Determinism

[Magnus_Anderson]

@origami

The real question here, Magnus, is how would you know?

It seems to me that you just ask yourself in passing what “fatalism means to you.” I don’t detect a single minute of study or research. Just… whatever happens to have stuck from what you heard on the streets.

That’s no way to do philosophy.

Feel free to tell us what we’re doing wrong.

[Sculptor]

@Ben JS

@Sculptor

We make the future, if you prefer.

I do.
Alternatively, ‘contribute to the future’, as we do not make the future alone.

@Sculptor

[W]e are truly masters of our own determination.

We can act in accord with our will, but can we willingly act against our will?

No since whatever we will to happen is what we will. As schopenhauer said we can do as we will but we cannot will as we will.

I think our will was determined by factors outside our control,
so I wouldn’t take credit away from earlier origins -
we are not the masters of existence,
existence is our master.

I’m not trying to say that we are each masters of the future, but we are wholly responsible for it. The more people hear this the more they might be inclined to act mindfully, rather then washing their hands pretending that there are factor outside out control. Its having knowledge and awareness of such factors that allow change to go in certain ways.
When the evil act and the good do nothing evil prevails.

[origami]

@Magnus Anderson

@origami

The real question here, Magnus, is how would you know?

It seems to me that you just ask yourself in passing what “fatalism means to you.” I don’t detect a single minute of study or research. Just… whatever happens to have stuck from what you heard on the streets.

That’s no way to do philosophy.

Feel free to tell us what we’re doing wrong.

Well, you know Magnus Anderson, we felt that, that was what we were doing.

[Ben_JS]

@Sculptor

I’m not trying to say that we are each masters of the future, but we are wholly responsible for it. The more people hear this the more they might be inclined to act mindfully, rather then washing their hands pretending that there are factor outside out control. Its having knowledge and awareness of such factors that allow change to go in certain ways.
When the evil act and the good do nothing evil prevails.

My most recent post regarding responsibility in a deterministic world:

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 6#p2887626
[tab]

@Ben JS

I believe:

Everything is neutral beyond the bias of the living.
By our structure, we are influenced to prefer.
Good / bad only has meaning to the biased.

A universe of health or sickness means nothing to a rock.
To a rock, there is no purpose or interest to find purpose.

Any question, pursuit or dilemma are only of interest to the living.
Morality and ethics, are therefore only a creation to serve the interest of the living.
Beyond the living, morality / ethics are irrelevant and of no value.

In a deterministic world, we don’t have the ability to respond differently than was determined - so the word responsibility is strange [perhaps misleading] in light of determinism.

However, we can make commitments to seek certain outcomes. We can have expectations of/on ourselves, and each other. We can evaluate the primary sources that lead to a result. We can evaluate ourselves/others against the measure of our duties which we commit to. Thereby being held to account.

Duty - something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation

The law can impose duties on us ‘Don’t kill. Don’t steal’, also we can take them upon ourselves ‘I’ll mow the lawn tomorrow’. These now become expectations due to a commitment - law abiding citizen, keeping one’s word.

Then there’s duties that we consider implicit to an act. If you have a child, we consider it an implicit commitment to ensure the child’s wellbeing - even if it weren’t outlined in the law, which it is. Moral consensus - societal norms.

Let’s say hypothetically this current reality is the only possible reality. [not sure]
Let’s say everything we are or ever will be - are inevitable parts of reality. [i think so]
Let’s say hypothetically these have been irrefutably established.

Where does that leave us?

We’re still alive. We still feel.
Not all possible visions of a determined universe are of equal weight to us.
We for sure don’t know what our determined universe looks like in 100 years.
We’re not even certain what the next moment entails.

What do we do with our energy?
What do we do with what reality has bestowed upon us?

We are these biased, willing beings that have been shaped by aeons of natural selection and countless other forces.
By our very structure, we’re committed to the madness that is being - if only for a short time.
All the questioning, the seeking - it’s all a product of the structure.
Again, what is understanding to a rock? it is not the rock that seeks truth.

