Are you a determinist?

Nope, the most free of Free Will folks.

Is it 'better' to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism assuming Non-determinism is true? Why? Why not? If neither why? — I like sushi

It’s a trick question to me.

If determinism is true, then, along with my “choice”, the illusory agent making “my” choice vanishes along with the illusory choice. So there is no “I” that believes in anything anymore.

As soon as you reintroduce the “I” you introduce an agent, which is ground for freedom, and so why be so quick to use this freedom to choose determinism?

All of this is to say that, you can’t avoid the elephant in the room and ask your question - the “better” choice (ironically) or argument between believing in determinism or non-determinism can only be made by assessing which one of the two is in fact the case.

Unless you want to ask the question for political reasons (are citizens to be treated as able to follow or break laws), or psychological reasons (is this person an adult or just a child, or like a mole rat); once you go philosophical, you are asking “Are you free or not?” first, before any question that follows makes sense. Especially if the answer to the first question is “no you are not free.”

So what I've noticed is a bunch of non-determinists saying that determinists do, or should, think this way (even though it's not beneficial to think that way, nor does it come naturally), and out of all the determinists I've spoken to in my life, none of them do think that way.

I find it very funny how often non-determinists tell determinists how to think, or explain to them how they do think.

I find it very funny how often non-determinists tell determinists how to think, or explain to them how they do think. — flannel jesus

If determinism is true, aren’t we all, in a sense, always told what to think?

If determinism is true, aren’t we all, in a sense, always told what to think? — Fire Ologist

I'd think it more accurate to say that we think as it is our nature to think. I'd add that that nature, is to a substantial degree, determined by the environment our thinking developed in.

I certainly don't have a sense of always being told what to think. I'm curious as to why you would think of it as you described above.

The most popular argument against hardline determinism boils down to: "well if determinism is true why bother doing anything?", exempli gratia: the second post of this thread. It makes me think that the preference for libertarianism often stems not from a belief in the truth of the position but from the same place as a belief in the afterlife; while compatibilism is the in-between cope.

I asked quite specifically if Non-determinism is true. What is the better choice to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism.

Note: In answering this question those choosing would not know that Non-determinism is true. It is not a trick question.

I can put this even more simply:

Choices of agents can actively effect future events without being influenced by what proceeds them OR they are nothing but illusionary and all past and future events were 100% predetermined (like a movie).

Assuming no one knows that the first condition is true would it be better for them to believe in the first or second condition?

Is it better for them to wander into the future under the assumption their actions have zero causal effect on anything or is it better for them to believe their choices are meaningful and can effect outcomes?

There is no objectively correct answer. It is a matter of opinion. Many people believe it is 'better' to believe Determinism, and many believe it is 'better' to believe Non-determinism. Neither view gives an advantage in survival, attracting mates, scientific understanding, ability to be happy, or anything else. — Patterner

Why? You must have some form of reasoning behind this. Why is it so hard to show any kind of reasoning?

Now comes the harder problem. Which is ‘better’ to believe in the case that non-determinism is true? We can see clearly which is true, but truth does not tell us what is better. Some may be quick to argue that it is better to believe in what is true than in what is false. How can this be said with any certainty, though? It may just be that to believe in a determined world provides comfort and allows a kind of passive freedom, where a belief in non-determinism brings with it the stresses and strains of personal responsibility as the choices humans (rightly) perceive they make would bear the heavy weight of real consequences. — I like sushi

Your thoughts?

Note: I framed Determinism as preordained and Non-determinism as agency that is not effected by previous conditions and able to direct the path to the future. Which is better to BELIEVE?

Your thoughts? — I like sushi

People can derive psychological comfort from determinism as well as from libertarianism. And?

Which is better and why?

Is it better for them to wander into the future under the assumption their actions have zero causal effect on anything… — I like sushi

Well, if, in fact, all action is determined, it’s the exact opposite of “wandering” anywhere.
There is no more wandering in a deterministic world, where nothing can possibly wander off course and everything remains set on a fixed immutable path.

… or is it better for them to believe their choices are meaningful and can effect outcomes — I like sushi

Belief itself is a type of wandering off course. How are we to think we are doing anything at all when we say “I believe” about anything at all, when everything is determined and fixed? What can we make of the moment of “choosing”? Is it “my” belief anymore if I was destined and determined from outside this “my” to have this “belief”?

I asked quite specifically if Non-determinism is true. What is the better choice to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism — I like sushi

Didn’t you say to assume we do NOT know whether non-determinism is true or not?? I think you mean: whether determinism or non-determinism is true, is it better to believe in one or the other anyway.

