I'm not remotely knowledgeable enough to debate it. I'm just thinking we don't have words for the competing ideas being discussed. We have a word for thinking. We don't have one for thinking with consciousness, and one for thinking without consciousness. We don't have one for thinking independent of the physical events of the brain, and one for thinking that is the physical events of the brain. The ideas of thinking without consciousness and thinking being nothing but the physical events of our brains are not parts of our culture, or our language. Is this because our culture and language grew in a people who, rare individuals aside, never considered these concepts? The things we have words for are the things the people assumed were true without even saying.

In not remotely. I just thought FO didn't understand what fj was saying, and tried to get them on the same page.

Yes. I agree with you entirely. I argued the same position in another thread not long ago. The problem, I believe, is that languages were developed by beings who believed as you and I do. If, for many thousands of years, anyone had any inkling of determinism, or thought we did not have free will, they probably didn't have many serious conversations about it with many people. So we're stuck trying to discuss things with language that can't easily express the ideas. I was saying choices don't have meaning, and aren't "actual" choices.

But how does the phrase “make sense TO ME” make sense in a deterministic world? How do “you” make sense to you, if there is only a causal chain - where do “you” fit in there any differently than a heart beat? And the word “choice” becomes a metaphor for simply two relay racers passing the baton of cause and effect. — Fire Ologist

I think I understand what you're saying. I don't think you understand what he's saying.

Heart beat was a good thing to mention. In a deterministic world, a certain group of physical events takes place, and we call the overall activity a heart beating. Another certain group of physical events takes place, and we call the overall activity thinking. If Determinism is correct, there is no "me" aside from the physical processes. The "me" is the physical events.

Intended by whom? — flannel jesus

Beats me. By whatever non-determined consciousness is behind them. Different people who believe this type of thing might have different ideas. Some might say a universal consciousness. Some might say God. Some might say other things. I'm just saying the consciousness literally telling determinists what to do in the context of this thread - that is, the consciousness that made the op - would (presumably) be as determined as the rest of us. Just another part of the gigantic web of physical events that are all of our thoughts.

Worded that way sounds like a consciousness telling us what to think.
— Patterner

But the context is that we do have a consciousness literally telling determinists what to do, here in the thread. So comparing THAT - a real thinking entity actually telling people what to do - to determinism "telling people what to do", just doesn't make all that much sense to me. — flannel jesus

But, in that context, the "consciousness literally telling determinists what to do" is, itself, determined. So it's still a consistent theory. I was trying to say some non-determined consciousness arranged/arranges everything so that the webs of physical events that are our thoughts are exactly as they are by design. The exact thoughts we have were intended.

Determinism isn't whispering suggestions on what or how to think in anyone's ear. — flannel jesus

Right. Worded that way sounds like a consciousness telling us what to think. I would say determinism means the web of physical events is our thoughts. But that doesn't mean some thinking entity is causing the physical events to play out the way they do in order to create those thoughts.

↪Fire Ologist 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" — flannel jesus

Determinism tells us exactly what to think, and exactly when to think it. Yes?

That fact that I can believe I am free means to me that I have to be free, because I have a belief without causes. So that is the best proof. — Fire Ologist

That is a valid point. They're isn't even an answer to the question of how webs of physical interactions are conscious/have subjective experience/are aware. Add to that the question of how these webs of physical interactions ever got the idea that they are not completely subject to physical interactions.

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.

:up:

That does not offer any kind of answer(s) to the question. — I like sushi

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.

It more or less sounds like you are arguing with yourself about entering the experience machine or not. — I like sushi

Not in the least. I would enter. I think it would be an amazing experience.

The only difference being one is willfully living a lie and the other choosing not to. — I like sushi

There is no lie. It is another setting in which to experience. Putting on VR goggles is not a lie. Entering the Matrix is not a lie.

I would rather know what's going on, and base my decisions on that. The truth shall set you free, or some such crap. Let's say I'm happily married, crazy in love with my wife. Let's also say she cheated on me, and I don't know about it. I would rather find out, and have my life turned upside down with a divorce (if that is, indeed, the decision we came to) than go the rest of my life happily ignorant of the truth.

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

Since you put 'better' between ' and ', it would be a good idea to define how you are using the word at the moment. Otherwise, different people might answer based on their own interpretations of it. If we don't all happen to interpret it the same way, there might be no way to compare the answers.

For myself...

If Non-determinism is true, then whether or not it is 'better' to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism is a matter of opinion. My opinion is it's better to believe in Non-determinism.

