Determinism Is Self Defeating

[little_monkey]

I predict that tomorrow the sun will rise in the East.

[Koolay]

Right but whatever you are saying right now is to convince people to change their minds for determinism, so you are a thousand times more illogical than anyone that believes in free will by your own definition.

---

Think of all living entities as machines. Because that's basically what we are. Machines that have evolved, crafted and shaped due to the environments that they (and their ancestors) inhabited.

If you are calling me and yourself a machine, I see no point in trying to change your mind then.

[LastPoet]

You can always throw a wrench into the machine. just to see how it works out.

[Red Celt]

If you are calling me and yourself a machine, I see no point in trying to change your mind then.

You were trying to change my mind? Wow. This is awkward. I feel as if I'm in the metaphorical equivalence of your lover asking "is it in, yet?"

Which part of the "machine" comparison are you objecting to?

[paulpablo]

Free will is a delusion. A very attractive delusion, but a delusion nonetheless. Of course, we don't like the idea that everything we do was pre-determined as an inevitability at the point of the Big Bang... but if you can't accept that conclusion, you'll have to find a source for your alleged free will.

We are but billiard balls rolling across a green baize - magnified by several levels of complexity. As a materialist, I'd like to see some evidence of the ghost that alters the paths of those balls.

Right but whatever you are saying right now is to convince people to change their minds for determinism, so you are a thousand times more illogical than anyone that believes in free will by your own definition.

---

I think the flaw in your logic is that you're getting mixed up between a belief in everything that has happened was predetermined to happen, and a belief that certain things are predetermined to happen. For example you believing in determinism.

a belief in determinism doesn't mean that they think you are never going to believe in determinism because you don't right now at this present time, so it is illogical to ask why would someone who believes in determinism try to convince me of it if it has already been predetermined that I won't believe in it, because you still might change your mind, the mind of the person who believes in determinism isn't aware of what will or won't be determined neither is yours.

Although I just want to add I don't definitely believe in determinism, I think people who think about this type of stuff too deeply have just got too much time on their hands.

Doesn't that make you way more illogical than me then? I believe in free will, so I have an actual reason for trying to convince people to accept the position. But you think people are like rocks, so you don't actually have a reason for interacting with anyone, you failed your own test of logic.

If you know I am a rock, what are you doing talking to that rock? Surely you are wasting your own time and my time.

You don't understand determinism.

Determinism doesn't mean you are a rock, or people are rocks, or that one person cannot convince someone of something or change somebodies mind about something.
If determinism had anything to do with this then no one would believe in it, since it's obvious that
(1) People aren't rocks.
(2) People can manipulate or convince people of ideas.

Determinism means that free will is an illusion because you were already predetermined to do whatever you are going to do and whatever you have done.

If I talk to you and convince you that something is true that you previously thought was untrue this does not disprove determinism, because all determinism means is that it was already predetermined that I would talk to you convince you something is true of that you previously thought was false.

I believe determinism is perfectly viable as a concept but I don't spend too much time thinking about it, with this being the case even though I do believe determinism could be true I could still talk to someone to try and convince them of something, it just means I believe the outcome (which I wouldn't know what it was until it happened) would have already been predetermined.

[bennyboy]

Why do ask a why question here?

Had you asked a how question, how brain function is experienced as sentience, I'd reply with something along the lines of highly complex neural network, bla bla bla... we can't determine that with present tools bla bla bla...
But you ask "why"...
And a why in here, presupposes that some entity had some reason to do it like that... you can see where such a question leads, right?

I ask why because all the other parts of physics that I know about are interrelated: if you remove one of them, the whole thing crumbles. However, mind neither contributes to, nor at least on a subjective level, is contributed to by, the rest of the mechanical model.

It's a weird universe in which something so unnecessary is also so important.

No brain scan has detected the existence of mind, either. You show me a magic Mind-o-meter 2000 that beeps when it detects "mind," and I'll show you a machine that measures brain function, and accepts the philosophical assumption that where function X occurs, mind has occured.

fMRI.

Exactly as I said. No mind is being measured here. We aren't measuring sentience. We are measuring blood flow in the brain. It is a philosophical choice that physical monists make in equating them, and then saying: "Sure we are measuring sentience. See, look at all that blood flow."

That's why, if you lose a piece of the brain, you lose a piece of your mind, right?...

Nobody denies that the mind is supervenient on the brain (unless we get into idealism, solipsism, etc), or that there's a connection between brain function and mind. What is in dispute is whether it's possible to show that mind is ONLY brain function, and is therefore deterministic (assuming that a physical monism must be deterministic, which isn't guaranteed), or whether mind actually contributes something that pure mechanism can't. And if mind does NOT contribute something beyond pure mechanism, then why does it exist?

[Red Celt]

Nobody denies that the mind is supervenient on the brain (unless we get into idealism, solipsism, etc), or that there's a connection between brain function and mind. What is in dispute is whether it's possible to show that mind is ONLY brain function, and is therefore deterministic (assuming that a physical monism must be deterministic, which isn't guaranteed), or whether mind actually contributes something that pure mechanism can't. And if mind does NOT contribute something beyond pure mechanism, then why does it exist?

