Philosophy Now Forum

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:26 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:19 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:12 pm Is BigMike AI?

I will kill myself if it turns out it is.

You got up early, what happened? Did you shit in your bed?

It is.

You'd kill yourself if I killed myself.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:56 pm Psychology doesn’t require belief in free will to study cognition or behavior; it requires studying patterns, influences, and causes—which is exactly what psychologists do.

"Influences" are psychological, not physical. "Patterns" are for sociologists, and "causes" are for medical doctors and physicists.

What you imagine is that psychology is merely the study of dumb terminals, not human beings. And that's totally assumptive on your part, and not true. Sorry.

Reasoning is a process—a deterministic one

If it's Deterministic, then it responds to material causality, not reason or truth. Here again, you've tried to reimport thinking processes to a situation in which you've already declared, by being a Determinist, that there can be none. It's ridiculous.

Arguments and evidence influence thought

Not in a Deterministic world. In that world, there are only causes. There are no "thoughts." No "arguments" can alter anything, because there are no "persons" to hear them, and no "choices" they can make.

The fact that you’re engaging in this discussion doesn’t invalidate determinism; it proves it.

That's hilariously dumb. There are no "persons" in this discussion, according to Determinism, no "arguments" are changing anything, and no change is even possible.

How is it that you see yourself as a champion of a theory you don't even understand?

Your smug declaration that “nobody lives as a Determinist” is laughable.

You are the demonstration of its truth. You can't do it -- not even right now, when you most want to.

Bravo IC.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:40 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:56 pm Psychology doesn’t require belief in free will to study cognition or behavior; it requires studying patterns, influences, and causes—which is exactly what psychologists do.

"Influences" are psychological, not physical. "Patterns" are for sociologists, and "causes" are for medical doctors and physicists.

What you imagine is that psychology is merely the study of dumb terminals, not human beings. And that's totally assumptive on your part, and not true. Sorry.

Reasoning is a process—a deterministic one

If it's Deterministic, then it responds to material causality, not reason or truth. Here again, you've tried to reimport thinking processes to a situation in which you've already declared, by being a Determinist, that there can be none. It's ridiculous.

Arguments and evidence influence thought

Not in a Deterministic world. In that world, there are only causes. There are no "thoughts." No "arguments" can alter anything, because there are no "persons" to hear them, and no "choices" they can make.

The fact that you’re engaging in this discussion doesn’t invalidate determinism; it proves it.

That's hilariously dumb. There are no "persons" in this discussion, according to Determinism, no "arguments" are changing anything, and no change is even possible.

How is it that you see yourself as a champion of a theory you don't even understand?

Your smug declaration that “nobody lives as a Determinist” is laughable.

You are the demonstration of its truth. You can't do it -- not even right now, when you most want to.

Your response reads like a confused attempt to dodge the fundamental implications of determinism while mischaracterizing its core concepts. Let’s address your points, not because I expect you to genuinely engage with them, but because they reveal just how deeply you misunderstand both determinism and the fields you’re attempting to dismiss.

First, your claim that “influences are psychological, not physical” is laughably uninformed. Psychological phenomena—thoughts, emotions, and behaviors—are rooted in physical processes in the brain, as demonstrated by neuroscience. To suggest otherwise is to cling to an outdated, dualistic notion of mind and body that has no place in modern science. Psychology studies human behavior as it arises from biological, environmental, and social causes. If you don’t grasp that, you have no business pretending to critique determinism.

Second, your assertion that reasoning cannot exist in a deterministic framework is nonsense. Reasoning is a deterministic process driven by evidence, logic, and experience. It doesn’t need metaphysical “freedom” to function. Arguments influence outcomes because they are inputs in the causal chain—inputs that shape how individuals process information and revise their beliefs. Your inability to grasp this basic point doesn’t invalidate it; it only reveals your stubborn refusal to think critically.