If Non-determinism is not true, then the question is meaningless, since all any of us 'believe' is actually nothing more than the way the physical events play out.

More to the point, do you think someone who believes in Determinism would put up more of a fight than someone who believes in Non-determinism? That is what I was asking.

I said, plain and clear, that a believer in Determinism would not because they would not believe they are losing anything. — I like sushi

I believe in Non-determinism, and I would not put up a fight. I would embrace the opportunity of the experience.

I do not believe a believer in Determinism would necessarily not put up a fight for the reason you state any more than they would not put up a fight if I tried to cut their arm off. Even if they were tied down with no possibility of avoiding the fate, they would not simply go along with it just because they believe it is preordained.

In essence, you are saying, "I am defining a Determinist as someone who will not fight this particular thing, and a Non-determinust as someone who will. My question is, do you think the person I've defined as someone who will not put up a fight will put up more of a fight than someone who I have defined as someone who will put up a fight?"

This is why you are not getting the kind of answer from some of us that you want.

How about looking at it this way... If you were forced into the machine against your will, and you had reason to believe you would never be able to escape it, what would you do? Become catatonic because of the horror that your life would never be "real" again? Perhaps even kill yourself? Become an e-junkie so that you wouldn't be able to think straight, hoping you wouldn't remember the horror of your plight?

Could you not have a meaningful existence in the machine? Could you not be happy? Is that existence of no value? Would it be worth trying?

↪Patterner Huh? The point is you would not enter the machine because it was not real. — I like sushi

I certainly would. I wouldn't miss the experience.

↪Patterner This is WAY off topic now. — I like sushi

It's not. You said:

The human choice of entering this machine is effectively a denial of reality in favor of a world where human experiences are determined by the machine rather than chosen directly by the human. — I like sushi

I disagree, and am telling you why. What is able to be experienced in the real world is the result of certain factors, and quite a bit of it is outside of my control. What is able to be experienced in this machine is the result of other factors, also largely outside of my control. Either way, I don't make the rules/laws of nature, but would be experiencing what could be experienced. Assuming I had the same consciousness and free will in the machine that I have now (regardless of how much I have now), as those plugged into the Matrix do, then the setting of my life isn't important. How I chose to live it is.

Before elaborating on further nuances, it is time to introduce Nozick’s thought experiment, the “Experience Machine”. This was created as a means of disproving a certain kind of hedonism, but it will serve a good purpose here in developing the problems of choice in a non-determinist human life (a life of choice). Nozick’s experiment revealed that people would generally refuse the perfect lived experience if they knew such an experience was disconnected from reality (in a Matrix movie fashion). Here there is a parallel with the idea of believing in determinism - entering the ‘experience machine’ - in a non-determinist human world. The human choice of entering this machine is effectively a denial of reality in favor of a world where human experiences are determined by the machine rather than chosen directly by the human. — I like sushi

I hadn't heard of Nozick. But how I experience an event - how I feel about it, and what I chose to do next - are real, regardless of the nature of the event. If I know I have entered a machine, I feel and act in response to whatever input I receive, and my feelings and actions will be influenced by that knowledge.

If determinism is true, then there is no good reason to deliberate because such thought will not change how I decide (I must choose, or "act" the same way whether I deliberate or not). — NotAristotle

Deliberating adds to the equation. You cannot know that a decision made immediately and a decision made after any amount of deliberation would be identical, even if determinism is responsible in either case.

You're confusing determinism with predictability, but I thought we'd already covered this. — fishfry

I predict that conversation will never end. :grin:

Yes, of course, Oracle can perfectly know what is truly going to happen. However, his knowledge of the truth is not actionable. What else is he going to do with it? — Tarskian

This was your idea. I didn't know you were looking for a purpose for Oracle. What did your have in mind? Off the top of my head, I'd say there's money to be made at the roulette wheel.

Thwarter needs a prediction as input. Otherwise it does not run. — Tarskian

Ok. Oracle gives a final spoken prediction, but secretly writes down what it knows thwarter will do at that point.

The thwarter first asks the oracle what it predicts that it will be doing. The oracle then looks at the source code of the thwarter and at the inputs that it would be getting from the environment, and then predicts what the thwarter will be doing. Upon receiving the answer from the oracle, the thwarter does something else instead, because that is exactly how it was programmed. — Tarskian

The oracle would know how the thwarter would react to its prediction. It could say, "Now that I've told you you will do X, you will do Y, just to thwart me." Which would make the thwarter do X, or Z, or whatever. And the oracle would know every step of the dance. A dance that might go on forever, thwarter never actually doing anything, as oracle endlessly says, "But now that I've said that, you will..." Which oracle would know ahead of time.

