Is it bad that I had to look up what 'non sequitur' is?
Haha, not at all.
Agreed. I shouldn't have said 'analysis' anyway, since I'm not clear on how, ultimately, anybody can verify anything.
If we were free to think what we think, we may not be able to trust our analysis; however, we would know that our thoughts were not simply a result of our past or our genes or whatever.
I'm not sure why it would bother you if our thoughts were a result of our genes or past.
And I'm saying that the only reason you argue that is because you were born in a certain place at a certain time and have certain experiences and certain 'instincts' that are making you think that and argue for it.
True, that is the only reason I think the way I do, but it's also an oversimplification. My past experiences have lent me insight on the matter. I'll go into more depth below, to avoid this getting too long.
Like how you're saying that a person's intentions are driven by their wants, that are a product of their environment -- wouldn't following that line of thinking to its logical conclusion lead a person to believe that their thoughts are determined? I agree that they could be true, even if determined, but your reasoning behind thinking so is a result of your environment/instinct/whatever too.
Yes, even your thoughts would be determined. We don't particularly choose what fancies our interest, or why we remain engulfed by certain subjects and not another.
I disagree with that. Just because thoughts wouldn't be predictable (random) doesn't mean that they can't be trusted. I don't see the relation at all, tbh.
This is the most interesting part. If you're not arguing for randomness, then you must be arguing for some kind of guided method of thinking. That there is some guiding principle behind our thoughts, but then isn't that what I'm arguing for with determinism? You can't have it both ways. Either we're capable of completely random & unpredictable patterns of thought, or there is a method behind the way our mind works. Which is it?
It could be a mix.
You think one thing about determinism and knowledge. I think something else about determinism and knowledge. We are in disagreement. Do you and I disagree only because we have different circumstances, different instincts, etc? If so, our thoughts are conditioned. There is no reason to believe that they are truthful. Why would blind processes give us truth? :/
Yes, we only disagree with each other because of how we have been conditioned. That much is certain, regardless of whether free-will is true or not. People end up how they are because of their past and instincts. If this were not so, religion wouldn't be so geographic, but whether you agree with that or not, you must understand that when we're asking questions about the truth of things, we are asking question about reality. Things that happen in the real world. Notice how for a deterministic world view, your opinions about the real world are made of matter, the same thing the real world is made of. Our past and instincts are what inform our opinions because that's the only way we could actually arrive at any truth about our environment. If free-will is true, then you're introducing some other element that has nothing to do with reality that your opinions could be based on. Without free-will we're limited to basing our opinions about reality by reality itself.
Basically, the fact that our opinions on our circumstances and instincts is a good thing. It's the only sure-fire way you could arrive at any truth. Not vice versa.
Now, to your other question. Why do we disagree? We disagree simply because reality is limited and the human mind is far from perfect, one could argue that it was broken. Sometimes we come to opinions based on experience, but other times it's because of emotion and sometimes it's a mix of the two. Fortunately, through trial and error, we've slowly been able to discern between the two, mostly because emotional ideals have no application in reality, whereas experiential ones allow us to further our knowledge of the universe and better the lives of millions.
In I.T. class, I learned about "GIGO": "garbage in, garbage out". If you give a computer garbage, it'll churn out stuff that isn't actually related to what you want to know. So I'm saying that your experiences may give you garbage, your method of analysing them is determined by your circumstances, and so the end result may be garbage. Ultimately, your knowledge is a result of a series of blind processes.
Even in that case, you must realise that garbage is only something you don't particularly want, not something that is useless or even wrong. Garbage could be useful, depending on your needs. Most of the things human beings come out with is garbage to some and to other's not, the fact is you need to have someone that values it before you assign it that label.
Essentially, there's no such thing as garbage. Everything is the result of the pure math of physics and chemistry.
I guess I'm saying that determinism is self-refuting. :/ Maybe only certain aspects of us are determined, but once you say our mind and its choices, and its beliefs are determined, it implies that thoughts are determined too. And if so, our knowledge of determinism is determined. Logic, reason, everything is determined by the past and there's no way to prove determinism without using one of those.