And I answered you clearly, and gave you my reasoning. I said it’s better to believe non-determinism is true, because this allows me to hold other people accountable. I can say to some idiot “stop it!” and the idiot might actually stop because we both believe non-determinism is true (he is free to do it just as he can freely chose to stop it).

But I needed to narrow the question before I could start to answer it, because of the use of the word “better.” I had to fill in politics or ethics to as “accountability” to determine which is “better”.

However, I think you are looking for a logical answer - which is logically better; which is most reasonable.

I don’t think you can answer your question on those levels without addressing whether determinism or non-determinism are even adequate to describe the experience of having any beliefs in the first place.

Which is better to believe: X or Y?
I think a belief is a choice. I believe there is biological-like life somewhere else besides earth. I choose this, freely, as my belief defining a belief of mine, and so carving who and what I am in some small way. That’s what a belief does and where it lives.

So now you ask “Which is better to believe: X or Y?
What if X stood for “there is no such thing as choice.” (no choice is synonymous with no freedom and synonymous with non-determinism).

Now the question itself is confused. Because you haven’t addressed the the elephant that sits prior to a question about whether X or Y is better - the elephant of whether X or Y each are and if so, what they are.

If to believe requires a choice, or if believing is choosing, then how can it be possible (let alone better) to believe we are determined?

How is “belief” possible, in a world where each event is determined, or where at least some events are not determined?

Which is better and why? — I like sushi

Better for what?

Well, if, in fact, all action is determined, it’s the exact opposite of “wandering” anywhere.
There is no more wandering in a deterministic world, where nothing can possibly wander off course and everything remains set on a fixed immutable path. — Fire Ologist

I have stated repeatedly in this case it is NOT deterministic.

For the last time.

If everything is predetermined then it makes no difference what you believe because your beliefs are also predetermined (obviously).

If nothing that came before directs your choices 100% then what you believe effects your course of action. From this perspective (assuming a non-deterministic world) what is better to believe?

"better" can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Didn’t you say to assume we do NOT know whether non-determinism is true or not?? I think you mean: whether determinism or non-determinism is true, is it better to believe in one or the other anyway. — Fire Ologist

No, I said what I said. To be honest I am kind of getting bored of saying the same thing and people constantly thinking this is some kind of trick. Maybe I worded it badly but cannot think of a better way to word it. If you do not get it then nothing I can do I guess. I have tried.

The reaction up to now has been along the lines of I won't give reasons for my answer OR I will argue for some form of determinism or non-determinism OR will argue over which is true.

Whatever you deem better.

If determinism is true, aren’t we all, in a sense, always told what to think?
— Fire Ologist

I certainly don't have a sense of always being told what to think. I'm curious as to why you would think of it as you described above. — wonderer1

Metaphorically.

You read what I wrote, and you replied. And I read what you wrote. I am replying now.
If, as I reply now, all is determined, not by choice or free will, but out of some conditions and functions and circumstances forming this reply, then either I am being “told what to say” or maybe, I don’t exist at all, and “I” is just as illusory as “choice”, in a deterministic world.

It’s like we are in the causal chain so deeply, that even if we suppose anything we say is something in itself, those words did not come from us, they just happened like everything else is happening. Determined.

….just like metaphorically, if determinism is true, and just for a moment you pretend “you” are an agent such as “me” or “electron” or “planet”, aren’t we all, in a sense, always told what to think and do?

Either I am told what to do, or there is no I at all, and cause/effect seizes all free agency, if all things are determined.

:up:

To be honest I am kind of getting bored of saying the same thing and people constantly thinking this is some kind of trick. Maybe I worded it badly but cannot think of a better way to word it. If you do not get it then nothing I can do I guess. I have tried. — I like sushi

If several people are misunderstanding you, particularly if they are all misunderstanding you in the same way, then yes, there's a good chance you worded it badly.

In my case, I have answered you as clearly as can be. What is 'better' is a matter of opinion. You seem to be looking for an objectively correct answer. There isn't one.

You seem to be looking for an objectively correct answer. — Patterner

Not at all. That is an assumption you inserted.

From my perspective your reply looks a little like this example (as with many others here):

What is your favourite film genre? Why?

Answers:
- Horror films.
- I like rock music.

Why?

Answers:
- There is no objective answer
- I like rock Music

See my frustration now?

I can ask the question again here and see if you do or do not understand it ...

If the world is non-deterministic is it better to believe your choices have an impact (which they do in said 'non-deterministic world') or that they have no impact (which is false, because they do)?