You then claim that “in a deterministic world, there are no persons, thoughts, or arguments.” This is outright absurd. Determinism doesn’t deny the existence of persons, thoughts, or arguments; it explains them as products of causal processes. You’re confusing determinism with nihilism, which only underscores your lack of understanding. People exist; they think, act, and argue—determinism simply explains how those processes occur. You might not like that explanation, but misrepresenting it only weakens your position.

Finally, your accusation that I don’t live as a determinist is a lazy cop-out. Of course, I live as a determinist—every action I take, every argument I present, reflects my understanding that all human behavior arises from causes. The fact that you keep harping on this non-argument suggests you’re out of ideas and desperate to avoid engaging with the actual implications of determinism.

You’ve resorted to rhetorical bluster because you have no substantive rebuttal to offer. If you want to argue against determinism, try addressing its principles and evidence rather than relying on outdated assumptions and circular reasoning. Until then, your indignation is as empty as your arguments.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:10 pm Fair enough. I’ll lay out how a deterministic model of governance could be envisioned, but let’s drop the notion that this requires anyone to "concede" to some ideological stance. Determinism isn’t a belief system—it’s a recognition of how reality works. If you understand cause and effect, you’re already working with the principle, whether you like the term or not. Now, here’s a vision for implementation:

1. Justice System Reform
   The justice system would shift its focus from retribution to rehabilitation and prevention. Punishment would no longer be about moral blame but about reducing recidivism and addressing the causes of harmful behavior. This would involve evidence-based programs to tackle socioeconomic conditions, mental health issues, and other systemic factors that lead to crime.
2. Policy Based on Data and Predictive Models
   Governance would rely heavily on data analytics and predictive modeling to craft policies. For example, environmental laws would be informed by climate science and simulations, ensuring sustainability. Economic policies would use modeling to reduce inequality, recognizing its role in societal unrest.
3. Transparent Decision-Making and Expert Leadership
   Institutions would prioritize transparency and accountability, with decisions made based on evidence rather than ideological agendas or public whims manipulated by money and media. Leadership positions would be filled by individuals with demonstrated expertise, chosen through rigorous vetting—not popularity contests.
4. Education Reform
   Education systems would teach the basics of human behavior and decision-making, emphasizing the role of causes in shaping outcomes. This isn’t indoctrination—it’s empowering people with a clearer understanding of themselves and the world around them.
5. Gradual Transition
   This isn’t about tearing down democracy overnight. A deterministic model would evolve incrementally as people see the benefits of policies informed by evidence and causes rather than empty rhetoric. Pilot programs in justice reform, environmental sustainability, and public health could demonstrate the advantages.

Does this mean determinism solves all problems at once? Of course not. But it offers a framework to address issues more effectively than systems based on myths like “free will” or the idea that everyone starts on an equal playing field.
Now, if you think the above is unrealistic or flawed, fine—engage with it. But don’t act as though the absence of a fully realized blueprint somehow invalidates the idea. Conversations like this are part of the process, so stop waiting for perfection to descend from the heavens and join the actual discussion. Or, if you’re taking the piss, as you say—at least make it constructive.

Did you write this list? If yes then how long did it take you to work out that this is what would happen?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:58 pm Your response reads like a confused attempt to dodge the fundamental implications of determinism

Wow. That's funny. I think that's everything you've ever written about Determinism. I think you've never really understood Determinism at all. You think you can have its savoury implications, and never have to take even one of its unsavoury ones...which are a good deal more than its advantages, if the truth is told.

But I think I can see why you can't see the forest for the trees. All your talk about getting rid of blame, or having social-determinist "solutions" for problems that, given Determinism, can't be real problems, and can't be solved at all, is really about something in your own experience or past, it would seem. You seem desperate to get rid of responsibility, desperate not to have to own some choice you've made, possibly, or the natural consequences of what somebody has done...