I still don't see your reasoning. Just because our thoughts are determined, it doesn't mean that they're wrong. I used the example of a computer or calculator and you agreed that just because they're determined doesn't make them wrong, but then you seem to be saying here that our thoughts wouldn't be correct purely because they were determined?!?
Or are you saying that using determined thoughts to discover determinism is circular? Do you think it's circular to arrive at determinism via a determined device like the mind? If so, that would not be the case. It would seem like a bit of a paradox, but circular reasoning is when you use an premise to support a conclusion, which is supposed to prove the premise. It's a series of arguments that run round in a circle. The fact that we lived in a determined universe is not an argument, it is a conclusion. The fact that we're using determined minds to reach this conclusion is not part of the argument.
You do keep repeating the fact that our opinions are based on our past and instincts, therefore concluding that our opinions are based on our past and instincts is wrong, but that's not really the argument here at all. The mind is essentially a computer that uses it's environment to come to conclusions about it's environment, but that's perfectly valid reasoning. If I'm going to come to conclusions about Apple Cheesecake, why can't I use my experiences with Apple Cheesecake to do that? Wouldn't you encourage me to use those experiences?
If causal influences make you say such-and-such, think so-and-so, and believe whatever, then you are only conditioned to think what you think. There is no freedom in your thought. We only disagree because we have had different forces work on us. Not because one of us has a better method of thinking than the other.
Tut tu tut... Those are not mutually exclusive. We disagree because we both have different forces at work on us AND because one of us has forces that better represent reality than the other. Or perhaps we're both bloody wrong
So what's the difference between consenting and not consenting? Do they hold any meaning if they're determined? :S
You're just being confusing here.
Do you really think that determinists don't believe in emotions like happiness and sadness, anger and excitement, wanting and disdain?
Do you think we're arguing that desires themselves do not exist?
Even if everything is determined, we could still want something and abhor another. Consent is just the communication of that desire.
Sorry, would you mind expanding on that?
It's going to be difficult for me to expand on it, because it touches the limit of my knowledge, but I can tell you how I understand it.
In quantum mechanics, we see counter-intuitive things happening at the very core of physics that control everything else. If the things at the very base are nothing like what happens at the macro-level (what we see) it shows that when we reduce things to their base principles, they look very different from how they behave all together. I see determinism in the same way. It's an accumulation of a million different systems that work together to make something that appears completely different than it's foundation.
Something like decisions I see like floodgates, going in different directions. Usually, it's easy for us to come to conclusions, because the floodgates are all opened to allow water to flow in the same direction. What we call a "choice" is when we have two floodgates opened in different directions, an inclination to do two different things, but in the end a very deterministic process decides what option we choose, in this example it's which ever gate has the strongest flow.
Yes, only if you change the meaning of 'choice' and 'self'.
No, not at all. The "self" has yet to be intelligibly defined in a way we all agree to. Some have concluded that it is the soul, but others the body. Some a mixture of the two. Some say it is our memories and personality, but those are based purely in our minds, which are deterministic.
It's not that I'm changing the meaning of "self", it's that it's lacked any meaningful definition.
"Choice" remains the same, whether it is determined or not. We still reach conclusions, we still decide what is the best course of action, we are still in control.
These things are decided by our past and instincts, yes, but that's only because we are made by our past and instincts.
I see what you're saying, I think. But it does determine who 'you' are, right? It essentially creates 'you'? There is no self-creation, no concept of a person outside of causality? So it does 'decide my thoughts', because it decides me.
No, there is no little god in our heads. There's no reason to believe this and no reason to even want it to be true. If it were, it would be problematic. We would be able to come to completely independent conclusions, there would be no cohesive human nature, there could be no study on psychology and you would have no real way of knowing if your opinions and thoughts were true or not.
Not sure how you can agree with blame but not with punishment? :/ Punishment also acts as a deterrent. Would you support it for that reason?
I disagree with punishment on ethical and practical grounds. It's not a very effective deterrent. It seems to promote recidivism (return to crime) just as much (if not more) than it deters from it. People can become immune to pain, which gives you the option of either making the punishments more inhumane or staying with an ineffective punishment. I think we as humans should be trying to reduce human suffering too, rather than increase it for whatever expedient reason you may favour. Lastly, I think too many innocent people are caught up in punishment systems, especially when we really just wanna see someone get punished for something, rather than really do what would fix the situation.
