may be or is true about free will. In a sense that's beside the point.

A chess player would still win a tournament because of factors which he did not choose and which were beyond his control.

How is his victory not hollow as well?

I don't have and I don't think Iambiguous have a model or understanding of what free will is or would be if it was the case.

However, in some way it seems to say that next week is not predetermined and I and others can make choices which lead to different outcomes, not one determined in the big bang. There are ways in which this idea is not depressing in ways that determinism is. Or at least might not be.

Now if you want to come in and argue that free will doesn't make sense or whatever, that is utterly besides the point on this issue. It is completely relevant to other discussions of free will vs. determinism.

Generally most people live with some kind of mix of free will and determinism in the ways they think about their choices and tomorrow and so on. The don't take a stand and even those who officially do in philosophy forums, then go off into their lives and sometimes talk and think like determinists and sometimes as if they have free will. All human. But if someone really sits down with the implications of determinism and realizes that what will happen for the rest of their lives was all determined in the big bang, this can be an unpleasant thought.

Doesn't mean it should be, whatever that would mean, but I think its a fairly human response.

Free will is vague and not defined and we don't know how it works, or at least I don't and I haven't heard a clear explanation. I don't rule it out, but I don't know what I am or would be dealing with.

However it seems to leave open the door for different futures and my chance to affect this to qualititive level that the future is not predetermined.

Even if one does not know how, one has lived, often, as if this is true or might be. So, one is not faced with the potentially unpleasant thought that determinism raises. That's all.

There is no such thing as "predetermined". It's a nonsense idea. It's somebody thinking that he is looking back from the end of time. It's some sort of impossible god's eye view of existence.

Nothing is determined until it is done. It is done by our decisions.

Our decisions create our fate.

If a person is depressed about determinism, then he is imagining himself as powerless when he is not powerless. He is part of the universe and he is shaping the universe.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:23 pm There is no such thing as "predetermined". It's a nonsense idea. It's somebody thinking that he is looking back from the end of time. It's some sort of impossible god's eye view of existence.

I am not saying we know what is coming. I am talking about the implication of believing determinism is true. That what is coming is determined and could only be what it will be and this was all determined going back to the beginning of time.

Nowhere have I remotely implied that anyone can know what is coming.

Nothing is determined until it is done.

It sure is determined in determinism. We don't know what it will be, but events are unfolding as they can only unfold.

It is done by our decisions.

Our decisions create our fate.

Well, that sounds like free will. Our decisions could only have been what they were. They were determined at the molecular level just like falling dominoes in a line.

If a person is depressed about determinism, then he is imagining himself as powerless when he is not powerless. He is part of the universe and he is shaping the universe.

I agree with the latter, but I think you are incorrect about the former. Some people yes, but others may find the idea that everything is inevitable is depressing. They may well know that what they do is part of the causes that lead to effects and also what they do is the effect of causes coming all the back from the Big Bang.

So, to be clear...
I am not saying we know the future.
I am not saying that one should be depressed.
I am saying that it's a pretty normal human reaction to find it unpleasant, the idea that everything we do and will do and did was determined all the way back to the big bang.
And then...
I am not saying that one should give up.
I am not saying that what we do has no effects. That is a nonsensical interpretation of determinism.
Though if someone gives up, well that giving up was determined in the big bang.

If you aren't depressed about determinism and you believe in it, great.
I once found the idea very unpleasant, though I had other things to be depressed about so I can't say what the cause of the depression was.
I don't find it unpleasant, but then I am also not convinced by determinist theory.
Nor am I convinced by any version of free will I've heard.
But I can feel sympathy for and understand how some people find the idea very unpleasant.
And yet, I do not think depression or finding it unpleasant is the right reaction, whatefver that would mean.

It is done by our decisions.

Our decisions create our fate.

Well, that sounds like free will. Our decisions could only have been what they were. They were determined at the molecular level just like falling dominoes in a line.

It's not free-will. It's an affirmation that we are participants on our fate. It doesn't happen without us. We are not dominoes and we are not molecules. We are persons.

As soon as we conceptualize persons, then we are no longer talking about dominoes or molecular level events. We are talking about individuals, agents, actions, behaviors, motivations.

If we are talking about molecules then there are no persons there. The person disappears in a soup of atoms, molecules, fields and forces. That's the only consistent way to talk about molecules.

We don't do that because there is no way to convert fundamental forces, atoms and molecules to human behavior. An electromagnetic field made you cheat on your wife ... bullshit.

It's necessary to operate on a much higher level of abstraction.

Determinism is wrong and there is no individual free will.

You can come to this conclusion by changing your perspective.
That is, by privileging ethics over physics.

If what matters to you is love, if you begin to think that it really is "love that moves the sun and the other stars" then you will see that there is no law of cause and effect, and that you have no individual free will.

