Determinism Is Self Defeating

[paulpablo]

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?

Your first post clearly gave the impression you don't know what it means at all that's why I gave an explanation, I've never claimed to have proof of determinism I just believe it is something that is a very plausible way of looking at things, I don't even really care about it. The only claim I'm making is that you obviously didn't understand determinism because it has nothing to do with humans being rocks or communication between living things being futile.

[bennyboy]

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

So you mean all that wonderful mechanism could still tick along with no sentience at all? 1) Agree; 2) How could we possibly prove that to someone who didn't believe it?

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 a pretty funny definition of mind. My definition is "subjective awareness of thoughts and ideas." And who says that an inability to measure something means it isn't realy? That's pretty science-y but not really true-y.

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...

I don't need to postulate any theories, since the existence of mind stands as brute fact. You are saying that mind is identical to brain function; however, to me this is an abuse of what the word means; mind is experienced, and can only be subjective; the brain is an object and can only be objective.

To demand that the mind be seen as objective is to invoke Monty Python's parrot: "It's not dead. It's pining." Except it isn't.

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?

Who's this "you" you're talking about, who is making a willful attempt to track and react to data? I think you mean "the brain function referred to for the sake of convenience as bennyboy," right?

Ahh, but here's your problem. If you want to take the ghosts out of the machine, you have to take them ALL out: not just free will, but also love and anger, as well as your own self-identity, which is much more an idea than a physical reality. You look yourself in the mirror and say, "You don't exist except as a symbolic representation of the activities of quantum particles AND NOTHING MORE" And if you can do that and believe it, then I'll start thinking you have a point about free will and the mind.

[little_monkey]

Here's a thought. All living things die. Their living molecular stuff will all turn to inert stuff. And whatever free will you may have, you can't escape that fate.

HENCE, DETERMINISM RULES.

[bennyboy]

Here's a thought. All living things die. Their living molecular stuff will all turn to inert stuff. And whatever free will you may have, you can't escape that fate.

HENCE, DETERMINISM RULES.

1) You haven't proven to me that I'll die. My survival rate so far is 100%-- and you can't argue with a powerful statistic like that.

2) Yes, we all die (and by "we," I mean "speak for yourself, Bubba"). But we get to choose from such a rich variety of ways to die.

HENCE, KURT COBAIN RULES. (oops, I meant free will)

[little_monkey]

Here's a thought. All living things die. Their living molecular stuff will all turn to inert stuff. And whatever free will you may have, you can't escape that fate.

HENCE, DETERMINISM RULES.

1) You haven't proven to me that I'll die. My survival rate so far is 100%-- and you can't argue with a powerful statistic like that.

2) Yes, we all die (and by "we," I mean "speak for yourself, Bubba"). But we get to choose from such a rich variety of ways to die.

HENCE, KURT COBAIN RULES. (oops, I meant free will)

You've got a point: you can choose between dying now or later.

BUT, for the 13.7 billion years in the existence of the universe, it matters not.

[Angrboda]

You look yourself in the mirror and say, "You don't exist except as a symbolic representation of the activities of quantum particles AND NOTHING MORE" And if you can do that and believe it, then I'll start thinking you have a point about free will and the mind.

ChadWooters, a Swedenborgian who hasn't been seen round here of late, consistently would challenge me to deny the brute fact of subjective experience. I don't deny the so-called "brute fact" itself, I deny his and your interpretation of that brute fact. Your interpretation of it, and the fact itself, are not one and the same. That would be like asking me to deny that the earth around me is flat as far as I can see, and then when I tell you that, in spite of this, the earth is a globe, you telling me that I can't deny the "brute fact" of my experience of the earth as being flat. You're substituting a debatable interpretation filled with hollow inferences for a fact of the matter, and it doesn't wash. It's said that the explanation of any matter is obvious once you understand the explanation, and before you do, the thing is completely mysterious. Like a magic trick, the illusion is wondrous until someone shows how it is accomplished without resort to actual magic. You, and most people, lack such an explanation which would de-mystify the phenomena, and mistake your wonder at its mystery for something of evidential significance.

[Ryantology]

That has always been my criticism of "knowledge" derived from subjective experience; someone can know that they had an experience but to be certain that you know it had a special meaning, and what that meaning is, speaks of a faith in one's own ability to interpret the produce of one's own mind which is simply not deserved when you consider how many ways in which the brain can glitch or otherwise produce unreliable information.

[bennyboy]

You look yourself in the mirror and say, "You don't exist except as a symbolic representation of the activities of quantum particles AND NOTHING MORE" And if you can do that and believe it, then I'll start thinking you have a point about free will and the mind.

ChadWooters, a Swedenborgian who hasn't been seen round here of late, consistently would challenge me to deny the brute fact of subjective experience. I don't deny the so-called "brute fact" itself, I deny his and your interpretation of that brute fact. Your interpretation of it, and the fact itself, are not one and the same. That would be like asking me to deny that the earth around me is flat as far as I can see, and then when I tell you that, in spite of this, the earth is a globe, you telling me that I can't deny the "brute fact" of my experience of the earth as being flat. You're substituting a debatable interpretation filled with hollow inferences for a fact of the matter, and it doesn't wash. It's said that the explanation of any matter is obvious once you understand the explanation, and before you do, the thing is completely mysterious. Like a magic trick, the illusion is wondrous until someone shows how it is accomplished without resort to actual magic. You, and most people, lack such an explanation which would de-mystify the phenomena, and mistake your wonder at its mystery for something of evidential significance.

Before I get all excited about answering the many individual ideas in your post, could you give me a nice clear statement of your thesis? I smell an ad hom in there, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to undermine with it.

---

That has always been my criticism of "knowledge" derived from subjective experience; someone can know that they had an experience but to be certain that you know it had a special meaning, and what that meaning is, speaks of a faith in one's own ability to interpret the produce of one's own mind which is simply not deserved when you consider how many ways in which the brain can glitch or otherwise produce unreliable information.

Hmmm. Is there any kind of knowledge that isn't derived from subjective experience? My daughter and I spent part of the morning experiencing looking through a microscope and experiencing reading a science text; does that count?

[Angrboda]

Before I get all excited about answering the many individual ideas in your post, could you give me a nice clear statement of your thesis? I smell an ad hom in there, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to undermine with it.

My "thesis" ? I was responding to your implied claim that no one could face themselves in the mirror and comfortably claim that they are nothing but atoms and the void. I haven't the slightest difficulty in this.

And no, you cannot get a clear statement of any thesis on the subject that I might have.

[bennyboy]

My "thesis" ? I was responding to your implied claim that no one could face themselves in the mirror and comfortably claim that they are nothing but atoms and the void. I haven't the slightest difficulty in this.

Who's this "you" you keep talking about? It's as though you think there's some singular entity behind these words, rather than just a bunch of QM particles. Sounds like party of Quarks + 1 to me.