Anyway, I'm now convinced you're completely incapable of not being ideologically-possessed with the idea. And it has zero to do with any real virtues of Determinism, or with science, or with truth. It has everything to do with some political expediency you imagine you can derive from it. But you're quite beyond rational persuasion. Maybe you're "determined" not to know the truth.

So off you go, I guess: by your own lights, you're predetermined to end up somewhere. I hope you like it when you get there. I'm pretty sure you won't.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:59 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:10 pm Fair enough. I’ll lay out how a deterministic model of governance could be envisioned, but let’s drop the notion that this requires anyone to "concede" to some ideological stance. Determinism isn’t a belief system—it’s a recognition of how reality works. If you understand cause and effect, you’re already working with the principle, whether you like the term or not. Now, here’s a vision for implementation:

1. Justice System Reform
   The justice system would shift its focus from retribution to rehabilitation and prevention. Punishment would no longer be about moral blame but about reducing recidivism and addressing the causes of harmful behavior. This would involve evidence-based programs to tackle socioeconomic conditions, mental health issues, and other systemic factors that lead to crime.
2. Policy Based on Data and Predictive Models
   Governance would rely heavily on data analytics and predictive modeling to craft policies. For example, environmental laws would be informed by climate science and simulations, ensuring sustainability. Economic policies would use modeling to reduce inequality, recognizing its role in societal unrest.
3. Transparent Decision-Making and Expert Leadership
   Institutions would prioritize transparency and accountability, with decisions made based on evidence rather than ideological agendas or public whims manipulated by money and media. Leadership positions would be filled by individuals with demonstrated expertise, chosen through rigorous vetting—not popularity contests.
4. Education Reform
   Education systems would teach the basics of human behavior and decision-making, emphasizing the role of causes in shaping outcomes. This isn’t indoctrination—it’s empowering people with a clearer understanding of themselves and the world around them.
5. Gradual Transition
   This isn’t about tearing down democracy overnight. A deterministic model would evolve incrementally as people see the benefits of policies informed by evidence and causes rather than empty rhetoric. Pilot programs in justice reform, environmental sustainability, and public health could demonstrate the advantages.

Does this mean determinism solves all problems at once? Of course not. But it offers a framework to address issues more effectively than systems based on myths like “free will” or the idea that everyone starts on an equal playing field.
Now, if you think the above is unrealistic or flawed, fine—engage with it. But don’t act as though the absence of a fully realized blueprint somehow invalidates the idea. Conversations like this are part of the process, so stop waiting for perfection to descend from the heavens and join the actual discussion. Or, if you’re taking the piss, as you say—at least make it constructive.

Did you write this list? If yes then how long did it take you to work out that this is what would happen?

Yes, I wrote it, and it didn’t take long because these ideas are based on well-documented principles and evidence. What takes time isn’t outlining them—it’s cutting through the noise of people dismissing or misrepresenting the argument without engaging with its substance. If you have actual feedback or critiques, I’m all ears. Otherwise, let’s not waste time on rhetorical games.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:13 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:59 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:10 pm Fair enough. I’ll lay out how a deterministic model of governance could be envisioned, but let’s drop the notion that this requires anyone to "concede" to some ideological stance. Determinism isn’t a belief system—it’s a recognition of how reality works. If you understand cause and effect, you’re already working with the principle, whether you like the term or not. Now, here’s a vision for implementation:

1. Justice System Reform
   The justice system would shift its focus from retribution to rehabilitation and prevention. Punishment would no longer be about moral blame but about reducing recidivism and addressing the causes of harmful behavior. This would involve evidence-based programs to tackle socioeconomic conditions, mental health issues, and other systemic factors that lead to crime.
2. Policy Based on Data and Predictive Models
   Governance would rely heavily on data analytics and predictive modeling to craft policies. For example, environmental laws would be informed by climate science and simulations, ensuring sustainability. Economic policies would use modeling to reduce inequality, recognizing its role in societal unrest.
3. Transparent Decision-Making and Expert Leadership
   Institutions would prioritize transparency and accountability, with decisions made based on evidence rather than ideological agendas or public whims manipulated by money and media. Leadership positions would be filled by individuals with demonstrated expertise, chosen through rigorous vetting—not popularity contests.
4. Education Reform
   Education systems would teach the basics of human behavior and decision-making, emphasizing the role of causes in shaping outcomes. This isn’t indoctrination—it’s empowering people with a clearer understanding of themselves and the world around them.
5. Gradual Transition
   This isn’t about tearing down democracy overnight. A deterministic model would evolve incrementally as people see the benefits of policies informed by evidence and causes rather than empty rhetoric. Pilot programs in justice reform, environmental sustainability, and public health could demonstrate the advantages.

