I did not put a positive or negative spin on events. The consequences (curse) of ones actions or prediction of future events (curse) can be motivations for change in either direction and can even be motivations for stagnation. How humanity as a whole and how individuals use consequences and predictions of future events is up to the whole and up to the individuals respectfully. This is the story of Genesis - a story of consequences and predictions (both forms of curses).
The ontology is pretty simple;
Blessing = positive/favorable influence
Cursing = negative/dis-favorable influence.
A “prediction” might have either attribute and possibly subjectively opposite for varied people.
It’s good that they tried, but Skinnerians weren’t very good with ontological word and concept usage. And as always, leave out the ever present third & fourth options.
They took a positive and negative then proposed a positive and negative of the positive and a positive and negative of the negative. Although that can be validly done, it is inherently complicating the word usage, at times incorrect, and is confusing.
The actual situation is that the trainer has 4 Command Vector options;
- present hope
- present threat
- neither
- both
) What the Sinnerians call “positive reinforcement” is merely (1), present hope.
) What they call “negative reinforcement” is (3), neither - present no hope.
) What they call “positive punishment” is (2), present punishment.
) And what they call “negative punishment” is (3), neither - present no punishment.
The strongest incentive and behavior reinforcing is provided by (4), both. Psychologists aren’t typically very analytically sharp, so they never saw it. There is a very special and scripturally significant way to do that, but Skinner didn’t get into it. Christianity and Islam got into it, but not exactly properly. Judaism (the OT) is almost entirely about (2) and (3) - avoid the bad at all cost, expect very little (if anything) in return.
And each of those religions produced exactly what one would expect from their “Command Vector” usage. None of them did it quite right and thus produced exaggerated behaviors in their identifiable directions; too much X, too much Y, or too much Z.
So you are saying that the Hebrew mindset had absolutely no concept of future (delayed) hope or punishment(threat). I find this very hard to believe as the future (tomorrow, later, or time to come) is scattered throughout the OT (in Hebrew and English). Exodus is good example of this.
For me, ontological word and concept usage is irrelevant to understanding. All it means is that if a person has the intent to understand then it will take a little longer to understand. If the person has no intent to understand, but an intent to criticize, then such a person will remain ignorant of the others ontological word and concept usage.
The human mind is relatively rapid and so it easily flicks between various external motivators (Skinnerian’s do not deny this). For a thesbian, this is experienced every time they appear on stage. For a person with a gambling addiction this is experienced every time they play texas holdem.
Naturally, certain philosophical views may have bias towards one “external” motivator and not the other. In a similar manner, certain parenting styles have bias towards certain motivators. Naturally this bias has the impact of exaggerating behaviours as that is its functions (to alter behaviour). Capitalism is one specific example where bias is towards certain motivators and as a result specific behaviours are encouraged.
One could argue that ultimately all external triggers should be removed and the person should be able to self regulate (but this is higher order thinking that a vast majority of the population, during all times, are incapable of doing despite them standing tall on the highest of mountains claiming they can). The problem that many philosophical views have is that they are rigid and do not adapt to the context (they continue to place emphasis on a certain motivator when the circumstances demand emphasis on a different motivator).
Humans, in general, are proud creatures of habit and do not adjust well to contexts.
In the context of the Hebrew mindset, God, the Father, was the administrator of “all” external motivators (present/future and hope/threat). Each human was the administrator of their internal motivators (will).
I don’t think that I said anything like that. From what did you get that notion?
emm … well, that says a lot.
Understanding IS proper ontological concept usage, and nothing else.
Under-standing = the concept foundation upon which you stand.
Also known as your “grounding” (as in “you don’t know … from a hole in the ground”)
and as “Earth” (as in Water, Earth, Wind, and Fire).
“Proper” for the individual using it and within the context with which they use it.
Transfer it to another individual and into another context and it “may” become meaningless (confusion arises).
Meaning, another persons’ ontological word and concept usage is irrelevant to “my” understanding.
Meaning, I will translate another world view using my own world view.
If I translate without deeply contemplating meaning (takes time) then “their” ontological word and concept usage is irrelevant to “my” understanding but is is very relevant to “my” ignorance (presumption turns us into fools).
Note: You removed future from your command vectors.
“Proper” isn’t determined by individuals, but by class or category.
Given the rules of mathematics, there is proper and improper usage (nothing to do with individual preferences). The same is true of any ontology or coherent understanding. Physics, for example, is one particular ontology (which happens to have some flaws). There is proper and improper uses of the concepts in physics. It is improper to refer to a proton as a negative particle even if you prefer to do so.
I don’t know what that means…?
James, I did not use the word preference. I referred to the individual and the context.
Let me requote what I said.
We are 
There is no “proper for the individual” unless the individual is alone with established rules of his own.