Turn off your PC (or whatever device you use)
Keep it turned off
Now use your favoured word processing software to write an explanation about why that software has supernatural (non-mechanical) properties.

Put another way, if software does NOT contribute something beyond pure mechanism, then why does it exist?

[pocaracas]

Why do ask a why question here?

Had you asked a how question, how brain function is experienced as sentience, I'd reply with something along the lines of highly complex neural network, bla bla bla... we can't determine that with present tools bla bla bla...
But you ask "why"...
And a why in here, presupposes that some entity had some reason to do it like that... you can see where such a question leads, right?

I ask why because all the other parts of physics that I know about are interrelated: if you remove one of them, the whole thing crumbles. However, mind neither contributes to, nor at least on a subjective level, is contributed to by, the rest of the mechanical model.

It's a weird universe in which something so unnecessary is also so important.

It is a weird universe.... but the universe would be there, even if no minds were in it...

No brain scan has detected the existence of mind, either. You show me a magic Mind-o-meter 2000 that beeps when it detects "mind," and I'll show you a machine that measures brain function, and accepts the philosophical assumption that where function X occurs, mind has occured.

fMRI.

Exactly as I said. No mind is being measured here. We aren't measuring sentience. We are measuring blood flow in the brain. It is a philosophical choice that physical monists make in equating them, and then saying: "Sure we are measuring sentience. See, look at all that blood flow."

Yes, it's also what I said before: no one has ever measured a mind, an energy whatnot flowing independently from the brain.
What is measured is a brain working. And it works differently when the person is doing different tasks. So your mind is then correlated with brain activity.

That's why, if you lose a piece of the brain, you lose a piece of your mind, right?...

Nobody denies that the mind is supervenient on the brain (unless we get into idealism, solipsism, etc), or that there's a connection between brain function and mind. What is in dispute is whether it's possible to show that mind is ONLY brain function, and is therefore deterministic (assuming that a physical monism must be deterministic, which isn't guaranteed), or whether mind actually contributes something that pure mechanism can't. And if mind does NOT contribute something beyond pure mechanism, then why does it exist?

OH, so you want to postulate that mind is brain activity and something else?
Feel free to do so... but do bear in mind that there's no evidence to support it.... only wishful thinking... and since we're wishing for it, I'd like my mind to do some magic! Telekinesis, teletransport, etc...

Why does a mind exist, when it's just electrical wiring? Because you need high-order functionality to interpret the world, evade predators, mate, eat, survive...
Don't you think you'd be a bit overwhelmed if you had to somehow keep track of each and every neuron firing in your brain?

[Koolay]

Right but whatever you are saying right now is to convince people to change their minds for determinism, so you are a thousand times more illogical than anyone that believes in free will by your own definition.

---

Doesn't that make you way more illogical than me then? I believe in free will, so I have an actual reason for trying to convince people to accept the position. But you think people are like rocks, so you don't actually have a reason for interacting with anyone, you failed your own test of logic.

If you know I am a rock, what are you doing talking to that rock? Surely you are wasting your own time and my time.

You don't understand determinism.

Determinism doesn't mean you are a rock, or people are rocks, or that one person cannot convince someone of something or change somebodies mind about something.
If determinism had anything to do with this then no one would believe in it, since it's obvious that
(1) People aren't rocks.
(2) People can manipulate or convince people of ideas.

Determinism means that free will is an illusion because you were already predetermined to do whatever you are going to do and whatever you have done.

I know what it means, but where is the reason and evidence?

[Red Celt]

I know what it means, but where is the reason and evidence?

Are you really sure about that?

"Only lifeforms have free will, that's why they call it life. Earth, the weather, stars, etc are deterministic."

The word "life" has nothing to do with "free will". Else, single celled organisms would qualify. Or bacteria? How about we jump up a few levels of complexity and ponder whether or not grass has free will?

I tried the billiard ball metaphor already, but let's expand upon that to see if we can get you to actually understand what determinism means.

Imagine a massive billiard ball table and (to extend the longevity of the thought experiment) let's imagine that the table is frictionless. The balls keep on bouncing and rebounding for a very long period of time.

Each time a ball hits a cushion (or another ball) it might be thought that the ball is deciding the angle it will take before that collision takes place. Each time it decides upon that angle, that angle is exactly what happens. The illusion of free will (and it is an illusion) is that those decisions are by choice. What we don't appreciate, however, is that every single thing that we do is predetermined by everything that has happened over the course of our life.

If you are driving along in a strange place and reach a T-junction, which direction will you take? Predeterminism would have it that you will always take the same direction.

Ah, says you, but if you remain lost and arrive back at the same T-junction, you could take a different direction. Well, of course you could, but the decision you make now will be different because the neurons and synapses in your brain have changed since the last time.

If you could freeze the moment in time when you approached the junction and recorded every single detail... and load those details back up again, you would always act in the same way. Because there is no Deux Ex Machina.

It feels exactly like free will... only it isn't.