What's so bad about determinism anyway?
What does determinism even mean?
literally nothing
>>356590
>the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.
It doesn't matter to the majority of people. We have free will sufficient enough for people's everyday whims to fulfill the idea of free will.
>>356613
Define "will" and "free will."
>>356599
No.
>>356590
it's essentially a radical view of causation, saying that since our brain is run by natural laws, then everything is pre-determined, as all action is merely a reaction to certain stimuli.
Thus the universe and all life is just natural physical laws playing out.
It makes perfect sense scientifically speaking.
>>356627
>will
Acting on or intending to act on desire, choice, goals.
>free will
Always thought of it as will without fate and in denial of a deterministic universe.
>>356641
>Acting on or intending to act on desire, choice, goals.
And where do desire, choice and goals come from?
>Always thought of it as will without fate and in denial of a deterministic universe.
If not an orderly pattern, what does the will emerge from?
>>356633
>radical view of causation
I think you mean the only logical conclusion in light of of causation
Just a shucking of responsibility and personal accountability.
>No, I swear your honor! Events set in motion billions of years ago made me do it!
Is will a faculty, and what is this faculty's organ?
>>356648
>abloobloo i don't like the implications of your conclusion therefore it must be wrong
besides, the guilty must be held accountable regardless of it's truly their responsibility anyway in order to maintain a function society, to correct desirable behavior from undesirable
>>356646
>mfw people think they've established causation
>>356644
>And where do desire, choice and goals come from?
Our predisposition to behave/think in a certain way based on every factor preceding the moment we've conceived the idea to make choice, have desire, and craft goals.
>If not an orderly pattern, what does the will emerge from?
Gotta be honest with you, I'm wracking my brain trying to think this through logically, but I might be to stupid. An answer isn't coming to me.
To me, it is an orderly pattern already. Nigh in-perceivable quantum bullshit and other chaotic phenomena aside.
>>356654
The bit of your brain that analyzes immediate needs against long-term needs.
>>356633
Just as an example, You could decide with free will to ingest a toxic/lethal plant (motives for this aside) but what has lead to the particular plant being toxic, only the arbitrary history of human (mammal) evolution leading to certain species being able to be consumed safely and not others. Sure we have to free will to craft metallic ores into tools, but the fact that they exist with the properties they possess ultimately is what facilitates there being a choice to make
>>356675
>Our predisposition to behave/think in a certain way based on every factor preceding the moment we've conceived the idea to make choice, have desire, and craft goals.
If our will is created by every proceeding factor, than it stands to reason that 'determinism' is in accordance with the will.
>Gotta be honest with you, I'm wracking my brain trying to think this through logically, but I might be to stupid. An answer isn't coming to me.
Full disclosure: I think that's because the concept of Free Will versus Determinism is a false dilemma. When you get down to it, it's word games.
If the will exists apart from everything else that makes up the self, it's an imposition on the self, and contrary to free-will.
If the will emerges from everything else that is the self, it's dependent on the self, and therefor not a free will.
At the same time, we all experience the sensation of free will, but it's not clear how this sensation is actually different in any meaningful way from actual free-will.
>>356697
The way I usually phrase it is; if free will is the freedom to do something I wouldn't do, why would I want it? If it's the freedom to randomly do something that can't be predicted, what use would it be to me?
>>356586
It's wrong
>>356711
ellaborate
>needing "reponsibility" in order to justify prison
I love this meme
>>356708
I have a much more direct example IRL.
Due to a neurological issue, I will start running without warning and without deciding to. I'll even start doing it straight out of sleep or a shower.
This happens, near as we can meaningfully use the term "randomly".
It does not feel like I have significantly more freedom as a result of that.
One day, Diogenes was in the market when hr caught a man stealing. The man said "it is my fate that i should steal."
So Diogenes said "then it is my fate to hit you over the head with a stick."
And he did.
>>356749
>Diogenes
Most based man on earth.
>>356759
One hell of a tan, too.
>>356774
GEH OFF MUH SUNHLITE!
>>356721
We could be here all day. Just read a Compatibilist essay or something. W. T. Stace is decent.
>>356820
>>356586
nothing
>>356586
there is no practical difference between free will and illusion of free will
I'm a determinist who constantly battles with a colleague who believes in free will. I will say the one argument against it that I found most endearing is "So you think it's turtles all the way down?"
>>356633
I don't see what's so "mere" about it.
>>358300
go read more compatibilist papers/literature
everyone starts out as incompatibilist, not saying you will change your mind but there are plenty of good arguments as to why free will and determinism might be compatible
>>356826
Compatiablism isn't against determinism
>>356613
Completely fucking absurd.