Or, at any point, oracle might say, "I'll (app equivalent of) write it down, and, after you act, you can read it. And you'll see I predicted accurately."

If the majority think what's good for everyone is incompatible with what some minority wants,
— Patterner
If. But why would the majority think that way? — Vera Mont

Because they are smarter, and they know best. At least in their own minds. If there was going to be a democratic vote on same sex marriage, I'd bet everything I own that it would be outlawed. "It's not good for society.". "It erodes our values." "It's a slippery slope. Soon we'll have to allow people to marry their dog." "They are equal. They have the same freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex that everybody else has."

About half of the USA is going to be enraged in the next few months by the decision the other half made. Because the two sides have drastically different ideas of what is good for everyone, and many are not as concerned with what's good for everyone as with what's good for them.

If the majority think what's good for everyone is incompatible with what some minority wants, and they believe they are voting for the good of everyone by outlawing what that minority wants, and "It's for their own good, even if they don't know it, and they'll thank us for it later," or they think the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, then we do not have freedom and equality.

In a democracy, we would vote on all the issues. For example, whether or not people of the same sex, or different races, can get married. I remember an episode of Different Strokes where the prom committee was voting on which songs would be played. There were two black students on the committee, and three or four white students. It wasn't working out too well for the black students. Democracy doesn't promote freedom or equality. It just gives the freedom to cast a vote that is equal to any other person's vote. (Unless a vote forbids certain people to vote in the future.)

Yes, but electric charge is something out there that we come to know about. Consciousness is not like that, it's in here, not out there. We know about consciousness because consciousness is itself knowing, we know that we know, and we know the nature of knowing by being a knower. — bert1

We know what knowing is. But we don't know how it is that we are able to know. We all have our favorite theories. Yours and mine both fall under the umbrella of panpsychism. I believe @RogueAI's is idealism. (I don't know how many specific theories fall under that umbrella.) The fact that there can be different theories, but we have no way of verifying any of them, means it's a mystery. We have a general idea of what it does. Ask ten people here what the characteristics of consciousness are, and you'll probably get a dozen answers. But the bare minimum is subjective experience. But how that happens is a mystery. The Hard Problem.

That's a good question. Perhaps a dream like this allows to experience a whole lot of things we normally wouldn't be able to in our "natural state" of oneness with the cosmic mind. A dream where reality seems materialistic and we seem to be a bunch of individuals in a materialistic world (and of course we decide to forget we made the decision to dream all this up) seems like an excellent way to separate from the godhead and try out some unique experiences. What's it like to be in a concentration camp? What's it like to be a concentration camp guard? A celebrity? A nobody? A king? A peasant? And so on. — RogueAI

I understand the idea of Atman being, shall we say, shards of Brahman, limiting itself in order to experience things in different ways. But that, itself, is speculation. Adding the idea that the material world that we experience, of such incredibly different nature than a reality of just minds, is entirely made up (because, if it's not entirely made up, then it's based on something else), which would be like us coming up with an different reality with entirely different properties and laws, which we can't do In anything but the most general terms, but which would have to be a reality that we could survive in... Well, I don't see the logic in believing that over believing things are generally as they seem. Things may not be exactly as they seem, since our perceptions can only give us a certain amount of what's there. However, that's far from saying nothing at all is as it seems.

The materialistic explanations for consciousness, otoh, are completely bonkers, at least imo. — RogueAI

I agree. The materialistic explanations amount to "It just happens." Why are certain physical things and processes, which would take place without consciousness, nevertheless, accompanied by consciousness? They just are. Adding more physical processes to the mix, making the system more physically complex, doesn't suggest an answer for how physical becomes conscious.

Consciousness is its own explanation. It's nothing other than itself. — bert1

We can say matter is its own explanation, and is nothing other than itself. how does choosing to not try to explain something solve the mystery of it, or tell us about its intrinsic nature? In Until the End of Time, Brian Greene writes:

I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do. — Greene

I can't imagine he is ever going to stop trying to figure out what those features are. Newton could not figure out what gravity is. He only figured out what it does. Einstein kept at the mystery, and figured out its intrinsic nature.

Ditch the whole "matter" thing entirely. There is no matter. It's all mental stuff. — RogueAI

I don't understand why minds, being mental stuff, in a reality of nothing but mental stuff (or maybe there wasn't any mental stuff other than minds?), would ... what's the word ... fabricate a reality (an illusory reality?) that is of a nature unlike the mental, which we call "matter." And, to our knowledge, minds do not exist without, or can't function without, this fabricated reality. Why would minds do that, instead of existing and interacting in purely mental ways?