Does this mean determinism solves all problems at once? Of course not. But it offers a framework to address issues more effectively than systems based on myths like “free will” or the idea that everyone starts on an equal playing field.
Now, if you think the above is unrealistic or flawed, fine—engage with it. But don’t act as though the absence of a fully realized blueprint somehow invalidates the idea. Conversations like this are part of the process, so stop waiting for perfection to descend from the heavens and join the actual discussion. Or, if you’re taking the piss, as you say—at least make it constructive.

Did you write this list? If yes then how long did it take you to work out that this is what would happen?

Yes, I wrote it, and it didn’t take long because these ideas are based on well-documented principles and evidence. What takes time isn’t outlining them—it’s cutting through the noise of people dismissing or misrepresenting the argument without engaging with its substance. If you have actual feedback or critiques, I’m all ears. Otherwise, let’s not waste time on rhetorical games.

If a transition to your determinism-based governance hasn't happened yet then how are there well-documented principles and evidence for it?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:19 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:13 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:59 pm
Did you write this list? If yes then how long did it take you to work out that this is what would happen?

Yes, I wrote it, and it didn’t take long because these ideas are based on well-documented principles and evidence. What takes time isn’t outlining them—it’s cutting through the noise of people dismissing or misrepresenting the argument without engaging with its substance. If you have actual feedback or critiques, I’m all ears. Otherwise, let’s not waste time on rhetorical games.

If a transition to your determinism-based governance hasn't happened yet then how are there well-documented principles and evidence for it?

The principles and evidence come from the fields that underpin the argument—neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and systems science—not from a fully implemented deterministic governance system, because, of course, such a system hasn’t been tried yet. That doesn’t mean the principles aren’t valid; it means they haven’t been systematically applied to governance on a large scale. The same was true for democracy, or any other governance model, before it was implemented. The question isn’t whether it’s been done—it’s whether the reasoning and evidence justify exploring it.

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:22 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:19 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:13 pm

Yes, I wrote it, and it didn’t take long because these ideas are based on well-documented principles and evidence. What takes time isn’t outlining them—it’s cutting through the noise of people dismissing or misrepresenting the argument without engaging with its substance. If you have actual feedback or critiques, I’m all ears. Otherwise, let’s not waste time on rhetorical games.

If a transition to your determinism-based governance hasn't happened yet then how are there well-documented principles and evidence for it?

The principles and evidence come from the fields that underpin the argument—neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and systems science—not from a fully implemented deterministic governance system, because, of course, such a system hasn’t been tried yet. That doesn’t mean the principles aren’t valid; it means they haven’t been systematically applied to governance on a large scale. The same was true for democracy, or any other governance model, before it was implemented. The question isn’t whether it’s been done—it’s whether the reasoning and evidence justify exploring it.

Dude why are you using an AI to write points for you, and then defend them? Did you notice that your list has almost nothing to do with determinism per se?

