|
On July 14 2013 08:15 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 06:01 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 23:35 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 23:21 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 22:36 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 21:40 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 21:27 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 21:09 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 21:05 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together.
[quote]what you said there implies a degree of freedom outside (unaffected by) determinism.
second, just admit it. you believe in a god and his name is determinism. there's no shame in that.
i also believe in a god but his name is I. Okay, since you didn't understand my full explanation, I'll just give you the simple version. You asked me what value predictable events have, and who would give them value? My answer is determinism does not make value judgements, people do. I don't actually believe in determinism and I haven't stated otherwise so to claim I view determinism as my God is laughable along with virtually all your posts. - but people are determined to make those judgements ... based on what other authority could people make judgements in a deterministic world? else it ends here first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. Actually it ends with you making it clear you don't understand what determinism means and me deciding to stop wasting my time on you. Conversation speaks for itself. nope, you fail to define the missing links between your deterministic processes. how, or based on what do you connect two deterministic processes/events?. I haven't failed to do anything. What missing links are you referring to? i'll take it slow then. you said value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. question: how would an individual come to have those believes or those non-believes?. what kind of event would give them those (non)believes?. (ps: in a deterministic world. we're not talking about compatibility here) You asked me a question before and I did my best to give you an answer but apparently it wasn't good enough, so I apologise if I'm "too slow" for you. Lol. You can however help me by answering the following question first.... What I'm saying is that events taking place in a deterministic universe do not have more or less value than those taking place in a nondeterministic universe because value is something that is attributed by people and not an inherent quality of an event. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? edit: Before I said "value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof." This doesn't conflict with determinism, I think that's where you're confusing yourself. agree on a definition: - Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen - Determinism often is taken to mean simply causal determinism, which in physics is the idea known as cause-and-effect. Causal determinism.
is causality outside determinism?. (uncertainty, probability, random causes)
it has to be if you picked 2, else you should've picked 1.
(causal determinism = when/if there is no cause, then there is no deterministic event happening)
|
On July 14 2013 15:13 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2013 08:15 Reason wrote:On July 14 2013 06:01 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 23:35 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 23:21 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 22:37 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 22:36 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 21:40 Reason wrote:On July 13 2013 21:27 xM(Z wrote:On July 13 2013 21:09 Reason wrote:
[quote]
Okay, since you didn't understand my full explanation, I'll just give you the simple version.
You asked me what value predictable events have, and who would give them value?
My answer is determinism does not make value judgements, people do.
I don't actually believe in determinism and I haven't stated otherwise so to claim I view determinism as my God is laughable along with virtually all your posts. - but people are determined to make those judgements ... based on what other authority could people make judgements in a deterministic world? else it ends here first, no one was talking about unpredictable events. there is nothing unpredictable in determinism unless you are talking about compatibilism which is a different story all together. Actually it ends with you making it clear you don't understand what determinism means and me deciding to stop wasting my time on you. Conversation speaks for itself. nope, you fail to define the missing links between your deterministic processes. how, or based on what do you connect two deterministic processes/events?. I haven't failed to do anything. What missing links are you referring to? i'll take it slow then. you said value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof. question: how would an individual come to have those believes or those non-believes?. what kind of event would give them those (non)believes?. (ps: in a deterministic world. we're not talking about compatibility here) You asked me a question before and I did my best to give you an answer but apparently it wasn't good enough, so I apologise if I'm "too slow" for you. Lol. You can however help me by answering the following question first.... What I'm saying is that events taking place in a deterministic universe do not have more or less value than those taking place in a nondeterministic universe because value is something that is attributed by people and not an inherent quality of an event. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? edit: Before I said "value is not an inherent quality deterministic events possess or lack, rather something that is attributed by an individual based on their own set of beliefs or lack thereof." This doesn't conflict with determinism, I think that's where you're confusing yourself. agree on a definition: - Determinism is a metaphysical philosophical position stating that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given those conditions, nothing else could happen - Determinism often is taken to mean simply causal determinism, which in physics is the idea known as cause-and-effect. Causal determinism. is causality outside determinism?. (uncertainty, probability, random causes) it has to be if you picked 2, else you should've picked 1. (causal determinism = when/if there is no cause, then there is no deterministic event happening)
Taken from the same wikipedia article you quoted those brief definitions from:
Causal determinism is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature".[3] However, causal determinism is a broad enough term to consider that "one's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way".[4] Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events may not be specified, nor the origin of that universe. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused.
There is never "no cause" in causal determinism so I don't know what you're trying to say. I don't really see the difference between the two definitions you gave me in the context of this discussion so I chose the simpler option.
Specifically I'm referring to nomological determinism
Nomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism. It is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws, that every occurrence results inevitably from prior events.
