“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

 

[peacegirl]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

Yes.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

Yes.

Well I appreciate the honesty.

 

[DBT]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

 

[peacegirl]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.
.

If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.

If determinism is true, how else could it be?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

If past states of the system determine the present state of the system, the present state of the system is set by its past events. That, by definition and action, is how determinism works.

If the present state of the system is not related or determined by past states of the system, you may call it probabilistic or random, but determinism it is not.

We cannot attribute one cause of an action going back in time. There are many variables that come into play in determining a person’s choice. To repeat: The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present. Our memories, our genetics, and our environment all have an influence on the choices that we make everyday of our lives.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more.

At some point we have no choice but to discuss it.

 

[southernhybrid]

I will make my viewpoint as simple as possible as someone who has never had much interest in philosophy but who also doesn't believe we have much if any free will. I tend to bend towards determinism but maybe not hard determinism. I think of it this way, while I despise Trump and consider him a huge threat to the country, I don't think he can help who he is. Imo, based on my reading, he has symptoms of psychopathy, a disease of the frontal cortex, which we have no effective treatment for. Psychopaths lack empathy as well as any type of a moral compass. He also obviously suffers from the mental illness known as malignant narcissism and based on my decades working as a nurse who cared for both mentally ill people and people with dementia, he certainly exhibits symptoms of dementia. He belongs in a confined area, to protect the rest of us from him. I had a patient who honestly believed she was a queen with billions of dollars and she would get angry if anyone denied her that status. In reality, she was an older woman, poverty stricken and living in an assisted living facility, so she was harmless. He reminds me a bit of her, but he's not harmless due to his political status. As long as people worship him and agree with him, it's all good, but if you don't, he will say that he hates you, like for example Taylor Swift after she endorsed Harris. I'm not trying to make this political but we all know these people so they are examples of why I don't find free will to be a real thing. If we do have any, it's very limited. Based on reading some of these discussions, the jury is still out.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have prisons, it means they should be humane places that keep dangerous people away from the rest of society, unless or until they can be positively influenced. Sadly, many if not most of our current prisons in the US are far from humane.

I put it like this. We are all victims or benefactors of our genetic and environmental influences. So, imo, people can change to some extent based on the influences they are exposed to. Mental illnesses are hard to treat successfully, so that's part of it too, but if someone who is bipolar with schizo effective disorder, like my former patient the queen, is treated with medications that are effective, they might change. Effective meds for mental illnesses are rare.

I enjoyed reading two rather simple books about free will by Richard Oerton. One was "The Nonsense of Free Will" and the other was "The Cruelty of Free Will". I was already skeptical that we have free will, based on my life experiences with a large variety of people from diverse backgrounds, as well as having several mentally ill family members, but I liked the way that author explained it. He supports hard determinism. One doesn't need a degree in philosophy to understand his explanations, so the books were perfect for someone like me.

Have fun discussing one of IIDB's favorite topics. Not sure it's been determined for me to continue to post in this thread.

 

[steve_bank]

This debate is like eating salty peanuts and potato chips, once you start you can't stop.

 

[DBT]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more.

At some point we have no choice but to discuss it.

If determinism is true......

 

[Elixir]

I’m not arguing against the utility of the concept of free will, just its existence as you defined it.

The concept has great utility as you will see.

I have long known that. Which is why I’m not arguing against it.
The way I look at it is … who cares and so what. The existence or nonexistence of free will is of no consequence. It feels like it exists, and that’s it’s only job.

 

[DBT]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.
.

If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.

If determinism is true, how else could it be?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

If past states of the system determine the present state of the system, the present state of the system is set by its past events. That, by definition and action, is how determinism works.

If the present state of the system is not related or determined by past states of the system, you may call it probabilistic or random, but determinism it is not.

We cannot attribute one cause of an action going back in time. There are many variables that come into play in determining a person’s choice. To repeat: The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present. Our memories, our genetics, and our environment all have an influence on the choices that we make everyday of our lives.

A deterministic universe may entail an infinite Web of causality, much of it chaotic yet deterministic, where any given event may be determined by an interaction of multiple factors.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

 

[Elixir]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

Yes.

What was your username?

 

[peacegirl]

I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?

Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.

They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.

Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?

“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.
.

If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.

If determinism is true, how else could it be?

No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.

If past states of the system determine the present state of the system, the present state of the system is set by its past events. That, by definition and action, is how determinism works.

If the present state of the system is not related or determined by past states of the system, you may call it probabilistic or random, but determinism it is not.

We cannot attribute one cause of an action going back in time. There are many variables that come into play in determining a person’s choice. To repeat: The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present. Our memories, our genetics, and our environment all have an influence on the choices that we make everyday of our lives.

A deterministic universe may entail an infinite Web of causality, much of it chaotic yet deterministic, where any given event may be determined by an interaction of multiple factors.

 

[Elixir]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

We are also very similar to a rock rolling down a hill. We submit to the forces governing our actions, and follow the path of least resistance until our potential energy is used up.

I’m getting impatient for the astounding revelation portion of this program.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

Yes.

What was your username?

I hope you’ll stick with this thread. It was hard for me then (because people didn’t want to read) and it’s still hard for me but I think I am better at explaining the concepts, at least I hope I am..

 

[DBT]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

We are also very similar to a rock rolling down a hill. We submit to the forces governing our actions, and follow the path of least resistance until our potential energy is used up.

I’m getting impatient for the astounding revelation portion of this program.

But we have been given the ability of consent. Nothing can be done to us without our consent. The standard definition implies that determinism is doing something to us without our consent. That’s why people are up in arms. People know intuitively that they are participants in the choices they make. They are not simply rocks rolling down a hill.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.

True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.

 

[peacegirl]

Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?

It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.

We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.

Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.

True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.

You’ll understand why under the changed environmental conditions, we won’t be able to shift what is our responsibility to someone or something else in order to mitigate our part in an act that hurts another.