The Secret Shame of Middle Class Americans

[Papers of Indenture]

What's the point of even discussing determinism? Seems silly. Wait it was our destiny to discuss it here on this thread so it's actually pointless for me to ask what the point of discussing it was. But then again I had no choice in the matter so I can hardly fault myself for asking a stupid question. Or am I confusing determinism and fatalism? Is there really a distinguishable difference if I have no control over causality? Oh well who gives a shit...i'm going to eat some Doritos and drink a Rolling Rock.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@BRUTE: Importantly, I agree that this is merely semantics (and maybe a little epistemology). I don't think we disagree on the metaphysical reality. I think I'm actually making an argument both against fatalism (not determinism, which I believe to be true) and for a strict definition of the word "choice", basically in the form of your Argument 2.

Simple Definition of choice

: the act of choosing : the act of picking or deciding between two or more possibilities

: the opportunity or power to choose between two or more possibilities : the opportunity or power to make a decision

: a range of things that can be chosen


Simple Definition of choose

: to decide that a particular person or thing is the one that you want

: to make a choice about what to do

IMO, only the second definition of "choice" seems contradictory with determinism, and only because it invokes the word "power". You could also quibble over the word "possibilities" in the primary and secondary definitions, which should perhaps be something more like "alternatives"; "possibilities" could imply branching timelines, multiple universes, et cetera, but even that is not necessarily incoherent with determinism and, indeed, may fit into a theory of determinism that accommodates for quantum-level random events.

So, suppose determinism is metaphysically true. I believe in determinism at present. It's still logically coherent IMO that I can also choose my beliefs as an intelligent being (this is where the epistemological part comes in). For instance, if Ego responds and says that my telling him about determinism ruined his life, or even better, if someone came along with a logically coherent argument against determinism, IMO I would have the choice whether to re-evaluate my belief in determinism. That what I choose is in fact determined does not negate the existence of the choice.

Likewise, you stated that since determinism is true, you don't have to choose your conviction to believe in determinism. I disagree; you do and did have to choose that conviction, it's just that there was inherently no freedom in how or what you chose.

Again, a minor distinction. But it's a distinction that IMO is a useful guide between the coolly scientific reality of determinism and the existential slippery slope of fatalism, which leads to the type of (patently false, IMO) reasoning along the lines of "It doesn't matter what I choose to do, X outcome is inevitable, so I'm just going to eat some Doritos and drink a Rolling Rock."

[enigmaT120]

Is belief in determinism a religious belief?

I suck at detecting patterns and don't believe in causality. But I guess I could have just been programmed to be that way.

[bryan]

It's an interesting topic.

Of course it stands to reason we can continue to improve our predictions as we continue to learn and observe more, though there are physical limits to this.

This is humans being pretty decent (compared to what?) at pattern matching and placing meaning on top of the patterns. I suppose certain emergent, repeating patterns of these tiny, complex factors are now what we call psychology, religion, ethics, etc. Math being the most fundamental way (language? English not bad too) that we come to name/understand these patterns.

Humans can create new patterns, or pedantically re-organize bits into the forms we desire. We can't yet create energy or make a big bang. I don't think creating energy from nothing is a pre-req of free will (not saying anyone said it was, just a point).

Just as we have ethics, psychology, etc, I think we have free will. I don't think you would have ethics, psychology, etc, without free will.

Going full determinism (fatalism) reminds me of nihilism, though nihilists would probably reject the idea of determinism but probably get along with fatalists? Never go full nihilism. Reminds me of the "Underground Man" who, as a person, I really can't stand and is the antithesis (I think) to the "Renaissance Man." (@jacob, do you like this label still? I can't bring myself to ever use it.)

@Spartan_Warrior interesting that you mention "coercive influences" like physics. I think I have a new "absurd" angle to troll/play with my anarchist friends.

@BRUTE

they are pretty good at detecting simple patterns like "random"

Humans are easily fooled by random versus non-random. We pick out patterns in truly random numbers and don't see any pattern in pseudorandom/deterministic series that "look" very random. Here is some deterministic values:

Code: Select all

1010000100101000110100111101100101100111111110001001000111100110100110101000100011011101010000001001000101100101010101001001000011110111100101001011010011001011101101100100111000101111101001000010011100111000001001000010011001010101001001000101111101100011

or hex if you think that would be useful or less ambiguous.