Reality is still as valuable to us in a determined universe, than a ‘free’ or random one.
Attempting to establish ethical behaviour which is conducive to our wellbeing, is still just as relevant.
Even if one looks at reality as a dream - we still endure it. We still take the good and bad on our chest.

We seek to exert influence in an attempt to realize an outcome which we prefer.
The systems we create, are an attempt to influence types of change on larger scales.
Making the case for ethical behaviour, is an attempt to influence future behaviour.

There can be morality in a deterministic world.
It’s that people ought not be punished for failing.
Rather, we could focus on influencing positive change in an ethical way.
Accounting for as many variables as we’re able, in order to be fair / just.
There very may well be justification for ‘tough intervention’, but we ought not be cruel or callous.

=

EDIT:

@semi TL;DR

Morality and ethics are a creation to serve the interest of the living.
Beyond the living, morality / ethics are irrelevant and of no value.

Duty - something that one is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation

We can make commitments to seek certain outcomes.
We can have expectations of/on ourselves, and each other.
We can evaluate ourselves/others against the measure of our duties which we commit to.
Holding people to account for volitional actions.

Reality is still as valuable to us in a determined universe, than a ‘free’ or random one.
Attempting to establish ethical behaviour which is conducive to our wellbeing, is still just as relevant.

The systems we create, are an attempt to influence types of change on larger scales.
Making the case for ethical behaviour, is an attempt to influence future behaviour.

There can be morality in a deterministic world.
We could focus on influencing positive change in an ethical way.

Your ‘responsibility’, would thereby, be to act in accord with your duties and expectations,
whether imposed by self or society, to the best of your abilities.
Unless you can make the case as to why we ought not apply a certain expectation to you, or others.
Failing this, it’s reasonable to hold you to account and attempt to influence you.

[/tab]

EDIT: It’s about that time again.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@iambiguous

How can determinism and fatalism – destiny – not be interchangeable

You can figure that out by analyzing the concepts attached to the words “determinism” and “fatalism”.

@MyTutor

In fatalism, we have one true “fate” and we will end up there no matter what. Our life may take whatever journey it want, but we cannot escape our eventual fate.

@iambiguous

Hard determinism in other words. On the other hand, why speak of “one true ‘fate’” instead of one true fate?

Not quite.

Hard determinism is the idea that the universe is deterministic and that there is no such thing as free will ( probably the libertarian kind. ) It’s probably not at all different from soft determinism ( the only difference being how they define the term “free will”. )

Fatalism, on the other hand, is the idea that humans are powerless i.e. that their actions have no effect on the world around them.

Determinism and fatalism are often confused due to people erreneously concluding ( via equivocation ) that a deterministic universe is necessarily fatalistic.

Only not in theory. How, given the behaviors that you “choose”/“choose” in a no free will world, is your life is destined/fated… but not determined?

No intellectual contraptions, in other words. Real behaviors examined please.

“Not in theory” and “no intellectual contraptions” means “Please don’t analyze the concepts ( what actually has to be done to solve the problem ) and instead do something that will most definitely not solve the problem.”

No, thanks.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ben JS

So if one’s will, and will-based acts, are necessarily defined by prior states,
and the current state will naturally unfold in accordance with the patterns of reality,
then can it be said one is changing the future?

What does it mean to say “A caused B”?

Does it mean “A caused B without A being caused by anything”?

Or does it simply mean “A caused B”?

If all it means is “A caused B” then when someone says “John started the fire” then all they are saying is “John started the fire”. They are NOT adding that nothing caused John to start the fire. In fact, they are saying NOTHING about what, if anything, caused John to start the fire.

[iambiguous]

@Magnus Anderson

@iambiguous

How can determinism and fatalism – destiny – not be interchangeable

You can figure that out by analyzing the concepts attached to the words “determinism” and “fatalism”.

Analyzing the concepts!!!

Thanks but no thanks. It’s never not up in the clouds of abstraction with you. I’ve given you plenty of opportunities to actually come down out of them…but that is clearly futile.