I put it simply earlier in the thread, when I talk about determinism I mean this: if you take a 10 second snapshot of the universe and run it infinite times, the same things happen every time.
Now can you answer my question?
What I'm saying is that events taking place in a deterministic universe do not have more or less value than those taking place in a nondeterministic universe because value is something that is attributed by people and not an inherent quality of an event.
Do you disagree with this? If so, why?
|
What I'm saying is that events taking place in a deterministic universe do not have more or less value than those taking place in a nondeterministic universe because value is something that is attributed by people and not an inherent quality of an event.
You can not say this as value is something attributed by people, like you said.
You could say: For me events taking place in a deterministic universe do not have more or less value than those taking place in a nondeterministic universe , but you cant say this for everyone and make it into a general statement.
|
It was a statement as fact, not my opinion. I can reword it for you if you don't like how it sounds:
Events within a deterministic universe don't inherently have more or less value than those in a nondeterministic universe because events have no inherent value to start with.
The statement means you cannot objectively say these events have more or less value because value is completely subjective in the first place. I absolutely can say this and you seem to have misunderstood me here, though it sounds like you agree with what I'm actually saying.
|
Look. Whether or not values are an intrinsic part of an event, or if they have any objective reality at all is a completetely different topic from determinism. vs nondeterminism. If values have any objective reality, which they don't, they would be supervenient on physical properties and so a deterministic vs a nondeterministic universe could possibly change whether or not the same value applies to an event. That is a lot of coulda woulda shoulda, and there is no logical pathway from causal determinism to the collapse of moral realism itself, only any moral realism that somehow is dependent on causal indeterminism.
|
On July 14 2013 18:58 Snusmumriken wrote:
Look. Whether or not values are an intrinsic part of an event, or if they have any objective reality at all is a completetely different topic from determinism. vs nondeterminism. If values have any objective reality, which they don't, they would be supervenient on physical properties and so a deterministic vs a nondeterministic universe could possibly change whether or not the same value applies to an event.
Correct. That's exactly what I'm saying ... Not sure if you're following the conversation here. It was implied events in a deterministic universe are meaningless and I was just saying that's personal opinion and doesn't logically follow from determinism at all.
On July 13 2013 20:05 xM(Z wrote:how does Show nested quote +Reason wrote:- Determinism implies predictability, not purposelessness. If you want to decide that events have no value if they are predictable that's your own business but again nothing to do with determinism. even make sense? what value would those predictable events have?. who would give them value?
XMZ decided apparently not to accept this and began questioning me...
|
Specifically I'm referring to nomological determinism
Nomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism. It is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws, that every occurrence results inevitably from prior events.
for that to be scientifically believable you'd have to prove:
- at macro level: how the singularity came to exist. so far its existence is an assertion pending prof.
- at micro level: how the value of form is different then the value of the sum of its parts and more importantly, why?.
(else, factor in infinity in that statement and rephrase it; keep in mind that when talking about infinity there are no prior events)
What I'm saying is that events taking place in a deterministic universe do not have more or less value than those taking place in a nondeterministic universe because value is something that is attributed by people and not an inherent quality of an event.
Do you disagree with this? If so, why?
i'd argue that the "value that is attributed by people" comes from outside the "events taking place in a deterministic universe" then, logic follows that one is nothing without the value imported from the other and the other is nothing without the event happening in the first one.
The statement means you cannot objectively say these events have more or less value because value is completely subjective in the first place.
unless those subjective values have the will to become/make themselves objective.
On July 14 2013 18:58 Snusmumriken wrote:
Look. Whether or not values are an intrinsic part of an event, or if they have any objective reality at all is a completetely different topic from determinism. vs nondeterminism.
if you would keep them separate then i agree, but when you bash determinism against nondeterminism and then proclaim a winner, then you get in trouble because such a thing would be unjustifiable and the irony of it is that humans call it justice.
|
didn't really read any other posts.
i think the mind is just a concept. we are like any other biological species except our brains are just developed enough to think about and utilize this concept.
|
On July 14 2013 20:15 xM(Z wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Specifically I'm referring to nomological determinism
Nomological determinism is the most common form of causal determinism. It is the notion that the past and the present dictate the future entirely and necessarily by rigid natural laws, that every occurrence results inevitably from prior events. for that to be scientifically believable you'd have to prove: - at macro level: how the singularity came to exist. so far its existence is an assertion pending prof. - at micro level: how the value of form is different then the value of the sum of its parts and more importantly, why?. (else, factor in infinity in that statement and rephrase it; keep in mind that when talking about infinity there are no prior events) What I'm saying is that events taking place in a deterministic universe do not have more or less value than those taking place in a nondeterministic universe because value is something that is attributed by people and not an inherent quality of an event.
