Determinism Is Self Defeating

[Whateverist]

I have always considered determinism to be completely irrational for the following reason:

If a determinist is trying to convince me to change my mind and accept determinism, then he or she is accepting that I have free will and can choose between accepting the two theories.

It's like someone talking to you, saying "you can't hear anything" - well if I can't hear then why are you talking to me? Doesn't that make you completely irrational?

It's as simple as that, to win a debate with a determinist you just need to let the determinist talk.

The only reason why I think determinists have this position is not because of logical effort, (A child can tell you that an animal is different from a rock.) But it's more than likely that determinismt believes this to avoid responsibility for their actions, and let's face it, that's very attractive to some people.

My 2 cents.

The human brain works in a very complex way. Thus far, we can't recreate the complexity of the brain with computers, unless in some very basic and highly dumbed down way.

The brain works with inputs from the outside and all it's inner connections to produce a deterministic outcome. The thing is... there are millions and millions of neural pathways, neural connections, each dealing with some form of information in a way we can't yet decipher. And this neural connectivity is ever changing, either through outside input, or through its own workings (thinking).
In the end, it looks like there's free will, and no determinism... but down deep, it's very deterministic, but also very complex, if not chaotic. And it's this chaotic nature which gives it the impression of non-determinism.

Oh, and I seriously doubt that our brain work with standard binary computer logic.... I'd guess it has a number of "maybe" states for each decision and picks the one with the highest maybe level... it is, after all, a gray area...

That's pretty gray but I think I see where you're coming from.

[pocaracas]

Let's say you are working with QM. You say it's deterministic, but unknowable. I happen to know that there's a high-level physicist on this site, and I believe he will disagree with that (i.e. I remember him having said something in the past that I think disagreed with that).

"High-level" lol.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that we cannot know precisely both the speed and position of any given particle....
But... just because we can't measure it, it doesn't mean that the particle can't be at a given location and with a given velocity... does it?
Well, all particles must have some length, so a precise position is a strange concept, unless you go for the position of the center, where QM gives you the maximum of the wave function... which tends to be the same.

However, on a slightly less nanoscopic level, these uncertainties become a bit less pronounced and statistics takes over... the averaged wave function gets interpreted as a probability distribution and you get a very accurate (as far we've been able to measure it) probability for each state of the particle.
And, armed with those probabilities, you can determine the what's going to happen and how often.

But what do I know? I'm just a low-level physicist...

[paulpablo]

I have always considered determinism to be completely irrational for the following reason:

If a determinist is trying to convince me to change my mind and accept determinism, then he or she is accepting that I have free will and can choose between accepting the two theories.

It's like someone talking to you, saying "you can't hear anything" - well if I can't hear then why are you talking to me? Doesn't that make you completely irrational?

It's as simple as that, to win a debate with a determinist you just need to let the determinist talk.

The only reason why I think determinists have this position is not because of logical effort, (A child can tell you that an animal is different from a rock.) But it's more than likely that determinismt believes this to avoid responsibility for their actions, and let's face it, that's very attractive to some people.

I pretty much believe determinism works out, but this doesn't mean someones mind can't be changed by someone else, it can be but it was always bound to happen due to the given conditions. It would be nonsense for me to throw away all responsibilities by saying "it was pre determined to happen" unless I can see what was bound to happen retrospectively, since being able to view yourself in the present from the future is impossible using determinism as a tool to get rid of responsibilities would also be impossible.
And I still feel guilt over actions I've taken and I still feel proud of accomplishments I've achieved, just because I believe they were always bound to happen due to the circumstances doesn't mean the accomplishments didn't take a lot of effort.

[genkaus]

I have always considered determinism to be completely irrational for the following reason:

If a determinist is trying to convince me to change my mind and accept determinism, then he or she is accepting that I have free will and can choose between accepting the two theories.

It's like someone talking to you, saying "you can't hear anything" - well if I can't hear then why are you talking to me? Doesn't that make you completely irrational?

It's as simple as that, to win a debate with a determinist you just need to let the determinist talk.

The only reason why I think determinists have this position is not because of logical effort, (A child can tell you that an animal is different from a rock.) But it's more than likely that determinismt believes this to avoid responsibility for their actions, and let's face it, that's very attractive to some people.

I've heard some good arguments against determinism - but this is not one of them. If I was a determinist, my view would be that you believe in free-will because you've been taught to do so or because you've accepted some incorrect premises that logically led you to conclude free-will or that you are made certain errors in logic that led you to incorrectly conclude free-will. My arguments, then, aim to provide the suitable corrective influence that would eventually and inevitably lead you to the correct conclusion of determinism.

[Koolay]

I've heard some good arguments against determinism - but this is not one of them. If I was a determinist, my view would be that you believe in free-will because you've been taught to do so or because you've accepted some incorrect premises that logically led you to conclude free-will or that you are made certain errors in logic that led you to incorrectly conclude free-will.

Alright, then you can tell me the logical error I have made.

My arguments, then, aim to provide the suitable corrective influence that would eventually and inevitably lead you to the correct conclusion of determinism.

Okay?

[Red Celt]

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.

[paulpablo]

I've heard some good arguments against determinism - but this is not one of them. If I was a determinist, my view would be that you believe in free-will because you've been taught to do so or because you've accepted some incorrect premises that logically led you to conclude free-will or that you are made certain errors in logic that led you to incorrectly conclude free-will.

Alright, then you can tell me the logical error I have made.

My arguments, then, aim to provide the suitable corrective influence that would eventually and inevitably lead you to the correct conclusion of determinism.

Okay?

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.

[genkaus]

I've heard some good arguments against determinism - but this is not one of them. If I was a determinist, my view would be that you believe in free-will because you've been taught to do so or because you've accepted some incorrect premises that logically led you to conclude free-will or that you are made certain errors in logic that led you to incorrectly conclude free-will.

Alright, then you can tell me the logical error I have made.

My arguments, then, aim to provide the suitable corrective influence that would eventually and inevitably lead you to the correct conclusion of determinism.

Okay?

What, no counter?

[Ryantology]

I believe in some limited form of free will because I perceive myself to have it. If the universe is deterministic (and it may very well be), it's a machine operating on such an immense scale that I can't track but the tiniest fraction of causative events to their own causative events, nor can I influence the vast majority of the effects, so it doesn't make a practical difference to my perception either way. I'm just one tiny fish in a tremendous ocean. I'll only make so many ripples and only observe so many.

[Koolay]

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.

---

Alright, then you can tell me the logical error I have made.


Okay?

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.