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:10 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:55 pm FFS Mike. It's your idea, so you present how you envision it to be implemented. (stop taking everything i say as if i am taking the piss)

Fair enough. I’ll lay out how a deterministic model of governance could be envisioned, but let’s drop the notion that this requires anyone to "concede" to some ideological stance. Determinism isn’t a belief system—it’s a recognition of how reality works. If you understand cause and effect, you’re already working with the principle, whether you like the term or not. Now, here’s a vision for implementation:

1. Justice System Reform
   The justice system would shift its focus from retribution to rehabilitation and prevention. Punishment would no longer be about moral blame but about reducing recidivism and addressing the causes of harmful behavior. This would involve evidence-based programs to tackle socioeconomic conditions, mental health issues, and other systemic factors that lead to crime.

But you're still treating the result rather than getting to the root cause of Y people are twats to each other.

BigMike wrote:[*] Policy Based on Data and Predictive Models
Governance would rely heavily on data analytics and predictive modeling to craft policies. For example, environmental laws would be informed by climate science and simulations, ensuring sustainability.

Yes, and here in Australia we have the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) for that..

BigMike wrote:Economic policies would use modeling to reduce inequality, recognizing its role in societal unrest.

What are you going to do when loads of people are not happy with implementation of these policies?

Indeed, how is the government going to be structured?

BigMike wrote:[*] Transparent Decision-Making and Expert Leadership
Institutions would prioritize transparency and accountability, with decisions made based on evidence

The 'evidence' is still subjective and many won't agree with the way the evidence was gathered among other things. How are you going to mediate and come to implement the final decision?

BigMike wrote: rather than ideological agendas or public whims manipulated by money and media.

How are you dealing with corruption?

BigMike wrote:Leadership positions would be filled by individuals with demonstrated expertise, chosen through rigorous vetting—not popularity contests.

Well that might be good, get rid of this ridiculous DEI quota crap.

BigMike wrote:[*] Education Reform
Education systems would teach the basics of human behavior and decision-making, emphasizing the role of causes in shaping outcomes. This isn’t indoctrination—it’s empowering people with a clearer understanding of themselves and the world around them.

What about sport? Are you going to have a coach state "Get out there and do stuff, because as our illustrious leader has already told us, we cannot change the future - if we win, we were always going to win ever since the Big Bang, if we lose, it was also our destiny"

I could just imagine the demoralised hapless children reluctantly walking onto the football pitch.

..nah, I'm out now CBF.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:28 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:22 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:19 pm
If a transition to your determinism-based governance hasn't happened yet then how are there well-documented principles and evidence for it?

The principles and evidence come from the fields that underpin the argument—neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and systems science—not from a fully implemented deterministic governance system, because, of course, such a system hasn’t been tried yet. That doesn’t mean the principles aren’t valid; it means they haven’t been systematically applied to governance on a large scale. The same was true for democracy, or any other governance model, before it was implemented. The question isn’t whether it’s been done—it’s whether the reasoning and evidence justify exploring it.

Dude why are you using an AI to write points for you, and then defend them? Did you notice that your list has almost nothing to do with determinism per se?

I’m not using AI to write points for me; these are my arguments, based on evidence and reasoning. If you think the list has "almost nothing to do with determinism," then you’ve misunderstood the connection. Determinism explains that human behavior and societal outcomes are shaped by causes—causes we can study, understand, and address. The policies I outlined are rooted in recognizing and acting on those causes, rather than relying on myths like free will or moral blame. If you have a substantive critique, make it. Otherwise, accusing me of outsourcing my thinking is just a lazy dodge.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 11:48 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 10:10 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 14, 2024 9:55 pm FFS Mike. It's your idea, so you present how you envision it to be implemented. (stop taking everything i say as if i am taking the piss)

Fair enough. I’ll lay out how a deterministic model of governance could be envisioned, but let’s drop the notion that this requires anyone to "concede" to some ideological stance. Determinism isn’t a belief system—it’s a recognition of how reality works. If you understand cause and effect, you’re already working with the principle, whether you like the term or not. Now, here’s a vision for implementation:

1. Justice System Reform
   The justice system would shift its focus from retribution to rehabilitation and prevention. Punishment would no longer be about moral blame but about reducing recidivism and addressing the causes of harmful behavior. This would involve evidence-based programs to tackle socioeconomic conditions, mental health issues, and other systemic factors that lead to crime.