Code: Select all

0xa1 0x28 0xd3 0xd9 0x67 0xf8 0x91 0xe6 0x9a 0x88 0xdd 0x40 0x91 0x65 0x54 0x90 0xf7 0x94 0xb4 0xcb 0xb6 0x4e 0x2f 0xa4 0x27 0x38 0x24 0x26 0x55 0x24 0x5f 0x63

any idea?

To cut this experiment short.. I'll point out that it is some ciphertext via AES-CBC.

[Dragline]

this is typical of Harris, who likes to make up for flaws in his logic and science by using his "eloquence", i.e. muddling the words. see: all his discussions on determinism with dennett.

Sounds like what the ancient Greeks used to call a "sophist":

"a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning; or
a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments."

As the saying goes, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck . . .

But you know what I always like to say -- why choose one when you can choose BOTH? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

[Dragline]

In Consumerism, we worship a god called "Scarcity" and the high priests and priestesses are the Famous -- they are the most "Scarce", who dictate the preferred modalities of consumptive behaviors, and even get paid to do so. Occasionally, one or more of them is ritually sacrificed through public shaming and humiliation. There are also ritual shame and humiliation sacrifices of those who are "trying to be famous", like the failed contestants on reality-tv performance shows. In effect, we have resurrected very ancient ritual/sacrificial practices, but made them a little tamer. Still, we do shame and humiliate people until they commit suicide now and again.

Saw this picture today -- if this is not the irrational worship of scarcity, I don't know what is. People mindlessly trudging in a line up a hill knowing that about a dozen of them are about to die for 15 minutes of near-fame after expending excessive amounts of cash on a so-called "adventure" that almost anyone with enough cash can do: http://www.outsideonline.com/1915676/ph ... ing-season

Yet we wonder why other people are willing to blow themselves up for a taste of immortality.

[Spartan_Warrior]

For the record, I may well be guilty of sophistry, but I'm no compatibilist! I believe in a single timeline and physical determinism, in which choices exist (I'm choosing to respond right now) but meaningful free will absolutely does not.

In fact, my entire response to BRUTE was essentially meant to correct my initial statement in my previous post, which I felt came on too strongly in denying even the existence of choice itself. Rather, I believe that choices and the ability to choose between apparent alternatives both exist, but their existence is perfectly compatible with* and in no way an argument against either determinism or the lack of free will, because we cannot choose what we choose.

*A compatibilist would believe free will and determinism are compatible. I disagree; I only believe that the existence of choices and determinism are compatible and only by a definition of choice that does not entail that alternatives are actually "possible" e.g. instantiated in some other timeline. (And even if they are instantiated, IMO that would merely entail indeterminism rather than determinism; still no free will.) Perhaps another way of looking at it--"choice" may be better considered to be a psychological experience rather than a physical one.

It's open to debate whether this is an important or useful distinction (like I said, I think it helps separate determinism from fatalism), but I'm merely clarifying the linguistics of my argument, which is for non-compatibilistic, "hard" physical determinism.

@enigmaT120: Determinism is a metaphysical theory based on physics and causality. I would not say it has anything to do with religion. In fact, insofar as it challenges the notions of free will and personal responsibility that underpin most religions, it could be seen as anti-religious.

Fatalism, on the other hand, is sometimes linked with the idea that "something" is "guiding" the universe toward a certain outcome and may be entirely consistent with certain religious views. YMMV.

FTR, I am 99% Atheist and see no reason whatsoever to believe in anything beyond the physical realm. The 1% being merely an acknowledgment of all possibilities and also the result of some study of the paranormal and spiritualism.

[BRUTE]

@enigmaT120:

does enigmaT120 care to define "religious belief"?



