Does Anyone Practice Determinism?

[EverChanging]

I wouldn't call it "practicing determinism," but I do accept that my behavior arises from complex causes and conditions over which I have no control.

Unlike some others with this perspective, I do not attempt to live my life as though this is not true. Rather, I try to pay close attention to my thoughts and actions. When I do so there is often the sense that these thoughts and actions are automatic -- as is much of our behavior -- or simply arising out of...no where?

When I need to make difficult or unpleasant decisions, which can involve anything from buying a car to getting out of bed to use the toilet when I don't feel like it, I simply "get out of the way" as it were and an action simply arises from me.

This is a much less stressful way to live. I don't know why anyone wants to pretend some sort of absolute autonomy of action exists when it doesn't. Just go with the flow.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You contradict yourself. You first say self preservation is more then instinct (something in the brain) then contradict yourself saying it can be damaged.
Multiple studies have shown that peoples decisions can be detected by a brain scanner before the person is conscious of making the decision. Research has also shown that some people are sociopaths and don't have what you call a conscience.
I do not recognize the bible as a credible source of information for anything.

Right, sociopaths don't have a conscience, and to me because they have a damaged conscience.
Their conscience has been damaged and calloused like un-feeling flesh branded with a hot branding iron.

You are Not alone because Many don't recognize the Bible as credible information.....
As 2 Peter 3:3-4 says many are scoffers or ridiculers of God's Word ( Bible).
To me it is Not due to a lack of evidence surrounding us, but simply a lack of faith in it.

 

[idav]

I wouldn't call it "practicing determinism," but I do accept that my behavior arises from complex causes and conditions over which I have no control.

Unlike some others with this perspective, I do not attempt to live my life as though this is not true. Rather, I try to pay close attention to my thoughts and actions. When I do so there is often the sense that these thoughts and actions are automatic -- as is much of our behavior -- or simply arising out of...no where?

When I need to make difficult or unpleasant decisions, which can involve anything from buying a car to getting out of bed to use the toilet when I don't feel like it, I simply "get out of the way" as it were and an action simply arises from me.

This is a much less stressful way to live. I don't know why anyone wants to pretend some sort of absolute autonomy of action exists when it doesn't. Just go with the flow.

So there is someone practicing determinism. I like that, realizing when to go with the flow. I also like the part where you say you get out of your own way.

 

[JustWondering]

Right, sociopaths don't have a conscience, and to me because they have a damaged conscience.
Their conscience has been damaged and calloused like un-feeling flesh branded with a hot branding iron.

Way to completely miss my point!

You are Not alone because Many don't recognize the Bible as credible information.....
As 2 Peter 3:3-4 says many are scoffers or ridiculers of God's Word ( Bible).
To me it is Not due to a lack of evidence surrounding us, but simply a lack of faith in it.

Current trends show less people are religious nowadays. I hope that trend continues and I think it will. Someday everyone will (rightfully) look back on how people believed in Christianity and laugh at how ridiculous such beliefs were. Just as people look back at the beliefs of ancient Greeks and Egyptians today and wonder how people could believe such obvious nonsense.

 

[Bread Fried]

Do most people act as if determinism isn't true because of its impracticality in real life? I think I know what it means for determinism to be true but if so how would anyone ever make a decision?

Well, the way i see it, determinism doesn't make me feel powerless in the face of an already decided future but more self - aware.Those wo see determinism from the outside in would see this conclusion as a let down, depressing even.
What's the point in trying if everything's already decided? Is a question i get every time i explain my belief to friends. Well a basic analysis will find that the future is decided by you and your independent thinking. Your thought process in certain situations and how you'd normally respond to it decides, alongside everything else in the world, what will happen later in the day. Upon realising this, you'll probably stop worrying over this fact/speculation. The best thing to do in any situation is to act how you want to and feel most likely doing in the situation as whether it goes well or not is, in a way, entirely up to you(but not really).

There's also the case with what kind of determinist you associate yourself with. There are kinds of determinism which cooexist with theist religions, hard determinism, with results of actions going as far doen as the smallest measurable quantity ib the universe. Or determinism cooexisting with free will, with our mind being independent(free will) which ultimately decide the future. In these variations, your lifestyle choices still won't be affected to a noticeable extent as each type of determinism share the similar theme of being unavoidable and thus useless to fight against. Determinism simply makes those who believe in it more self aware of the things around them and can even act as a sense of closure.

 

[Bread Fried]

Thank you for your reply. Determinism to me then sounds like the old belief in fate.
I think we can die before our time, so Not determined or set to happen. Just being at the wrong place wrong time.
If all determined to happen then why bother to stop at a stop sign or a red light.

Assuming you mean dying of incidents other than old age/ illness in old age,If you die "before your time" then you technically did die at your time. Your death was "fated" to happen at that moment because of events surrounding you sadly enough. If someone were to get killed in an unexpected car crash, all the actions performed by all of those involved which in turn was affected by the actions of others all collectively lead up to their death.