Let’s just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were never able not to bounce from cloud to cloud in a wholly determined universe.

Go back to KT. You and Satyr couldn’t possibly be more “two peas in a pod” when it comes to philosophy.

Given some measure of free will, I won’t waste any more time with you.

Note to Nature:

Did I put that right?

[PolandYoung]

every charlatan will eventually come around to trying to control language…you, the idiot SATIRE, as a local example…you saying to him you need ‘concrete’ examples is doing exactly this, to keep the discussion within some kind of ‘language’, mind control i.e. willing to engage ONLY if your requirements about language(which means thinking) are met and discarding everything else. another example is kidnapping definitions…thinking the process of arguing your point means simply shitting out lengthy definitions…like resolving the debate around morality by defining it…who am i even talking to??? monkeys have trees, morons have the websites.

[PolandYoung]

the man is a pig, he will rape you, strip you naked, brainfuck you, control your mind, deceive you…all whilst making you feel guilty and immoral and positing himself in a superior and angelic light…the dishonest, unaware filth like this…its a lesson…

[origami]

You guys take this too much to heart. I mean you’re gonna get worked up over a guy that will post something like this?

@iambiguous

Analyzing the concepts!!!

Thanks but no thanks.

Lol. It’s your own ditch.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Ben JS

Acts of the will contribute to the result of the future -
they apply their influence on reality.

In other words, what you choose to do has an effect on the world around you. And that means that you’re not powerless. And because fatalism is the idea that everyone is powerless, it follows that fatalism is false.

However, they can only do so as they were themselves were influenced.

That’s true but it really only means that, in a deterministic universe, humans have no power ( = freedom = ability = potential ) to make choices that are not completely determined by the past. In other words, it merely means that we lack one specific power.

If you lack one specific power, does that mean you lack all other powers as well? If you think it’s logically necessary to possess this particular power in order to possess other powers, feel free to demonstrate that. On the other hand, you just said that we have certain powers. You said that “Acts of the will contribute to the result of the future”. That means we are not powerless.

Or are we akin to puppets on string,
with respect to our capacity to influence the direction of the play?

In a fully deterministic universe, we are. Being a puppet is certainly a bad thing in many, if not most, cases; but is it a bad thing in this particular case? Why do you think being a puppet is ALWAYS a bad thing? Feel free to explain that. Why do you think the ability to make truly random choices is so important?

[Magnus_Anderson]

@PolandYoung

who am i even talking to???

That is the question.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@peacegirl

But to say we are puppets on a string makes it seem as if prior states force our hand against our will.

They force us to act in a specific way. They may force us to act against our will but not necessarily.

If you understand that a prior state is a past state which exists in the mind

The past does not exist in the mind.

The word “past” means “the sum of everything that existed prior to the present moment”.

The author of the book you’re trying to promote – Mr. Lessans – is part of it. Is he merely a memory in your mind? Or did he actually exist at some point in the past? Do you see the difference? Did he determine the contents of his book? Or did he not? If he did, then a past moment determined another past moment.

You are, as I said before, confusing the map ( memories ) with the territory ( the past. )

[Ben_JS]

@Magnus Anderson

And that means that you’re not powerless.

You have the power to be a medium through which the past is expressed in the present, sure.
The power which we lack, is to alter the trajectory of existence - to this, we are powerless.

@Magnus Anderson

If you lack one specific power, does that mean you lack all other powers as well?

No, and if you re-read my previous posts, you’ll notice I specified the type of power I believed we lacked.
We are powerless to cause meaningful change to the course of the universe,
as we are an inevitable, determined expression of past momentum.

@Magnus Anderson

Why do you think being a puppet is ALWAYS a bad thing?

This is a strawman. You may have assumed I was saying it was bad, but I never said so - nor do I believe so.
I was describing what I believe IS the case, not whether that was good / bad.
Feel free to point to anywhere I said it’s bad or unwanted.