@Spartan_Warrior:

interesting. if "choice" is used like "making a choice between different options", even a computer, choosing from different options by way of a predetermined algorithm, could be said to be making a choice. even though there is clearly no free will. in this sense, "choice" might just mean using a conditional branching statement like "if water is foul, don't drink it" or "if it hurts, stop doing it".

brute accepts this slightly different definition of "choice" as valid, as it's used a lot. he just hadn't thought of it in the context of free will. but he's still at a lack of what to call this type of choice vs. the free-will choice. brute will call them FC (free choice) and PC (programmed choice) for now.

if the topic is rolled up from the other side, what's the difference between FC and PC?

it could be argued that any choice is a PC if there were any factors (gun to the head of the human, predisposed to liking chocolate, physics) that lead to that choice being taken. if the same situation was maybe tested over and over in a giant reality-simulator, it would always (or mostly, allowing for stochastics) turn out the same.

but then the only FCs would turn out to be complete deadlocks (and therefore, in a way, no choice being made at all), or (mostly) random choices - which don't seem very "free will". hence, brute once again arrives at determinism.

[BRUTE]

Going full determinism (fatalism) reminds me of nihilism, though nihilists would probably reject the idea of determinism but probably get along with fatalists? Never go full nihilism. Reminds me of the "Underground Man" who, as a person, I really can't stand and is the antithesis (I think) to the "Renaissance Man." (@jacob, do you like this label still? I can't bring myself to ever use it.)

what's so bad about nihilism? brute considers himself both a determinist and nihilist.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@BRUTE: Yes, I think I agree with that. The concept of "choice" exists, or what you call "programmed choice", but the concept of "free choice" does not. If-else statements do seem an appropriate metaphor for how I'm thinking of it. When you combine the concurrent psychological experience of consciousness onto the physical events of the if-else statements, you end up with the concept humans call choice.

[Papers of Indenture]

@BRUTE: Yes, I think I agree with that. The concept of "choice" exists, or what you call "programmed choice", but the concept of "free choice" does not. If-else statements do seem an appropriate metaphor for how I'm thinking of it. When you combine the concurrent psychological experience of consciousness onto the physical events of the if-else statements, you end up with the concept humans call choice.

Why bother with the distinction unless you're into pedantic arguments about the definition of words. This doesn't mean anything to your average human. It seems like a distraction created by determinists to avoid charges of being fatalist or nihilist. It's as if they accept the reasoning behind determinism but don't want to live with the consequences. I've seen people lay out entire info graphics about this in a vain attempt to distinguish fatalism from determinism using this "choice" nuance. Wasted effort in my humble opinion.

[BRUTE]

@Papers of Indenture:

why would determinist avoid being charged with being fatalist or nihilist? brute admits voluntarily to being a nihilist. judging by the wiki definition of fatalism, determinism is a subset of fatalism, different from "god's plan"-type fatalism, but still fatalism. so again, no reason to avoid charges.

brute agrees that the distinction is meaningless.

[Papers of Indenture]

@Papers of Indenture:

why would determinist avoid being charged with being fatalist or nihilist? brute admits voluntarily to being a nihilist. judging by the wiki definition of fatalism, determinism is a subset of fatalism, different from "god's plan"-type fatalism, but still fatalism. so again, no reason to avoid charges.

brute agrees that the distinction is meaningless.

It doesn't make sense to me either but i've seen long drawn out philosophical arguments trying to draw the distinctions. There's even a website out there whose main dedication is to throw off the mantle of fatalism from determinism's back.

I don't really think about it much. Any talk of determinism versus free will seems like tail chasing to me.

"He who asserts that everything happens by necessity can hardly find fault with one who denies that everything happens by necessity; by his own theory this very argument is voiced by necessity." - Epicurus

[Spartan_Warrior]

I'm not sure what the wiki says, but personally I feel that determinism and fatalism are similar, partially overlapping, but distinct theories, e.g. neither being a subset of the other, though if I had to put it in those terms, I'd call fatalism a subset of determinism rather than vice versa. The crucial difference is that determinism is concerned with causal relationships while fatalism is concerned with literal fate, which implies that events are predestined regardless of the causal inputs. In a way it's working backward from the conclusions rather than the premises.

Consider the difference between this:

If A, then X;
If B, then Y.

