Determinism and free will .

Choose one.

  • Metaphysical Libertarianism (free will, and no Determinism).

    Votes: 11 28.9%

  • Hard Determinism (Determinism, and no free will).

    Votes: 11 28.9%

  • Hard Indeterminism (No Determinism, and no free will either).

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • I can not choose between these.

    Votes: 14 36.8%
  • Total voters
    38
It is a matter of what you allow as A Priori.
Descartes only stripped it back as far as the existence of the individual, and a sentient acting individual at that.
Lax, I know.

As a Determinist, what do you accept as true without proof?
 
I'm not a "strict" Determinist (same inputs will give same outputs)... I tend toward the "probabilistic determinism" - i.e. determinism tempered with the probability functions of QM... and the apparent randomness of things such as radioactive decay. Which probably means it isn't really determinism.

And I wouldn't say I accept anything as "true" without proof.
If any evidence counters what I already have with regard a position I hold, then my position will change.
Practically one usually takes a position, but that doesn't mean one has accepted that position as "true" - merely practical.
 
Sarkus said:
Practically one usually takes a position, but that doesn't mean one has accepted that position as "true" - merely practical.
Click to expand...

Well said.
All too often (particularly in here...) people take the committance to a position to be synonymous with an assertion that it is 'true'.

(Actually, this charge is laid out whimsically here. Let's call this the "Fallacy of Metaphysical Extension" :) )


Big Chiller said:
Then you're not a "causal determinist' to make long story short.
Click to expand...


Strictly speaking, correct.
Mind, given the very general descriptions of the two possible camps granted in the OP, one could hardly blame good Sarkus...
 
Sarkus said:
I'm not a "strict" Determinist (same inputs will give same outputs)... I tend toward the "probabilistic determinism" - i.e. determinism tempered with the probability functions of QM... and the apparent randomness of things such as radioactive decay. Which probably means it isn't really determinism.
Click to expand...

There is also another kind of determinism than causal determinism?
What is strict "strict" Determinist or "probabilistic determinism" ?

Can you give any links in which, without doubt,someone deny determinism due to QM?And just because QM and for no other reason.
 
As far as I use the terms:

A system has "strict determinism" where the same inputs to that system always yield the same singular output.

A system has "probabilistic determinism" where the same inputs to that system always yield to the same probability function of outputs.

The latter could still be considered a form of determinism due to the output always being the same - albeit a probability function P(x) - rather than a single output such as "X".

But BOTH are forms of causal determinism, though... in that both begin from the understanding that each even is the result of a preceeding event - i.e. that cause and effect holds.


Where I'm on the vague edges of determinism, however, is with regard the nature of random things such as radioactive decay... and whether these are truly uncaused or whether they are caused but we just can't tell (yet?) what causes them.


And as for the links you ask - just google Quantum Mechanics and Determinism, and especially Quantum Indeterminacy.
There should be plenty of material for you, on both / all sides of the debate.
 
Last edited:

I asked because I have misunderstood you.
I thought you are deterministic,even hard deterministic.
But now I understand that you are not.


Sarkus said:
And as for the links you ask - just google Quantum Mechanics and Determinism, and especially Quantum Indeterminacy.
There should be plenty of material for you, on both / all sides of the debate.
Click to expand...


I have not found under the conditions that I mentioned.
I found nondeterministic opinions for which QM was one of the arguments against determinism.
 
Emil said:
I have not found under the conditions that I mentioned.
I found nondeterministic opinions for which QM was one of the arguments against determinism.
Click to expand...
Why are you looking for examples where QM is the only reason?
 
Emil said:

You're against causal determinism due to QM or is it your conviction?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't understand your distinction there. Quantum indeterminism seems to rule out causal determinism.
 
Emil said:

There are no quantum indeterminism so there are causal determinism.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is a counter-factual statement. Quantum mechanics says so, and it's one of most accurately experimentally verified theories in history.
 
Determinism as a philosophical position is hard to counter.
If we didn't have an overwhelming internal sense of making choices, I don't think anyone would argue against it.
So much of our life is conformed by habit, conditioning, state of health etc, that even I, taking a non Determinist position, accept that 90% of what we do is not in our conscious control.

Different Point.
I think there is a problem for Determinism when we shape the world in a way which isn't Utilitarian.
So, houses might be explained by Determinism, and offices etc, but the existence of the Taj Mahal, a monument to human grief, is harder to explain.
In fact, the whole of art is a problem for Determinism, isn't it?

If the mind does not control the body, then how could people make things that can only be understood by referring them to that mind?
I'll put it another way.
Why are there things in the world which indicate the existence of a human mind if that mind can have no influence in making them?
 
Last edited:
AlexG said:
I'm sorry, but that is a counter-factual statement. Quantum mechanics says so, and it's one of most accurately experimentally verified theories in history.
Click to expand...


You're naive if you think someone convinced of determinism,
would deny theory of causation because of QM theory.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
If the mind does not control the body, then how could people make things that can only be understood by referring them to that mind?
I'll put it another way.
Why are there things in the world which indicate the existence of a human mind if that mind can have no influence in making them?
Click to expand...


I personally have the same dilemma.
But I can not give up determinism.
post 17
 
glaucon said:
...given the very general descriptions of the two possible camps granted in the OP, one could hardly blame good Sarkus...
Click to expand...

What about you glaucon... do you thank humans have "free-will" (make choises which are not a part of a causal chane of events).???
 
cluelusshusbund said:
Do you thank consciousness is biological... or a seperate entity from the body... or somptin else.???
Click to expand...

Mind is certainly Biological, it is a function of the Brain.
Many experiments show that.

So it should be determined,
unless our understanding of the physical world is wrong.
Which I doubt.

To believe in free will creates a contradiction,
which I don't know how to resolve.

Consciousness does seem to relate to choice.
When you are learning to drive, for example , you are conscious of making choices, and conscious of mistakes made by making those choices.
When you are able to drive, you do it without thinking about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top