How is THAT determined? Huh Magnus? Huh Peacegirl? Tell me..

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Urwrongx1000

How is something “Determined”? Who determined it? You?! It’s you, isn’t it? YOU’RE the one “determining” what is determined. It’s a matter of faith, and a matter of what YOU personally believe in.

So according to you, everything is determined by “us”. But who is this “us”?

Are you talking about me? Are you talking about Magnus Anderson? Are you trying to say that Magnus Anderson determines everything that happens in the universe i.e. that he’s basically God, a supernatural being that gets to decide what happens at every point in time?

Or are you talking about Magnus Anderson AND Peace Girl? Are you saying that the two are responsible for everything that happens in the universe? Are you saying that Magnus Anderson and Peace Girl are deities?

Or are you talking about the humanity as a whole? Or the totality of all sentient beings?

Either way, your position is similar to that of solipsism and it’s actually quite reminiscent of Ecmandu’s.

The fact of the matter is that non-sentience also participates in the process of determination. When a ball bumps into another ball, it determines, albeit not completely, what happens to that other ball. How fast it moves and how heavy it is coupled with how heavy that other ball is determines what happens to that other ball. No sentience required.

If, on the other hand, this isn’t really your position, and you’re merely trying to say, in the most convoluted way possible, that my beliefs are false, then I don’t know what to tell you. You’re wasting everyone’s time.

Perhaps you’re trying to ask me ( in a rather silly way ) to prove determinism. If that’s the case, then I’m sorry to disappoint, but I actually can’t. If you haven’t noticed already ( which wouldn’t surprise me at all ), I have never stated my position on the “determinism vs indeterminism” debate. And that’s because I don’t particularly care, to be honest.

If it is in fact YOU that is “determining” reality, determining the rules, determining the beliefs, what is “acceptable” and not… then everybody else deserve to know. That’s how this is all run, isn’t it? It’s about what people believe, subjectively. Where’s the empirical standard? Where are the testing, of these beliefs? What is the “objective” standard? Is there one? How do you justify your beliefs, when you’re wrong so often and consistently? Why should anybody trust something who’s as wrong as you? Is belief primarily predicated on Authority, that who has the most Authority, is therefore most righteous? Automatically correct?

What beliefs do you want me to justify? State it, ask politely and I may do it. Until then, you are on your own, doing what you usually do, which is rant rant rant.

Why can’t you answer simple questions???

Why can’t you ask simple questions???

[Urwrongx1000]

Non-sentience causes, but it does not “Determine”. There’s your error.

The main problem with ‘Determination’ is that there are some very, very complex patterns in Nature—patterns so complex in fact, that genius level Mathematicians are required to identify them and model algorithms for them. A normal person cannot identify such a pattern, or if they could, could not express it mathematically. Thus, they might be able to perceive the same pattern, but be unable to explain it / model it / copy it / etc.

So understanding is based on Intelligence, directly, undoubtedly.

There are very high and low levels of “what causes what”. It is not among the lowly that “Determinations” can be made about such patterns. Because even if they were correct in their perception, they would not be correct in their ability to locate and understand the causes. This is why Mysticism and faith-based systems exist. Among the lowly intellects, they do not have the capability to understand excessively complex patterns. Their minds cannot compute it, cannot cognize it on many levels. This puts Humanity at a distinctly higher evolutionary level than say…a household cat or dog. What is “Science” to a cat? What is Determinism to a dog?

Animals may understand some rudimentary, very simplistic causes and patterns in nature. They can understand pain, and have evolved instincts to react to pain / threat / harm for example. But this is a very simplistic basis for Mammalian behavior. Humans have the same instincts, but among humanity, there is a minority of very high reasonability. Thus there is a wide range for pattern-recognition, and accurate Determination of Causes.

Magnus must accept this.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Urwrongx1000

Non-sentience causes, but it does not “Determine”. There’s your error.

The two terms are often used interchangeably. In the context of determinism, that’s precisely the sense that is being employed.

Google definition ( the first one that is offered ):

“cause (something) to occur in a particular way or to have a particular nature”

Cambridge dictionary:

“to control or influence something directly, or to decide what will happen”

Collins dictionary:

“If a particular factor determines the nature of a thing or event, it causes it to be of a particular kind.”