And this:

If A, B, C, D, ... et cetera, then X;

In actual reality you don't get to pick any of the variables, since they are determined by preceding causal chains (e.g. either "If A1, then A" or "If B1, then B" and so on), so in many ways the conclusions and implications of both theories are the same; neither allows for free will or "free choice". However, if you don't see why fatalism is IMO logically incoherent, try substituting these values for the above variables:

A = I strike a match
B = I drop a match in water
C = I swallow a match
(et cetera)
X = the match lights on fire
Y = the match doesn't light

IMO, fatalism is not only incoherent, but opens the door for miracles and magical thinking beyond the simple scientific reality of causality. For instance, again, it is totally illogical to conclude, "Determinism is real, therefore it doesn't matter what I do today. Whatever happens tomorrow is fated to happen." Of course it matters what you do today because the events of today are what form the causal chain that results in what happens to you tomorrow.

RE: Nihilism; to my understanding, that's a very broad descriptor of theories that span many branches of philosophy, but boils down to denying the objective existence/validity/meaning of certain concepts. For example, you can be a moral nihilist by believing there is no objective morality, no objective good or evil. Existential nihilism would be denying a meaning to existence. Et cetera. (Correct?) If that is the case, I don't really see how determinism entails nihilism. I see myself as more of an existentialist--believing that the highest good is when humans make their own meaning out of life and the universe. Likewise, I ascribe to a mostly crudely utilitarian morality, whereby the most moral action involves maximizing that highest good. Note that this also informs my left-libertarian political views in that I believe governments should exist to maximize the economic/political autonomy of people who, given the reality of things like determinism, can't all be expected to be economically viable nor should they be punished for their failure to do so.

There is no reason IMO to conclude that either fatalism or determinism entails nihilism. Indeed, many religious "fatalists" who look forward to a fated Second Coming would probably reject every tenet of nihilism.

All that said, again, I admit my precise definition of "choice" and distinguishing fatalism from determinism may well be merely semantic, aka "pedantic arguments about the definition of words." But my epistemological philosophy inclines me to believe that language is a very powerful influence on our thoughts and beliefs. I'm also a writer. So, yeah, I'm into that.

Either way, I'd be interested in seeing those infographics/websites.

[Papers of Indenture]

@Spartan

Yeah i'm familiar with the causality stuff re fatalism/determinism and I understand the desire to untangle it from religion. It's just not an important distinction for my own purposes. For a dyed in the wool determinist to fuss over someone believing in fatalism seems silly to me for that belief must surely be necessary for the fatalist based on something that happened yesterday or whenever which they had no power to prevent.

It seems like tail chasing when you get down to it. What will be done, will be done....will be done, will be done, will be done.

I'm not denying determinism I just don't see the point in proselytizing or deconstructing it from a quality of life perspective. It's adorning a meaningless universe with a framed picture of a rabbit hole.

But my epistemological philosophy inclines me to believe that language is a very powerful influence on our thoughts and beliefs.

I certainly don't begrudge you for that. I commend you.

I didn't keep the links to the website as I didn't find them helpful to my own journey.

[BRUTE]

brute doesn't think that "whatever I do today doesn't matter, tomorrow will be the same" is illogical at all - if using the FC sense of choice. of course the actions taken at day n will influence the events of day n+1, but if there is no FC, then humans cannot change what those events will be, and therefore the events of all days are predestined. again those words, they're so imprecise.

to brute, existentialism is the phoenix from the ashes of nihilism. the nihilist accepts that nothing has inherent value or is inherently moral. therefore, meaning and value can only come from humans making their own meaning, creating their own morality, and so on. they are really two sides of the same coin.

brute has been described as a bleeding-heart-libertarian. it is interesting that similar beliefs in determinism and nihi/existentia-lism lead to similar political/social views.

in brute's view, a strong pro-free-will view will almost necessarily lead people to certain types of moralism, i.e. ascribing each success/failure of a person to their "inherent character". determinists will usually explain every success/failure as an effect of systemic influences like "this human had a terrible childhood". they are therefore less prone to moralizing against people, but always blame "the system".

brute thinks that a belief in "inherent moral character" of humans is a bit like the belief in a mystical, non-physical soul in humans, as in descartian dualism between the mind and the body. there is really no evidence at all for non-physical "souls" or "moral character" in humans, yet many humans really want to believe in it. in brute's view, this is to avoid their moral/ethical latticework from falling apart, because if humans are just products of deterministic, atomic processes, then it becomes really hard to justify shooting them/electrocuting them/bombing them/locking them up in prison.

these implications are the reason brute likes to think and talk about abstract philosophical ideas like determinism or nihilism. in the end, they do have great influence, even if the "practical" human doesn't like to consciously think about them, because he cannot detect the indirect, subtle influence.