Time is deterministic, but that doesn't absolve you of all responsibility.
How you came to an action is irrelevant, it's the action itself that you are held responsible for.
The idea is to prevent or discourage it from happening again.
You did it, so being responsible for it means you receive punishment so as to discourage the action from occurring again.
Punishment is a form of carrying out justice. Giving every man his due.
What exactly is justice is up for debate, but it's irrelevant to the question of responsibility.
>>356633
>as all action is merely a reaction to certain stimuli.
And you need to make a massive leap to tie this in any way to responsibility.
Saying he could have done otherwise and the question of whether or not that's true is completely irrelevant to assigning responsibility.
>>356656
>besides, the guilty must be held accountable
That's literally all responsibility is. Holding someone accountable.
Drawing a moral conclusion from a deterministic view of time and space is something that can only be done in a vain attempt to shirk responsibility.
>>356613
this is fucking stupid
if the green part is true then whther we hold people responsible or not is entirely NOT in our control
>>358504
Yeah, but justice is subjective in most cases, so who gives a fuck. Punish this dick, nigaaaaaa
you can't have it BOTH ways
you can't say there is no free will and then turn around and say because of this we should choose not to hold people responsible, or do x action or etc
if there's no free will, then I have no choice but to type this, to do this subvocalization
like everyone else, I'm just a robot acting out inputs creating output
I can't say "there is no free will" and then decide to change how I hold people responsible. whether I hold them responsible or not is NOT under my control. if there is no free will like some of you are arguing, then there is absolutely no point in debating because people have no control over whether to accept your argument or not, even the act of debating was not in your control
it's a stupid retarded idea and you end up saying nothing at all. you just end up saying that you're not really making an argument at all you have no control over what you're saying and couldn't choose to do anything including saying "couldn't choose to do anything else"
>>356613
That's incompatibalist determinism, especially the whole "external to the will" thing except in the weak sense that most determinists aren't soliphists.
But in he end, it doesn't even matterrr
>>356586
the bigger problem is the concept of guilt, it being innaplicable and irrelevant
>>356586
It's not bad, it's just that people mix up the fact that from your subjective point of view you are the actor of your own actions, and the fact that from an objective point of view your actions take place in a chain of causalities where the notion of "free will" doesn't even begin to make sense.
Thus people get mad because they think that determinism is equal to forgiving any bad action, when the notion of determinism takes place in a totally amoral space, outside of the world populated with passions and judgements that is lived through your subjective experience.
>mfw people think responsibility has anything to do with free will vs determinism
>>356586
As a vague determinist.
I find one question still stands, is racism just physics?
>>356586
It goes against the experience of having a free will.
Living strictly after the concept of determinism leads to just the problems your cartoon shows.
>>361311
cont.
It is also based around an assumption that is not provable, as there is no way of proving or disproving causation between events.
Also since it is impossible make any predictions about the future, beyond what is already known.
tl;dr it's an abstract idea that has no foundation in reality
>>356586
DNA changes over the course of our lives.
>>356697
>If the will emerges from everything else that is the self, it's dependent on the self, and therefor not a free will.
I am either agnostic or leaning against free will, but someone who believes in it would say that free will is something that the self exercises; it is part of the self and works in harmony with it. They would tie desires, hopes, decision-making, etc. to the self, with free will being the capability to act on those things.
But alas, this only reinforces the idea that the free will argument is just a word/definitions game, and so it might not mean much.
>>358504
What if there is evidence that a person would be unlikely to perform the action again?
Say, you find out some guy was a drug seller in his youth, but hasn't actually done anything wrong in the past 10 years. To an utilitarian, deterministic philosophy, it would be pointless to punish him.
>>358343
"Determinism" usually means incompatibilist-determinism. Compatibilists don't call themselves determinists, for the same reason they don't call themselves free-willers. That would be misleading as hell.
>the universe is deterministic therefore free will doesn't exist
Too bad it isn't. Quantum mechanics and true randomness exists. God does indeed play dice. An implication with a false premise is meaningless. I can't prove that free will exists, but neither can you prove that it doesn't and as such, it becomes an unfalsifiable claim not worth of debate.
Determinism doesn't call for the elimination of the rule of law, just new (and better) justifications.
To me, the thought process
>This person has committed X crime and should therefore be sentenced to Y punishment in order to achieve Z benefit to society
is better than
>This person is an evil criminal and deserves to be punished
Justice is not revenge and should not be treated as such.