Consciousness is not in need of explanation - the mystery is already solved. We know what it is. We know its intrinsic nature, I suggest. There's nothing more to be said about that. — bert1

I don't understand what you mean. What is the mystery, and how have we solved it? What is its intrinsic nature?

"How is it that it never rains in southern California?"

That start me wondering what it would mean if physical determinism only metaphorically prevented any other possibility. — Ludwig V

I don't know what you mean.

But I'm not arguing that we are not prevented from some choices in one way or another. The question is whether this is always the case or just sometimes and what the factors are that can prevent choices. See? — Ludwig V

Certainly it is impossible to do anything and everything we can think of. I can't jump up and fly to the moon. I can't walk through the earth to find lost treasures or mine diamonds. And sure, coercion happens. But even if coercion prevents me from accomplishing a particular goal, it doesn't prevent me from taking all but one exact action.

The question is whether you have no possibility of choosing from the options. But determinism effectively says that you have no options, because an option is by definition something you could choose to take. — Ludwig V

Right. What are the words for this kinds of ideas? "Numerous things it is possible for a humsn to do in a given situation" is not the same as "choices" if, despite being actions that it is known humans can perform, determinism only allows one. But, to my knowledge, we don't have a word that expresses that, because our languages were developed by beings who thought we could have done other than we did.

It's about whether or not I can actually choose one path or another.
— Patterner
That little word actually is interesting. What does it mean? Either I have a choice, or I do not. — Ludwig V

I wasn't crazy about writing it. :grin: I don't always know how to express myself in these matters. And sometimes it's not even my fault, As ssu just pointed out regarding the definitions of cause and reason.

I'm just saying that you can't have no ability to choose any but one of multiple equally possible paths and have free will in the matter.
— Patterner
In one way, you are right. But there are some kinds of coercion that are compatible with the capacity to choose. Determinism eliminates the capacity to choose, and so eliminates the possibility of coercion.

When the cop arrests me and asks me to hold out my hands for the cuffs, do I have a choice? When I drag myself in to work on a Monday morning, do I go because I have chosen to go? When my opponent forces me to take his rook (castle) in order to get my queen, what choices do I have? When I pay my taxes, what choice do I have? Assume in all these cases that I have a normal capacity to choose. — Ludwig V

In any scenario, let's just take the cop, there are numerous things it is possible for a human to do.
-Hold your hands out as requested.
-Punch the cop.
-Run away.
-Beg and plead.
-Etc.

Even within each of those, there are numerous variations. If you hold your hands out as requested, you can:
-Simply hold your hands out.
-Say "Yes, officer" and hold your hands out.
-Say "Does this makes you feel like a big man?" and hold your hands out.
-Roll your eyes and hold your hands out.
-Many many other things, and many many combinations.

If I roll my eyes and hold my hands out, and, because of physical determinism - because the trillions of physical events in my brain play out and resolve in the one-and-only way they could have given the initial conditions (just as the pool balls settle into one-and-only configuration they could have given the initial conditions when the cue hits them) - there is no possibility of me doing anything else, despite all the possibilities available to a person in that situation, then I do not have free will. I'm not "actually choosing" if physical determinism literally prevents any other possibility. A couple pages ago, to Relativist, I said it's not a "meaningful choice".

If this is correct, then coercion is just another physical factor that goes into the mix. We experience it as coercion, but it's all reducible to physical events in our brains.

It also means our subjective experience of everything is epiphenomenal. If I'm aware of all the possibilities, but I have no possibility of "choosing" from the myriad options, and can do only the one that the physical factors determine, then awareness is only watching the show.

The person who comes down the mountain is not in a free fall, as the boulder is - though they might be. Their descent is under control. It's not about which path they take. — Ludwig V

It's about whether or not I can actually choose one path or another. As opposed to having multiple paths in front of me, but there being no possibility of choosing any but one. If I have no possibility of choosing any but one, despite others being just as available, then I do not have free will. And that's fine. I'm not arguing. It's a perfectly legitimate stance. (Although I disagree with it.) I'm just saying that you can't have no ability to choose any but one of multiple equally possible paths and have free will in the matter.