[Spartan_Warrior]

"For a dyed in the wool determinist to fuss over someone believing in fatalism seems silly to me for that belief must surely be necessary for the fatalist based on something that happened yesterday or whenever which they had no power to prevent."

But that's a fatalist argument because it assumes an outcome is necessary while ignoring or downplaying the influence of causal inputs--such as the very fact that a dyed in the wool determinist is fussing over the fatalist's belief in fatalism, which could well cause (again, causality being key) the fatalist to no longer believe in fatalism. In which case there is nothing fated or necessary about the fatalist's belief in fatalism.

Therefore it would be wrong (or at least fatalistic reasoning, which I hold to be wrong) for a determinist to conclude that the fatalist's belief is necessary in the sense that it can't be changed by other causal inputs.

Rather, a determinist would recognize that every event from his own actions to the flapping of a butterfly's wings in China--regardless of the fact that these events are themselves also determined--plays a causal role in outcomes. Thus, without the ability to know all inputs (e.g. the state of all physical things at present) and all causal laws--and hence, to know the future--there can be no such thing as a necessary or fated event.

Maybe it's a meaningless distinction. Maybe it only serves to make me feel better. I do prefer to think of my actions as determined by causal chains than predestined by fate, and find it a slightly more useful and adaptive calculus, as I've outlined. If it's only good for that, AND it's not logically incoherent, then I'll take it.

ETA: Perhaps it comes down to this: I believe it is clear and in fact required by determinism that humans, like any other molecules, can be part of a causal chain that determines subsequent events. I just don't think free will plays any part in the process. So to me it is definitely not true that what I choose to do today has no affect on tomorrow; in fact, what I choose to do today is (part of) what causes tomorrow. It's just that I am not free in how or what I choose to do today.

[Papers of Indenture]

But that's a fatalist argument because it assumes an outcome is necessary while ignoring or downplaying the influence of causal inputs--such as the very fact that a dyed in the wool determinist is fussing over the fatalist's belief in fatalism, which could well cause (again, causality being key) the fatalist to no longer believe in fatalism. In which case there is nothing fated or necessary about the fatalist's belief in fatalism.

Therefore it would be wrong (or at least fatalistic reasoning, which I hold to be wrong) for a determinist to conclude that the fatalist's belief is necessary in the sense that it can't be changed by other causal inputs.

Yes I had unpackaged it in my head exactly along these lines so I do understand what you are conveying even if I do not think that there is a significant difference in human experience between pre-programmed decision induced causal chains and necessity. My Dorito post anticipated this very conversation.

Maybe it's a meaningless distinction. Maybe it only serves to make me feel better. I do prefer to think of my actions as determined by causal chains than predestined by fate, and find it a slightly more useful and adaptive calculus, as I've outlined. If it's only good for that, AND it's not logically incoherent, then I'll take it.

ETA: Perhaps it comes down to this: I believe it is clear and in fact required by determinism that humans, like any other molecules, can be part of a causal chain that determines subsequent events. I just don't think free will plays any part in the process. So to me it is definitely not true that what I choose to do today has no affect on tomorrow; in fact, what I choose to do today is (part of) what causes tomorrow. It's just that I am not free in how or what I choose to do today.

Fair enough. It is good that the framework is of use to you. I am almost certainly located on the bottom half of this forum's impressive IQ ladder so i'm probably less likely to think about this abstraction in the first place. I'll quibble no longer.

Where in Baltimore are you located? I'm in Glen Arm.

[enigmaT120]

Religion = postulates.

The thread sure got more interesting than the OP.

[BRUTE]

brute does not know what postulates are. wikipedia redirects to 'axioms'. religion = axioms?