Do you disagree with this? If so, why? i'd argue that the "value that is attributed by people" comes from outside the "events taking place in a deterministic universe" then, logic follows that one is nothing without the value imported from the other and the other is nothing without the event happening in the first one. The statement means you cannot objectively say these events have more or less value because value is completely subjective in the first place. unless those subjective values have the will to become/make themselves objective. On July 14 2013 18:58 Snusmumriken wrote:
Look. Whether or not values are an intrinsic part of an event, or if they have any objective reality at all is a completetely different topic from determinism. vs nondeterminism. if you would keep them separate then i agree, but when you bash determinism against nondeterminism and then proclaim a winner, then you get in trouble because such a thing would be unjustifiable and the irony of it is that humans call it justice.
I'm not here to debate determinism or scientifically prove anything and I'm not quite sure what you mean by subjective values having "will" or why you think values attributed by people "comes from outside events taking place in a deterministic universe."
Your responses, as usual, make no sense to me.
|
"subjective values having "will"" = it's when you give a greater then value to the believes of a determined system in detriment of the believes of another determined system. (the deterministic validation for the judicial system).
"comes from outside events taking place in a deterministic universe." = abstract notion regarding the inner workings of evolution itself. if evolution were to be a software, determinism and nondeterminism would be its 0 and 1.
|
On July 14 2013 22:07 xM(Z wrote:
"subjective values having "will"" = it's when you give a greater then value to the believes of a determined system in detriment of the believes of another determined system. (the deterministic validation for the judicial system).
"comes from outside events taking place in a deterministic universe." = abstract notion regarding the inner workings of evolution itself. if evolution were to be a software, determinism and nondeterminism would be its 0 and 1.
Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.
|
xM(Z, you seem unable to understand that the existence of values held by individuals is in no way antithetical to a deterministic universe. I personally do not consider the universe to be only deterministic, simply because of the existence of random phenomena (at the quantum level), but even if it was, there is nothing about the existence of subjectivity and values that would require stepping outside of determinism.
|
"comes from outside events taking place in a deterministic universe." = abstract notion regarding the inner workings of evolution itself. if evolution were to be a software, determinism and nondeterminism would be its 0 and 1.
What?
Whaaaaaat???
Could someone please explain this to me? Preferably not xM(Z who will only confuse me more. I don't even know what this could possibly mean. I like to think I'm an imaginative guy, but I am completely at a loss of possible meanings here.
|
This insanity is getting out of hand. All them philosophy majors chucking their jargon around, expecting the long words to make up for their lack of explanations...
|
On July 15 2013 00:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +"comes from outside events taking place in a deterministic universe." = abstract notion regarding the inner workings of evolution itself. if evolution were to be a software, determinism and nondeterminism would be its 0 and 1. What? Whaaaaaat???Could someone please explain this to me? Preferably not xM(Z who will only confuse me more. I don't even know what this could possibly mean. I like to think I'm an imaginative guy, but I am completely at a loss of possible meanings here.
I don't know, but I laughed.
|
On July 15 2013 00:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +"comes from outside events taking place in a deterministic universe." = abstract notion regarding the inner workings of evolution itself. if evolution were to be a software, determinism and nondeterminism would be its 0 and 1. What? Whaaaaaat???Could someone please explain this to me? Preferably not xM(Z who will only confuse me more. I don't even know what this could possibly mean. I like to think I'm an imaginative guy, but I am completely at a loss of possible meanings here.
I think he's either a troll, or he has a very... unique perspective on things.
|
On July 15 2013 00:55 Djzapz wrote:
This insanity is getting out of hand. All them philosophy majors chucking their jargon around, expecting the long words to make up for their lack of explanations...
Its not that difficult of a topic in my opinion. Anyone who cant write clearly and consise is either purposefully trying to make the topic more difficult than it is (smartypants) or doesn't really know what they're talking about. Usually the latter. There are some terms and ideas that may need explanation for someone new to the topic though.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't know what xm(z is talking about, but it seems, kinda, like(besides high school level bathroom stall scrawl) an often held intuition that determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility, with the characteristic saying that "if me killing u is already determined, then it's not my fault."
or something less extreme and with practical impact, "if i am intoxicated and kill, i am charged with manslaughter and not murder, because i am not in charge of my mind..."
my position on this shift between agency talk and functional/mechanical-descriptive talk is that this is not a metaphysical problem. it's just that assigning moral responsibility, representing some scenario as action, engages a peculiar cognitive system.
this "de-agentizing" does not happen just with determinism. culture, intoxication, mental disease, upbringing, etc etc "outside factors" all have this effect. as soon as you describe the same situation with a causal system that dose not involve actors and agents, the responsibility disappears.
|
I'm not sure why this thread had to devolve into a purely philosophical argument between free will and determinism.
Almost nobody in this thread is even referring to biological facts any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