Else it is like a “bipartisan conformity to oneself”.
We are
Your will determines what the ultimate choice is, and your will is in favor determined by natural laws. To say that a piece of information is probably the deciding one is to say that from all the factors that contribute to the choice, that specific one appears to be the most influential, not that you can make a choice with no independent reasons, factors, behind it. Perhaps a better example for that would be if you took half a tablespoon of salt and put it on your tongue. There is no good reason I’m aware of for a human to do that unless to prove a point to another human (such as a bet or in an argument, like you do), or if the human is suicidal. Humans are programmed, hardwired in such a way that they are repulsed by salt alone and to immediately seek water or a similar substance after tasting salt, and if one human chose not to do it I would assume there is a reason to it, that it’s determined, depends on some factors. Is that human trying to prove a point? Did he lose a bet? Are his senses numb? Is he trying to dehydrate himself?
Determinism offers a much better understanding of human nature and reasons why we do things, free will explanation offers nothing but mere ignorance and mystery. Recognizing determinism is true ironically renders people more aware of their actions, needs and wants and allows them to manipulate, control them to an extent.
What would disprove determinism is something, an event or an action by somebody, that just happens out of blue, with no possibility of there being a reason, factor which contributed to it happening. Determinism and will aren’t incompatible - determinism and a will free from its influence are.
It’s a cogent inductive argument, I didn’t say it’s necessarily scientific but yes, science does make the same or at least similar assumptions about the human mind, otherwise there would be no such thing as psychology, if human mind and decision making is truly so supernatural and undetermined, there would be no way to study it if there weren’t for some patterns in behavior, order.
I am not sure if contingency is the right word to use in this context.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingency
thefreedictionary.com/contingency
I think what you mean is that you concede there is a direct relation between the physical brain and the mind, in other words, that the state of the brain determines the state of the mind. Mind and brain are actually more or less one in the same, just that different terminology is used - when we talk of a brain it’s neural connections and chemical reactions, in mind it’s concepts/memory and consciousness, both useful in different contexts, with former usually used in science and the latter in philosophy.
Brain is physical and prone to natural laws as everything else, is it not? When certain chemicals, such as alcohol, drugs and hormone injections affect our brain, they also affect our mind. Or a more extreme example, a shotgun blowing the brain off also appears to destroy the mind. Even if you claim that the mind is supernatural and non-physical, there is an obvious, undeniable connection between what we call the mind and the physical brain, so what you would have to argue is that something physical, natural (brain, chemicals, shotgun rounds) is affecting something non-physical, supernatural (mind)
To call something like that a theory in the scientific sense of the word is a misnomer - these are hypotheses at best. I repeat, in the scientific meaning of the word theory, there can’t be 2 different ones regarding the same thing equally valid at the same time. Newton’s notions about time and space for example were useful for some time and are still useful for measuring our everyday movements, but it was replaced by Albert Einstein’s relativity theory, which was a newer, updated, more correct explanation.
Logic is a way for humans to comprehend reality in a sensible, consistent manner - it’s a human construct, constructed based on empirical evidence of self and the rest of the world. I still fail to see how that criticism is relevant in any way.
Us humans have evolved in such a way that in order to survive we have been forced to admit that a predator approaching and attacking us, is, indeed, a predator approaching and attacking us and not a cute little bunny trying to hug us, in other words, that A=A. That is the basis of all logic. Our brains have evolved in a way that we recognize identity and consistency, but, most of all, our brains evolved to survive, which, admittedly, also sometimes includes the intentional/unintentional ignoring of logic and natural laws, such as belief that there is life after death, which, even if unsupported by evidence and outright false may bring happiness to the lives of people, increase bravery of soldiers and other things which help survive.
However, I don’t see how that in any way indicates that there is no reason to believe anything we think is in any way logical - as I said, logic IS a human construct, with its goal being describing the reality in the most abstract sense as accurately as possible. Language itself is constrained by logic, we can believe that something is logical if it is consistent and not contradictory. The mere fact that we are capable of making that distinction, between something being illogical and something being logical, is reason enough to believe it, unless you’re going to try and attempt to define logic itself as something supernatural, metaphysical or claim that there is no distinction then I honestly don’t see your (or rather, Haldane’s) point. Just another attempt at causing confusion by manipulating language in order to try and distort reality.
Science takes (rather justifiably I’d argue) many things as default, or, rather, as granted, without questioning them. It’s up to philosophy then to question such things. Science takes for granted, as default that there is an observable, objective reality around us. It also takes as default that our senses are capable of making reliable judgments about that reality.
Determinism is one of the most fundamental assumptions one can make about the universe, and it’s the one made by science, if there was no order and patterns science would be useless, as there would be no means of formulating a reliable theory about anything.