But you're still treating the result rather than getting to the root cause of Y people are twats to each other.

BigMike wrote:[*] Policy Based on Data and Predictive Models
Governance would rely heavily on data analytics and predictive modeling to craft policies. For example, environmental laws would be informed by climate science and simulations, ensuring sustainability.

Yes, and here in Australia we have the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) for that..

BigMike wrote:Economic policies would use modeling to reduce inequality, recognizing its role in societal unrest.

What are you going to do when loads of people are not happy with implementation of these policies?

Indeed, how is the government going to be structured?

BigMike wrote:[*] Transparent Decision-Making and Expert Leadership
Institutions would prioritize transparency and accountability, with decisions made based on evidence

The 'evidence' is still subjective and many won't agree with the way the evidence was gathered among other things. How are you going to mediate and come to implement the final decision?

BigMike wrote: rather than ideological agendas or public whims manipulated by money and media.

How are you dealing with corruption?

BigMike wrote:Leadership positions would be filled by individuals with demonstrated expertise, chosen through rigorous vetting—not popularity contests.

Well that might be good, get rid of this ridiculous DEI quota crap.

BigMike wrote:[*] Education Reform
Education systems would teach the basics of human behavior and decision-making, emphasizing the role of causes in shaping outcomes. This isn’t indoctrination—it’s empowering people with a clearer understanding of themselves and the world around them.

What about sport? Are you going to have a coach state "Get out there and do stuff, because as our illustrious leader has already told us, we cannot change the future - if we win, we were always going to win ever since the Big Bang, if we lose, it was also our destiny"

I could just imagine the demoralised hapless children reluctantly walking onto the football pitch.

..nah, I'm out now CBF.

You’ve raised a few points worth addressing, though much of your response seems more like an exercise in snark than genuine engagement. Let me clarify a few things before you bow out entirely.

First, addressing the root causes of why people “are twats to each other,” as you put it, is exactly the point of a deterministic approach. Understanding the systemic and environmental factors that lead to harmful behavior is how we get beyond reactive policies and work toward genuine prevention.

Second, when you ask what happens when people don’t agree with these policies or how the government is structured, the answer is that governance would require transparent mechanisms for evidence-based decision-making, alongside systems to mediate disputes. Unlike the current popularity-driven systems, a deterministic model would involve panels of diverse, qualified experts evaluating the data and debating options openly—making decisions more about evidence than ideology.

As for the “evidence being subjective,” it’s not as subjective as you claim. Scientific rigor, peer review, and open scrutiny of methodologies are the best tools we have to mitigate bias. Will disagreements still happen? Of course, but the point is to reduce those rooted in misinformation or manipulation.

Regarding corruption, transparency, accountability, and independent oversight are vital. Every system will face challenges from human self-interest, but a deterministic approach begins by acknowledging and addressing these inherent tendencies rather than pretending they don’t exist.

And as for your “hapless children on the football pitch” scenario—determinism doesn’t mean throwing out motivation or personal effort. It means recognizing that effort itself arises from causes: good coaching, preparation, and mental conditioning, for example. It’s a tired trope to suggest determinism leads to fatalism, and it’s frankly beneath serious discussion.

If you’re genuinely out, that’s fine. But if you want to contribute meaningfully, leave the sarcasm behind and focus on engaging with the actual ideas. Or don’t—it’s up to the causes shaping your response.

With the greatest respect Mike, get that book written and try and forget the above, it's never going to happen and you know that.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 15, 2024 12:19 am With the greatest respect Mike, get that book written and try and forget the above, it's never going to happen and you know that.

With all due respect, maybe this conversation is a bit above your interest level. Why not go back to sharing snarky quips with your TikTok friends? The grown-ups are trying to have a serious discussion about ideas here. If you can’t engage beyond dismissive one-liners, there’s really no point in continuing.