There's been a lot of discussion of that possibility, but I haven't seen anything that really resolves the differences between them.
— Ludwig V
I think it would be productive for this thread if either you or anyone gives the most compelling case just why they cannot be both at the same time. Even if one doesn't personally agree with the argument. — ssu

I see it the other way around. If choices are made because of the physical interactions of all the constituent parts of the brain (whether considered at the level of particles, atoms, molecules, cells, neurons, brain areas, or whatever), due to the properties and laws of physics, and no choice could ever have been/be other than it was/will be, then what is the definition of Free Will that allows for choices to be made freely? Free from what? Other than our awareness of the whole thing, which a boulder lacks, in what way is a path taken for such causes by a person who comes to an intersection different from a path taken by a boulder rolling down a mountain?

I truly don't understand how you can say the things you are saying. It occurs to me that we're miscommunicating. Thinking we're talking about things the same way, when we're not. So let me try this. This is an equivalent of our conversation, as far as I can tell.

R: "We are circles, but we are squares."

P: "Something that is a circle cannot also be a square. They are mutually exclusive. How can that be possible?"

R: "It is possible. The circle can have four 90° corners, and four equal sides."

P: "You have given different wording for a square, but you have not explained how it is possible for a circle to be a square."

R: "But if it is true, then circles can be squares."

P: "But what reason do we have to think it is possible?"


And now substitute our topic.


R: "We are the product of physical interactions, which are determined entirety by the laws of physics, and none of our choices could ever have been, or ever will be, other than exactly what they were, or will be. But we have agency."

P: "Something that is entirely governed by physical determinism cannot have agency. They are mutually exclusive. How could that be possible?"

R: "It is possible. We are governed by physical determinism, but we are autonomous."

P: "You have given different wording for 'agency,' but you have not explained how it is possible for something ruled by physical determinism to have it."

R: "But if it is true, then we can be ruled by determinism, yet make independent choices."

P: "But what reason do we have to think it is possible?"


Am I not understanding something you are saying? Or are we defining our terms differently?

Suppose your mind is immaterial, (at least partially) operating independently of the laws of nature. — Relativist

My mind being immaterial would not mean it, even partially, operates independent of the laws of nature. Since my mind is a natural thing, it would mean the immaterial is part of the laws of nature.

However, it would mean that my mind, at least partially, operates independently of the laws of physics that we have been able to discover and understand so far. (Let's just say we understand the laws of physics entirely, for the sake of an easier discussion.)

You have chosen a path down the mountain, but you might have taken a different path if you knew it to be more scenic, offering more shade, or if you knew a rattlesnake awaited you on your chosen path. You were, at all times, free to choose a route based on your knowledge, the aesthetic appeal, fears, and your skills. Do you agree this is different from the boulder? — Relativist

I certainly agree it's different from the boulder. Because, in this scenario (which I agree with) our minds are not nothing but an incredibly complex expression of the laws of physics.

Now suppose your mind is entirely the product of physical brain function. You have the exact same freedom to choose a route based on your knowledge, the aesthetic appeal, fears, and your skills. In both cases, these factors are the result of events in your life (e.g. the DNA that produced you, your studies, your physical conditioning and mountaineering skills). Why should the fundamental basis of these factors (physical vs immaterial) matter? I don't think it does. You have no more, and no less, freedom. — Relativist

In this scenario, there is nothing other than the laws of physics at work. The dominoes fall/the billiard balls bounce around. There is no possibility of anything happening that is not the result of those physical interactions, and the result can only be one exact thing. There is literally no possibility of any other outcome.

I'm not fond of strawberry ice cream. But if there's a dish of it on the table, and the dishes of chocolate, salted caramel, and vanilla ice cream are inside of unbreakable glass cases, then I'm going to choose the strawberry. Did I make a meaningful choice? Of course not. No choice is meaningful if I literally cannot choose otherwise, regardless of the reasons I can't.

How is an act intentional if there is no option but to act, and in that exact way?
— Patterner
There ARE options. See my above reply to Gnomon (the bold part). — Relativist

I understand that there are options. But if I chose which path to take when I hiked down a mountain the same way a boulder chose which path to take when it rolled down the mountain - that is, because of physical events (since "minds are purely a consequence of physical brain activity") - and, despite there having been many different routes between top and bottom for each of us, I had no more ability to have taken a different route than the one I took than the boulder had, then "agency" and "intention" are simply feelings we have for the results of physical events that take place in our brains. We call the physical events that take place when an airplane moves through the air flight; the physical events that take place in green plants photosynthesis; the physical events that take place as it rains on a mountain erosion; the physical events that take place as the earth circles the sun orbiting; on and on. The airplane is not even aware that it is flying, much less have feelings about it. Same for the plant, the rain, and and the earth.

How is an act intentional if there is no option but to act, and in that exact way?