The main problem with ‘Determination’ is that there are some very, very complex patterns in Nature—patterns so complex in fact, that genius level Mathematicians are required to identify them and model algorithms for them. A normal person cannot identify such a pattern, or if they could, could not express it mathematically. Thus, they might be able to perceive the same pattern, but be unable to explain it / model it / copy it / etc.

So understanding is based on Intelligence, directly, undoubtedly.

There are very high and low levels of “what causes what”. It is not among the lowly that “Determinations” can be made about such patterns. Because even if they were correct in their perception, they would not be correct in their ability to locate and understand the causes. This is why Mysticism and faith-based systems exist. Among the lowly intellects, they do not have the capability to understand excessively complex patterns. Their minds cannot compute it, cannot cognize it on many levels. This puts Humanity at a distinctly higher evolutionary level than say…a household cat or dog. What is “Science” to a cat? What is Determinism to a dog?

Animals may understand some rudimentary, very simplistic causes and patterns in nature. They can understand pain, and have evolved instincts to react to pain / threat / harm for example. But this is a very simplistic basis for Mammalian behavior. Humans have the same instincts, but among humanity, there is a minority of very high reasonability. Thus there is a wide range for pattern-recognition, and accurate Determination of Causes.

Magnus must accept this.

And you have to accept that the above is nothing but a collection of extremely banal truisms that have absolutely nothing to do with determinism.

The title of this thread is really just a click bait. It has absolutely nothing to do with Magnus Anderson, Peace Girl and determinism. The entire purpose of this thread is for you talk about whatever random ( and as it happens, banal ) thing that is on your mind with the hope that you will impress those who open the thread.

[Flannel_Jesus]

The equivocation being made, that’s making all of this meaningless, is between the concept of how the universe “determines” the following states from previous states, and the concept of how humans determine things are true.

These two uses of “determine” are being conflated left and right by OP, which is why none of the arguments mean anything to the people they’re directed at.

[Magnus_Anderson]

My thoughts exactly, FJ.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no clue what claim of mine he’s addressing. He didn’t state it. Is he claiming that the universe isn’t deterministic? But I never said that it is. If that’s what he’s saying, he’s addressing something I didn’t really say; and if he isn’t, he’s either addressing some other claim or he’s addressing no claim of mine at all. It really looks like he just went “Hey Magnus and Peace Girl, look what I know! Do you know as much as I do? Do you!? Prove it! Prove it, goddamnit!”

[Urwrongx1000]

Oh nooooo, google says this, dictionary says that, I guess google and dictionaries are the final say on Philosophy.

How pedantic are you guys being??

[Urwrongx1000]

A Cause is not a “Determination”. But I see how you can confuse the two.

The Cause is “in Nature”. The Cause is Objective. It does not require human awareness or consciousness.

The Determination is in your head, your mind, often in your imagination only. The Determination is Subjective. It requires human consciousness and cognition.

No human = No determination.

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Urwrongx1000

A Cause is not a “Determination”. But I see how you can confuse the two.

The Cause is “in Nature”. The Cause is Objective. It does not require human awareness or consciousness.

The Determination is in your head, your mind, often in your imagination only. The Determination is Subjective. It requires human consciousness and cognition.

No human = No determination.

You are playing word games.

[Urwrongx1000]

Furthermore, Determinism usually claims and depends on the statement that, “Everything is Caused”. This is false. Not everything is Caused, or, you need to prove this claim. A rock laying on the ground is not “Caused”. It just is. It doesn’t do anything. Causation is a phenomenon of Change. It is a prediction of origin of change. People believe (subjectively) that somethings or some patterns are caused, when they aren’t necessarily so. This is because of the basis by which people judge (“determine”) changes in nature.

People are wrong, erroneous, irrational. So until this is accounted for, there is no ‘Objective’ measure of change, or sourcing of causes. Quite frankly, most people don’t know…and don’t really care, until it affects them personally.

This is why your One-God is entirely and completely personal. That’s why your understanding of causality, what you call “Determinism”, is also personal.

It is not scientific. It is not empirical. It is not objective.

You cannot even justify basic beliefs, on a philosophy forum…

[Magnus_Anderson]

@Urwrongx1000

Furthermore, Determinism usually claims and depends on the statement that, “Everything is Caused”. This is false. Not everything is Caused, or, you need to prove this claim. A rock laying on the ground is not “Caused”. It just is. It doesn’t do anything.