I’ve already expressed my skepticism (and admittedly, ignorance) of quantum mechanics. For all I know it’s all a bunch of malarkey. Whether it’s actually scientific I’ll decide after I thoroughly examine it during summer, when I have enough free time to take on subjects like that. So if you intend to introduce quantum mechanics to the debate, we’ll have to postpone it for a couple of months.
If most people in my country are white, then I can assume that a random person X is also most likely white. It’s cogent inductive reasoning, not begging the question. In my case, more than 95% of people are white so it’s an extremely reasonable, cogent argument for my assumption. In the case of determinism the argument is even stronger, as the rest of the universe which is determined constitutes 99.999999…% of the universe, only humans, some people argue, are different and not subject to the same laws all other things are. As for the human mind being deterministic, check my brain-mind argument above.
As I said, to that I’ll respond when I acquaint myself better with QM. If you think it’s crucial to the debate, we can postpone it.
Sorry for the late response, work has been kicking my ass lately.
The problem is that there is no clear empirical evidence to support this as it applies to the human mind. The only relevant question to the topic remains, are we morally responsible and accountable for our choices and actions?
I was referring specifically to how the human mind works, not determinism in general. You haven’t provided any way of potentially falsifying your hypothesis on how the human mind works. You’re providing no mechanics on how the human mind functions that can be empirically tested.
And once again the relevant question is are we responsible and accountable for our choices and actions?
Well to prove that the human mind makes decisions strictly deterministically you do need to explain the specific mechanics on how the human mind works and to make empirical observations specific to the human mind making decisions that clearly demonstrate that they are strictly deterministic.
Neuro science deals with the how, and there is no consensus on how. Some argue that it is deterministic, some (such as Roger Penrose) argue that it is not. There is not enough evidence to falsify any hypothesis.
This doesn’t address HOW the human mind makes decisions or exactly where in the brain consciousness resides. The mechanics of how the human mind makes decisions is what is necessary to establish whether or not it is strictly deterministic.
Or for that matter, where in the brain consciousness resides has not been established. As I pointed out, a young girl had half her brain removed and other than a slight limp and some vision problems, she is completely normal. Why wasn’t her consciousness affected in any way if it’s just part of the brain? Some patients were thought to be in a coma for years but were fully conscious the entire time. They were just completely paralyzed and unable to communicate yet their doctors were completely unaware that they were indeed conscious. Why couldn’t their doctors determine that they were conscious?
True, but in practice in every day conversation and usage, even among scientists, the difference between a hypothesis and a theory are somewhat blurred. Newton’s theory was quite clearly called a theory, not a hypothesis, for many years until Einstein’s relativity theory. The same with the Steady State Theory and the Big Bang Theory, both existed side by side until evidence began building for the Big Bang theory in the 1960’s.
But your point being taken, it just means that there are NO theories for HOW the human mind functions just differing hypothesis. If determinism were empirically observed as to how the human mind functions, then there would be a specific theory to that effect. There is none. My point remains the same, there is no consensus in science on HOW the human mind functions.
It’s relevant because to their point, there is nothing necessary in physical laws that would cause logical thought. In a chemical reaction I can precisely define how all the reactants will behave under the conditions, and precisely state what the outcomes will be. In other words I know and can explain exactly HOW and WHY the outcomes occur, which quite clearly demonstrates that chemical reactions are deterministic. Logical thoughts are not one of the known outcomes of any specific chemical reaction. Therefore logical thoughts are not simply the result of chemical reactions.
Haldane and others are more questioning the specific mechanics. How do the mechanics work given chemical and electrical laws?
However to the question of evolution, Darwinian Evolution cannot explain the origin of consciousness. It may be able to explain how consciousness was shaped in a certain ways over time, because the behavior that consciousness caused had a survival value. But it can’t explain the origin of consciousness, because it can’t explain how consciousness suddenly arises from just ordinary matter and natural laws. Natural selection can only work on something that already exists. Darwinian evolutional also cannot be the explanation for theoretical thinking. It’s not necessary for survival.
They’re questioning why any of the possible mechanics would yield logical thoughts. Neither chemical nor electrical processes would necessarily yield logical thoughts. As an analogy, if you had a computer that was programmed by random forces and based solely on the laws of chemistry and electronics, etc. without a mind being behind it, would you trust the output from that machine? Quite clearly no because there is nothing on the input side or the process side to ensure that the output is logical, or is anything but random garbage.
No it does not, science questions everything observable in order to explain why something has to happen given the cause. Science seeks specific explanations of specific things. Look closely at the definition above, absolutely nothing about explaining things by assuming, it’s …observation…observation…observation. The human brain is quite clearly observable so anything less than direct observation of the brain is scientifically unacceptable. There has been no necessary connection established between conscious states and the brain, the only thing that has been established through observation is that there is correlation between conscious states and states of the brain but correlation is not explanation. Science seeks explanations. Exactly how does consciousness work?