Note (you should completely ignore this but if it helps): Your choices are not necessarily determined by previous events. This is a scenario where you can actual and real choices that can lead to different future outcomes. If there is any argument against this principle then refer back to OP where I stated we do not really know one way or the other how the universe operates and probably never will. You have to accept a degree of ignorance regarding ideas of causality.

I apologize for being difficult to understand. I'm not dictating how Determinists think (since as a non Determinist I have no firsthand experience), I'm reporting my observations of Determinists. If you disagree with those observations, I welcome your insight as a Determinist. Perhaps you DON'T worry about making poor or erroneous choices, since you're not really making "choices" because decision making is an illusion, we're all going to do what we're determined to do (by our initial brainstate). I don't know. You tell me.

If we are free, is it better to believe we are free, or to believe we are not free?

So that’s your question.

If I assume I am free, am I still free to believe I am not free?

If so, how could it be better to believe what I already assumed cannot be?

If I assume X so I can move on and base a question on that assumption, don’t I already believe X to be the better assumption?

How can I choose to believe X or not-X, if I assumed X in order to ground the possibility of choice? Not-X can’t be believed anymore, as it is already assumed not to be believed.

Are you asking a sociological, or political, or ethical, or psychological question? Seems they would only be worth pondering if we don’t assume anything. If we assume we are free, then we should ask what is the function of that assumption if we could also believe we are determined?

Once you assume freedom, you can’t believe determinism is better (you’ve ready made the best assumption in order to pose your question).

So your question is already answered by your assumption of non-determinism. Of course it is “better” to believe your are free - you already believed that was better before you asked your question.

You need to state clearly what you are looking for - what is your hypothesis? What is the object of your question? Ethics?

Because none of my answers seem to make sense to you. And I keep trying to connect.

You seem to be looking for an objectively correct answer. There isn't one. — Patterner

I agree “better” raises the subjective, or at least the relative- better for what? For instance.

I also agree it is unclear what is being asked.

From my perspective your reply looks a little like this example (as with many others here):

What is your favourite film genre? Why?

Answers:
- Horror films.
- I like rock music.

Why?

Answers:
- There is no objective answer
- I like rock Music

See my frustration now? — I like sushi

I see that I’m frustrated.

We don’t understand the question anymore. And this analogy isn’t clarifying.
(Why did you place “I like rock music” under both sets of answers? Confusing.)

I’m sure you have something you are going after, but I’m not seeing it.

I have added this to the top of the OP:

This is a thought experiment. Two quick caveats

1) Consequence is being used separate from any concept of causality.

2) The above statement becomes prevalent as we reach the point of contemplation.


The scenario:

- The world is populated with people whose choices are real.

- By ‘real’ this means the choices they make are (at least in some part) free from the dictates of apparent physical causality.

- In this world people have two differing sets of beliefs.

Group A believe that causality is ‘real’ and their lives are completely predetermined (a false belief).

Groups B believe that their choices are ‘real’ and that they can alter their futures independent of apparent causal factors (a true belief).

Note: Neither group KNOWS if their belief is True or False.


The question is what Group belief is better?

In answering this open question maybe try considering the following:

- A choice not to choose is still a choice.
- A choice to deny that you can choose is a choice.
- A choice to believe their is no choice, against your better judgment, is a choice.
- Would person A and person B faced with the same scenarios act in the same manner assuming they were biologically identical BUT possessing the opposite beliefs as outlined?
- Is having the ability to choose your fate better than not having to choose your fate?
- If person A and person B live out their beliefs and then believed they were wrong and took on the opposing belief how would this effect them?

The most popular argument against hardline determinism boils down to: "well if determinism is true why bother doing anything?", — Lionino

But if determinism is true, the obvious answer is "because I'm not determined to".

Yes but determinism isn't telling us "don't think" if we're already thinking - determinisms the one telling us think! Or rather, "we" are defined by determinism, and "we" are defined as "things that think"

I'm reporting my observations of Determinists — LuckyR

You've observed determinists doing... what exactly? "They fret about making "wrong" decisions" - yes, this isn't the part I'm arguing with. It's the part where you implied they somehow shouldn't.

I think "the point" of fretting about things for determinists is, perhaps counterintuitively, exactly the same "point" as it is for non-determinists. What do you think the point of fretting about things is for you? Does fretting about things ever help you produce better results than if you counterfactually had not fretted about things?

Again, better for what? You are not talking about truth, which is what people always use to judge beliefs. So how can one belief be better than the other?

What is this a reply to?