Observer will tell you otherwise. He even has a proof that determinism is true. Too bad he does not want to waste his time on this forum. You really need someone you will listen to.

But yeah, this has nothing to do with me.

[Urwrongx1000]

@Magnus Anderson

Observer will tell you otherwise. He even has a proof that determinism is true. Too bad he does not want to waste his time on this forum. You really need someone you will listen to.

But yeah, this has nothing to do with me.

Yes it does, you were categorizing Determinism on peacegirl’s thread, “Libertine Free Will”, based off the error you already recognized.

Free-Will does not depend on subjective determinations, but rather objective causes, which are independent of conscious-awareness.

You are either Free, or you’re not. It can be simplified this much.

If you are Free, then you are Not-Determined. You are Un-Determined.

[Flannel_Jesus]

@Urwrongx1000

Oh nooooo, google says this, dictionary says that, I guess google and dictionaries are the final say on Philosophy.

How pedantic are you guys being??

There’s nothing pedantic about it. Equivocating different meanings is a serious philosophical error and if your argument relies on an equivocation like that, your argument is bad.

[Flannel_Jesus]

@Magnus Anderson

@Urwrongx1000

A Cause is not a “Determination”. But I see how you can confuse the two.

The Cause is “in Nature”. The Cause is Objective. It does not require human awareness or consciousness.

The Determination is in your head, your mind, often in your imagination only. The Determination is Subjective. It requires human consciousness and cognition.

No human = No determination.

You are playing word games.

I get the impression that, from the beginning, this was all just a poorly formulated word game.

[origami]

Anyway, it looks like MA threw in the towel in the Determinism thread. Now she’s just calling peacegirl names.

When are we going to get to the real heart of the matter: the difference between doctrine and philosophy?!

Are we going to ask the difficult questions or are we just going to heil Hitler??

[Urwrongx1000]

@Flannel Jesus

your argument is bad.

Luckily for me, “your argument is bad” is not a valid counter-argument.

Everybody is entitled to disagree with me…as long as you present valid reasons otherwise.

“BUt bUt that’s not in the dIctiOnArY!” is also not a valid counter-argument.

Have you and Magnus tried thinking for yourselves, for once in your lives? Try it out, see how the glove fits?

[Urwrongx1000]

If you believe in Determinism, then you’re essentially a Christian / Agnostic / Secularist. It’s like an indirect way of believing in God—because “God Determines All”. That’s what you believe. You won’t come out and admit it publicly; because the belief-itself embarrasses you. What are you going to do without God, without Determinism? Be Free? Yeah, try that out for a change. But no, God’s enslavement is not easily shaken.

If God doesn’t “Determine” the universe, then what is the universe? What is existence?

Take God out of Creation / Genesis, and you get “The Big Bang”. It’s God-Lite. It’s Science (small “god”). Same pattern referenced, different name. Same “Cause”.

Explain the Cause? Nah, you can’t do that. And everybody knows why.

Let’s talk about Causality…go ahead, I’ll wait? Oh you were finished? Well allow me to retort!

It’s You “determining” the causes.

[origami]

Psh, what do you know, you don’t even know that Galileo, a Catholic, was prosecuted for arguing against Aristotle and thus opening the door for Newton.

[Flannel_Jesus]

@Urwrongx1000

@Flannel Jesus

your argument is bad.

Luckily for me, “your argument is bad” is not a valid counter-argument

Luckily for me, that’s not all I said. If your only argument against determinism is your own confusion in the meaning of the word “determine”, then your argument is, in fact, bad. You are confused and your arguments are confused.

[Flannel_Jesus]

You cannot disprove determinism without knowing what determinism is. As long as your arguments are couched in equivocations and confusions, you’re not actually arguing against determinism, you’re arguing against a position of your own invention.

[Urwrongx1000]

Pretty sure I demonstrated what Determinism is, along with all those (including you) who believe in this garbage.

Peacegirl and Magnus can believe in a ‘Determined’ (therefore un-free) existence all they like. And I will sit here calling them out. Is human Free-Will based on a Deterministic God / Deterministic Universe? That’s how you define it; therefore freedom is contingent upon that. No God = Freedom? Okay, have it your way. I guess you’re not free, and I am.

Continue to disagree and imply that I’m wrong, or inaccurate, or “not the dictionary”. Those are still not counter-arguments.