But at the same time you are at the origin of all things, and great is the compassion ...

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:59 pm Determinism is wrong and there is no individual free will.

You can come to this conclusion by changing your perspective.
That is, by privileging ethics over physics.

If what matters to you is love, if you begin to think that it really is "love that moves the sun and the other stars" then you will see that there is no law of cause and effect, and that you have no individual free will.

But at the same time you are at the origin of all things, and great is the compassion ...

There are a lot of ways to think about it.

This may be a good way, if not at all times then sometimes.

“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.”

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:50 pm

It is done by our decisions.

Our decisions create our fate.

Well, that sounds like free will. Our decisions could only have been what they were. They were determined at the molecular level just like falling dominoes in a line.

It's not free-will. It's an affirmation that we are participants on our fate. It doesn't happen without us. We are not dominoes and we are not molecules. We are persons.

As soon as we conceptualize persons, then we are no longer talking about dominoes or molecular level events. We are talking about individuals, agents, actions, behaviors, motivations.

If we are talking about molecules then there are no persons there. The person disappears in a soup of atoms, molecules, fields and forces. That's the only consistent way to talk about molecules.

We don't do that because there is no way to convert fundamental forces, atoms and molecules to human behavior. An electromagnetic field made you cheat on your wife ... bullshit.

It's necessary to operate on a much higher level of abstraction.

YOu know, you just focused on one part of what I said. You showed no effort to understand how someone might feel bad thinking that what will happen has already been determined. YOu could not acknowledge that I DID NOT SAY we knew the future, but you acted like I did.
You picked one little part out and interpreted it your way, rather than trying for one second to show a little empathy for why someone might not like the idea that the future, while we cannot know it, is inevitable.

What a lack of common feeling with other people. What a lack of interest in what I was trying to say about what some humans feel.

Just another let's see if I can find a point to hammer home and I'll ignore anything that I can't type shit.

And I didn't say it was free will. I said it sounded like it. I wasn't equating us with molecules, but according to the physicalists we are made of molecules so all actions are very much like dominoes at while in incredibly complex formations. If one is a physicalist determinist that is. You may not be.

But the main point about how one could find the thought of a fully determined future unpleasant....nah, you couldn't be bothered. Couldn't try to see how that might feel to some people. No I have to wade through strawmen arguments and tangents that aren't related to what I wrote. Or focus on one tree and ignoring the forest.

So little respect.

You seem to wanna win, not understand.

Ok, I concede you won. YOu successfully manage to not try to understand. And every fucking time someone brings up something negative about determinism, what do you do? Say that free will would be no better. Like it's a team sport and we have to root for one team, we can't just look at the problems of one. ARe you pro--trump or do you hate him, pick now, pick now. Criticize Biden, well, Trump is....

Jesus this type of shit is so fucking mechanical.

To be clear. Not reading your idea of a discussion any more.

Take care and congratulations.

YOu know, you just focused on one part of what I said.

I focused on one part which I think is particularly important.

You showed no effort to understand how someone might feel bad thinking that what will happen has already been determined.

I understood that perfectly well.

YOu could not acknowledge that I DID NOT SAY we knew the future, but you acted like I did.

I understood what you wrote but I felt no need to specifically acknowledge it.

You picked one little part out and interpreted it your way, rather than trying for one second to show a little empathy for why someone might not like the idea that the future, while we cannot know it, is inevitable.

What a lack of common feeling with other people. What a lack of interest in what I was trying to say about what some humans feel.

I have a lot of empathy. But I don't have lot of interest in showing my empathy when I don't think it's required.

If I had detected that it was so important to you, then I would have acted differently.

Later : I noticed that you changed your post. I'm going to stick with what I wrote about your original post.

phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 7:11 pm

bobmax wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2022 6:59 pm Determinism is wrong and there is no individual free will.

You can come to this conclusion by changing your perspective.
That is, by privileging ethics over physics.

If what matters to you is love, if you begin to think that it really is "love that moves the sun and the other stars" then you will see that there is no law of cause and effect, and that you have no individual free will.

But at the same time you are at the origin of all things, and great is the compassion ...

There are a lot of ways to think about it.

This may be a good way, if not at all times then sometimes.

“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world.”

Yes, sometimes.

One step at a time.

Jesus this type of shit is so fucking mechanical.

He's a meat machine: it ain't his fault.

"Jesus this type of shit is so fucking mechanical."

What he's doing is called the iambiguous shuffle. What u do is find a philosophical and political font with at least one defender. Then you find (or invent if there aren't any) objectivists from an opposing font, pit them against one another, and observe the intellectual contraptions that are used by all sides as supporting arguments.

You then make a note to nature that this is what passes as philosophy and dance like a banana.