I don't see anything effective about it.
Yes, you can scare people into not doing things, but that's not a good reason for them to be good.
Let's say, hypothetically, I do not want to achieve the maximum amount of good for all of sentient life. Perhaps I'd rather only achieve the maximum amount of good for myself. Or perhaps I prefer something else. Would my preference of my own moral system and its ends over yours be a result of determination (environment, circumstance, instinct, etc)? How would we decide which one prevails? Would it eventually just be a 'might is right' solution -- more people have been determined to prefer your system over mine?
Let's not fool ourselves. Might makes right. It's just a general principle. If everyone in your society is evil and they like being evil, then it will suck. Being evil would be seen as the "right" thing in that society and there's not a damned thing you could do about it. The same is with god. If god exists, then the only reason we'd follow him would be because might makes right. If you didn't, it'd suck for you. He's not "good" per se, he's strong.
Now, I'm not saying "might IS right". Only that for something to be considered wrong by majority of people, you need the majority of people to consider it wrong. Yes, that's a tautology.
WE do not get to decide which one is "right" or "wrong". We could sit down all day mentally masturbating about who's right and wrong for whatever reason. That's just not how reality works. See that Mongolian horde in the distance, looking to loot us for all our gold and take our shelter? That's how reality works.
There is good news though... apparently, societies that work together, co-operative societies, need to be aware of the needs of all the members of the group for it to function.
So basically, for society to work, we have to care for one another. Don't care? That's fine society won't treat you well though.
Live in a society that doesn't work together? Well, they're not likely to get very far.
Being nice to each other is what leads to us being nice to each other, which in turn leads to EVERYONE WINNING!
But this is a whole other subject. Now we're going into morals and ethics, rather than raw determinism.
I see what you're saying. Good explanation. Tongue But let's look at it backwards.
Let's say the brakes had the ability to speak. Oh, and let's say the mechanic has bestowed upon them the remarkable ability to improve themselves through, I dunno, a backwards form of self-mutilation or something.
If I said to the brakes, "Fix yourself! You have the ability to become oilier (or however it is that brakes work)!
Could it not say in response: "No. I have been made this way by my mechanic and I am not responsible for the way I am"?
When we speak of responsibility, it is because we think that people are responsible for their actions because they can control them. We do not say to a disabled person: "Why don't you make yourself walk?" because we know that they are not responsible for and did not choose to be disabled; it was a result of a birth defect or car accident or something.
So in a deterministic worldview, wouldn't ALL of our character flaws be like being 'disabled'? So couldn't a particularly petty and un-obliging person say, like the brakes, that they have been 'made this way' because of their circumstance? And in fact, the very fact that they are so noncompliant is because of their circumstance too. :/
No, not at all.
Again, replace the word "choice" with "option". The disabled person doesn't have the option to walk. No matter how many motivational speeches you give them, they have a physiological disability. We're all disabled in a way. I can't fly to the sun and sleep on it's surface. We have limitations, but we still have options. I can either go to bed or get work done right now, I'm gonna go to bed, that's going to lead to problems so that the next time I'm confronted with this option, I'll remember the consequence last time and have to reconsider.
My actions are determined, yes, but the things that happen to me still affect my future decisions.
Disabled person vs. someone with a reversible character flaw, essentially.
I think you are using the phrase 'intentional decision' wrongly. It may be intentional, but the forces that drive it (circumstance, etc, as opposed to one's own self outside of conditioning) do not allow for choice, and therefore they do not allow for responsibility or accountability in any meaningful or moral sense. It may be expedient to punish people for conscious acts, but that does not make it right. :/
I don't think so at all.
I really think I'm using the word correctly. I'm sure that when we say "intentional" we mean that the person came to that conclusion as a result of their personality. That it's a part of who we understand as that person to make that decision. Not that there was some cause unconnected to their memories or emotions that led them an action.
Topic: An emotion, a thought and ignorance