They got these neonazi discord groups and they work out talking points and share links and such. It makes them feel like they belong to something.
Like what Mr R does on Twitsers.
That said, everything has been laid out with traceable logic. Just cause you don’t like what someone says doesn’t mean you have to sound the troll alarm. Deal with the fax.
By all means, say what the basic premise is.
You’ve done a great job alluding so far.
The first paragraph on Wikipedia lays it out fairly well
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determi … iderations.
Determinism is a world view about casualty. It’s about an unbroken chain of cause and effect.
Which is why your questions about “who determines it” and all that don’t really contextually make sense. Most of the stuff you’re saying in this thread seems like you think determinism means something other than just pure causality. Like you think it has something to do with people determining things with their subjective opinions, which is not what determinists are talking about.
I didn’t ask Wikipedia. I asked you. Tell what you believe about it.
Yes, people “determine” what is broken and unbroken about cause & effect. How else would it be? People make judgments. People are unaware of these judgments. They are sub-conscious. People are not necessarily self-conscious. People are not necessarily aware of the choice, and [b]the determinations[/b] they make about reality.
As mentioned to Mad Man P, people have unspoken presumptions and expectations about “how reality should be”, not how it actually is. There’s a difference.
That’s the problem. That’s the “Un-Determination”.
I’m not here to argue for determinism. I’m here to tell you that the words in your post don’t make sense because they aren’t actually addressing the determinist position. Wikipedia’s words there do a good job at expressing the base position, I believe that.
It would be ideal if a person could go ‘blankly’ into experience and life, and “report back” what they see, what they observe, what they experience. In this way, it would be “unbiased”, hypothetically. Just report what you see.
But it’s not that simple. How does communication and language operate? Some people are better at communicating what they see. Some people lie. Some people have obscured perception. So what’s the net outcome? Who do you trust? Is this an individual determination, or a collective one? Is reality a democracy, we can vote on what is seen? Or does one individual hold some kind of secret authority that others do not?
So yes, what’s the difference?
I’ll skip ahead here to the next point. It’s difficult to remove Bias from the equation. It’s difficult for a subjective person/experience, to become “objective”. It’s difficult to monitor and assess the ‘corruption’ that a subject may have on objective determinations.
It reminds me of Intellectual Honesty. If two people are intellectually honest, then learning is possible. But if one has an agenda, a secret motive, then that motive will dominate the relationship. It will lessen it. Because Trust is easily abused.
So it is in analyzing Reality, ‘judging’ these determinations. It’s rare to find individuals who would go into reality “blankly”, as mentioned. This is especially true by how infants, and small children, are taught about reality from a young age. Education/indoctrination/propaganda matter. It changes the “language” of the child. It changes the interpretations. It affects, often times negatively, the judgments and their determinations.
Did you read Ben JS? He addressed your very point from the onset, did you read the thread? Maybe you missed it:
Patterns refer to Causes and Causality.
You identify a “Cause” by its pattern, in Nature.
So then why are you still saying things like:
–So “determinations” are based on people’s subjective expectations and predictions of patterns in nature then?
–And people determine “causes” from patterns which they believe are most predictable/accurate/reoccurring?
What do any of those things you said have to do with determinism?
…did I not clarify this already?
Because people do not know what is ‘Determined’, and what is Not.
That’s why I made this thread. Because Magnus and Peacegirl need to demonstrate how they know the difference.
Why does anyone need to know what is determined? That’s not a requirement for the determinist position.
I think your arguments aren’t landing because the determinists you’re arguing with don’t think the things you think they think. So you’re arguing into the void, arguing against nothing.
A person that openly prioritizes a collective over themselves as an individual cannot have a notion of what intellectual honesty is. At most, they may have read about it in a book.
It’s the same distinction as between doctrine and theory.
Yes it is. Why else did Magnus and Peacegirl keep dodging and balking at the point where Determinism meets Epistemology then?
Let me simplify things, based on what Ben already said.
People know what is ‘Determined’ by their ability to recognize patterns in Nature. Those who have greater or lesser capacity to recognize patterns, necessarily have greater or lesser capacity to judge what is “Determined” and what is Not. Because the basis of Determination, is predicated on the recognition of these patterns. Without such patterns, there is no “Determination”. Nothing can be Determined. Nothing -is- Determined.
This applies directly to Causes and Causality. Because a cause is linked with the pattern it produces. Causes are derivatives of Patterns. That’s how we know them.
Patterns exist. But Patterns are not ‘Existence’. Rather, what patterns are, represent the subjective-objective interaction, the “point” of a person’s cognition which synthesizes their inner psychology with outer reality.
What people believe are “Causes”, are something else too. Causality is teleological, meaning, that people make Judgments about where/when/how patterns “begin” or “end”.
That’s what makes film noir movies interesting. It’s the constant dichotomy between the intellectual honesty and accompanying individualism required by the detective to get to the truth, and his affiliation to a collective via his employers.
The femme fatale is the embodiement of this irresolvability. She herself is driven, from honest and individualistic motives, to a situation where her hands are tied by a collective. Femme fatale, lady of fate. She drives him to the point of having to answer whether he is using his individualism to serve the collective, or the collective to serve his individualism. Either case damns him. She will represent this damnation, either by dying and depriving him of what he wants as an individual, or forcing him to sever his ties with the collective that sustains his activity.
It’s only one approach, of course, Hollywood can only invest millions in so many formulas, but a nice one.
I do not think your attempt at paraphrasing Ben’s thoughts was necessarily accurate. In fact I’d wager that he wouldn’t agree to very much at all of what you’ve said here.
It’s also one of the precious few cases of mainstream amoral plot treatments. The collective that hires the detective is not in any way evil, nor are the criminals involved with the lady, really. There is also nothing really necessarily good about the detective or the lady’s individualism. These are just the forces.
This is where the noir in film noir comes from.
Well our individual BELIEFS about how the world works are certainly subjective… but how the world actually works is what we’re trying to (hopefully) get at. The measure of how true our beliefs are and the best way for us to test the truth of our ideas is to compare our expectations to our experiences, the more often they alleign the closer we must be to a true understanding.
Causality, by that measure, is indispensable for forming expectations that match up with experiences. Assuming something is random rather than caused is like giving up any hope of being able to predict or anticipate that particular event or experience. When we’re in a state of ignorance about causation, events will appear random or chaotic to us… but when we’re given a causal mechanism that predicts behavior, whether in objects or people, we’d be fools to reject it… until it proves to be unreliable, that is.
Having said that, it’s better to assume causation is there, if for no other reason than to give us motive to ATTEMPT at discerning a pattern, which if we’re wrong we’ll never find… assuming it’s random robs us of any motive to investigate further, we will fail finding any pattern for lack of trying.