EDIT:

This is the quote I think started this tangent:

@Ben JS

I don’t think our will has any meaningful impact on the outcome.
I think existence is going to unfold however it was determined to unfold,
and it doesn’t really matter what we want [what we’ve been determined to want],
because the outcome of existence is completely inevitable.

This sounds pessimistic, but afterwards I went on to explain that our will matters to us,
and it’s not to be ignored. But with respect to causing meaningful change, it is powerless.

And again, it’s very possible I may stop responding. Not because I don’t respect you [I do.],
but because I’m rapidly losing interest in maintaining this conversation,
as it appears to be leading to circles.

Also, even if you think you may be making a devastating point that I lack capacity to respond to,
it’s not that either - for what it’s worth, it’s easy to argue, even when one’s wrong - not productive though.
This is also not to say that I think I’m wrong in this case.

Feel welcome to respond, but know there’s a decent chance I wont.

[peacegirl]

@Magnus Anderson

@peacegirl

But to say we are puppets on a string makes it seem as if prior states force our hand against our will.

They force us to act in a specific way. They may force us to act against our will but not necessarily.

Peacegirl: Absolutely not. Nothing can force you to do something against your will if you make up your mind not to do it.

If you understand that a prior state is a past state which exists in the mind

The past does not exist in the mind.

Peacegirl: Where is it? Point to it.

Magnus: The word “past” means “the sum of everything that existed prior to the present moment”.

Peacegirl: That’s fine but the sum of all that was is not here and now. It is but a memory of what took place. These memories help us use our past experiences to make present choices.

Magnus: The author of the book you’re trying to promote – Mr. Lessans – is part of it. Is he merely a memory in your mind? Or did he actually exist at some point in the past? Do you see the difference? Did he determine the contents of his book? Or did he not? If he did, then a past moment determined another past moment.

Peacegirl: Of course he existed and I remember him. He made a choice to write his book because he made a discovery that he felt compelled to share. None of this was a free choice but to say that the past forced him to write it without his consent is false and is confusing the issue.

Magnus: You are, as I said before, confusing the map ( memories ) with the territory ( the past. )

No, you are.

[Sculptor]

@Magnus Anderson

@peacegirl

But to say we are puppets on a string makes it seem as if prior states force our hand against our will.

They force us to act in a specific way. They may force us to act against our will but not necessarily.

If you understand that a prior state is a past state which exists in the mind

The past does not exist in the mind.

The word “past” means “the sum of everything that existed prior to the present moment”.

Where does the past exist?

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

it makes an image/impression in memory

otherwise it couldn’t be remembered

but unless it is sustained in God’s (Time’s) substance, only now is actual/concrete, and past/future are still abstract…though (either way) he can show them in our mind…and maybe that’s even what now is

[Ichthus77 (Ichthus77 (formerly She™))]

^doesn’t negate freedom

[peacegirl]

@Ichthus77

^doesn’t negate freedom

It does not negate the ability (i.e. freedom) to choose. In fact, we do get to choose because nothing from the past is prescribing or forcing an action until we give that action permission. Until people understand this dilemma due to definition, they will argue that their definition is the right one when neither is.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Sculptor

Where does the past exist?

If you are asking “Where does the past exist in the present moment?” then the answer is nowhere. The past refers to the sum of everything that existed prior to the present moment. As such, it does not refer to anything in the present moment.

But does that mean that the past does not exist? It depends on what you mean by “The past does not exist”. If all you mean is “The past does not exist in the present moment” then you’re right. But if you mean something like “The past is not a form of existence”, where by “form of existence” I mean “a thing or a group of things that existed, that exist or that will exist”, then you’re wrong.

peacegirl is claiming that if the past does not exist then it cannot determine the present and the future. That follows if and only if what she means by “The past does not exist” is “Nothing ever existed prior to the present moment”. Otherwise, it does not. How does “The past does not exist in the present” imply that the past cannot determine the present? It really looks like another case of equivocation i.e. using one and the same term in two different ways while thinking you’re using it in one and the same way.