Also not true, quantum mechanics is not deterministic, it is probabilistic. Starting with the assumption of determinism as a hypothesis is perfectly acceptable, but a hypothesis without observations supporting it establishes absolutely nothing and is not science.
The fact that you are unaware of quantum mechanics demonstrates why one can’t say ALL things in nature are deterministic. We lack knowledge of ALL things.
But beside that your approach is decidedly unscientific and based on a philosophical bias and not science. Present observational evidence specific to the human mind, that shows that it functions deterministically, and then you don’t need to know anything about quantum mechanics because at that point quantum mechanics would be demonstrated to have nothing to do with how the human mind functions.
There is a complete difference between the probability that the next random person picked X is white and a truth statement such as “the next random person X picked IS white”. Your P1, “Everything that is part of nature is determined by natural laws”, is a truth statement. Now you are talking probabilities and unless you’ve established 100% probability of something, the next random person X picked can most assuredly be non-white. It does nothing more than establish a probability that the next person X picked is white, it does nothing to establish the truth of whether the next person picked is white.
What establishes with certainty whether the next random person X picked is white is to observe the next random person picked. If the next person picked is non white then your assumption that the next person is white is false. So probabilities is not what you have to establish. For the question being debated, you need to provide observations that the human mind is deterministic.
You seem to be changing your argument from one of a stated fact (“Everything that is part of nature is determined by natural laws”), to an argument of statistical probability?
There are multiple problems with this specific argument and this percentage assumption.
First as I have pointed out this is begging the question in regards to how the human mind functions.
Secondly, speaking scientifically, the human mind is readily observable so it is completely unreasonable to accept any such assertions without observational evidence. If you were to present this argument in a science class as an explanation for how the human mind functions you wouldn’t pass. It’s completely void of any detail.
Thirdly, you’ve pulled this 99.999999…% number out of thin air.
The numerator is the number of processes in the universe that are deterministic (both currently known and unknown). The denominator is the total of ALL processes in the universe. Therefore, the denominator is the total number of processes known, and known to be deterministic, PLUS the number of processes known, and known to be non deterministic PLUS the number of processes that are unknown that are deterministic PLUS the number of processes that are unknown that are not deterministic.
In order to make a statement like 99.9999999…% requires that you know both the numerator and the denominator. The fact is you don’t know with any certainty the denominator (or for that matter the numerator) unless you are omniscient. You’ve admitted that you don’t know about Quantum Mechanics so we’ve established that your personal knowledge can effect the number, so you personally can’t reliability calculate any such number. There are potentially many other things you don’t know that could effect this percentage.
However the bigger problem is that the number of processes that are completely unknown to anyone…is by definition completely unknown. If the number of processes that are unknown, and are not deterministic far exceeds the others then it significantly changes the percentage. Given that the set size is the entire universe, your percentage calculation is highly speculative. What is not currently known by the human race that might effect this number could be enormous.
This is why statistically making statements such as “P1: Everything that is part of nature is determined by natural laws.” is statistically unknowable and therefore logically invalid (unless one is omniscient). You are also contradicting your percentage statement above. “Everything that is part of nature” means 100%, 99.99999…% is not everything, and therefore P1 by your own argument is false.
Finally the only valid statistical estimate is what is the probability that the HUMAN MIND functions strictly deterministically based on the current evidence? Based on the current evidence (which quite frankly is very poor), in my opinion, at BEST, the chance that the human mind works strictly deterministically is 50%.
Your brain-mind argument doesn’t explain HOW the human mind functions. Per the definition of the scientific method, you need to provide specific observations of the human mind making decisions that prove that they are strictly deterministic. If you want to start with the hypothesis that the human mind is strictly deterministic you’re free to do so, but until you provide observational evidence to support it, you haven’t established anything scientifically speaking. You have provided no such evidence.
The question up for debate is specifically whether the human mind is deterministic, to assume it is deterministic because some other things are deterministic, is quite clearly begging the question.
Once again the definition of begging the question:
Definition of Begging the Question - A fallacy in which the premise of an argument presupposes the truth of its conclusion; in other words, the argument takes for granted what it is supposed to PROVE.
Etymology of Begging the Question:
The phrase “begging the question”, or “petitio principii” in Latin, refers to the “question” in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To “beg” the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.
You’re begging the question.
I don’t see it as being necessary to the debate because regardless of whether or not QM is probabilistic or not, it should be evident to you that arguing that the human mind is strictly deterministic based solely on other things being deterministic, and without providing any direct observational evidence to support that claim is begging the question.
Perhaps studying the current evidence for consciousness and how the human mind functions would be more relevant?