I think you have some misconceptions about determinism.
When we say everything that will happen is already determined, it doesn't mean that a forseen event will happen regardless of what happens inbetween and will happen without fail. The future is determined by the many events in already in action. If hypothetically you were told that you'll make it to work on time today, deciding to stay in your house based on that knowledge doesn't make that future reading true. You did not go to work therefore you cannot be at work on time. This is why time traveling back in time to for example, bring good future news or impending doom is a problem. In the "first timeline" the time traveler never existed and thus neverr influeced their actions. When the time traveler goes back in time, the witnesses now do acknowledge this person who didn't exist before. This additional information ultimately changes their mindset and thought process, even by a little effectively creating a different timeline with its own set of determined futures. Determinism isn't like some sort of prophecised event calling with a defined end that doesn't care for what happens in the middle, it's the combination of several events each decided by certain conditions to reach a decided end to another event (confused) and so on and so on. Hypothetically, if we could build a machine which could process everything which is subject to change from quantifyable masses to human emotion in the entire universe then we can essentially "read" the future.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are a multitude of misconceptions concerning what is determinism. First, it is not a robotic world of fate where everything is predetermined by 'fate' like ordained by God in strict Calvinism. Natural determinism is simply that the cause of all events are Natural Laws, and the range of possible outcomes of each cause and effect event. Variation in the outcome of the events is described by Chaos Theory in terms of fractal math. The chain of the outcomes of cause and effect events will lead to determined results, but not predetermined results.

 

[blü 2]

Right, sociopaths don't have a conscience, and to me because they have a damaged conscience.
Their conscience has been damaged and calloused like un-feeling flesh branded with a hot branding iron.

You are Not alone because Many don't recognize the Bible as credible information.....
As 2 Peter 3:3-4 says many are scoffers or ridiculers of God's Word ( Bible).
To me it is Not due to a lack of evidence surrounding us, but simply a lack of faith in it.

But the factual problems, errors of maths (eg pi=3), history (eg the Exodus) and science (eg geocentry and a flat earth) with the bible are countless. Then there's the problem that we have no useful definition of 'god' or 'God', such that if we found a candidate, we could tell whether it was a god / God or not.

Obviously imaginary gods don't have this problem, being anything the imaginer would like them to be, but once the claim is made that that 'God' is real, has objective existence, then no one knows what they're actually talking about.

The bible is a collection of ancient books that tell us a lot about the times places and cultures in which they were respectively written (not to mention, often enough, the politics of their authors), but like any other ancient text, they're only as true with their factual claims as their independent verification.

 

[Willamena]

There are a multitude of misconceptions concerning what is determinism. First, it is not a robotic world of fate where everything is predetermined by 'fate' like ordained by God in strict Calvinism. Natural determinism is simply that the cause of all events are Natural Laws, and the range of possible outcomes of each cause and effect event. Variation in the outcome of the events is described by Chaos Theory in terms of fractal math. The chain of the outcomes of cause and effect events will lead to determined results, but not predetermined results.

If there are no events, variable or not, fractal or not, that have a non-natural cause, the product of a natural law, then it's no different than fate.

What is the distinction that you're making between future tense determined outcomes and pre-determined results? They would appear to be tautological.

 

[Skwim]

There are a multitude of misconceptions concerning what is determinism. First, it is not a robotic world of fate where everything is predetermined by 'fate' like ordained by God in strict Calvinism. Natural determinism is simply that the cause of all events are Natural Laws, and the range of possible outcomes of each cause and effect event. Variation in the outcome of the events is described by Chaos Theory in terms of fractal math. The chain of the outcomes of cause and effect events will lead to determined results, but not predetermined results.

Actually, there are several forms of determinism. The example you gave with a robotic world would be hard determinism, a quite valid form of determinism.

(1) Determinism (hard or scientific): the philosophical view that all events (including mental events) have a cause.

(2) Determinism (soft): the philosophical view that all physical events are caused but mental processes are uncaused.

(3) Predeterminism: the philosophical and theological view that combines God with determinism.

(4) Fatalism: the philosophical and sometimes theological doctrine that specific events are fixed in advance (either by God or by some unknown means) although there might be some free play in minor events.

(5) Compatibilism: the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.
source

.​

 

[shunyadragon]

Actually, there are several forms of determinism. The example you gave with a robotic world would be hard determinism, a quite valid form of determinism.

(1) Determinism (hard or scientific): the philosophical view that all events (including mental events) have a cause.

(2) Determinism (soft): the philosophical view that all physical events are caused but mental processes are uncaused.

(3) Predeterminism: the philosophical and theological view that combines God with determinism.

(4) Fatalism: the philosophical and sometimes theological doctrine that specific events are fixed in advance (either by God or by some unknown means) although there might be some free play in minor events.

(5) Compatibilism: the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent.
source

.​

#1 is too simplistic for an understanding of determinism from the scientific perspective. What you describe in #1 is closer to #3 or #4. I do not care for the use of 'hard' in #1. Yes, in determinism all outcomes have a cause, the fractal nature of the outcomes negates a robotic world, which is closer to #3 and #4.

Your statement on soft determinism does not make sense.

Considering the aspects of human will is more complex, and compatailism can be deterministic by the nature of its philosophy.

More to follow . . .

 

[Skwim]

#1 is too simplistic for an understanding of determinism from the scientific perspective. What you describe in #1 is closer to #3 or #4. I do not care for the use of 'hard' in #1. Yes, in determinism all outcomes have a cause, the fractal nature of the outcomes negates a robotic world, which is closer to #3 and #4.

Your statement on soft determinism does not make sense.

Considering the aspects of human will is more complex, and compatailism can be deterministic by the nature of its philosophy.

More to follow . . .

Regardless of what you may think of their merits, thems the kinds. Oh yes, they're not my definitions, although I do go along with them.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

Regardless of what you may think of their merits, thems the kinds. Oh yes, they're not my definitions, although I do go along with them.

.

Not yours?!?!? Where did they come from? Your mixing and matvhing stuff that does not fit.

I primarily go with the scientific view of determinism without complications of different categories.

Science can objectively follow a chain of cause and effect outcomes in nature, technology, and even human nature and will, and then describe the natural causes of the outcomes, but future events in none linear chains of cause and effect outcomes with many variables we can make predictions based on models within a range of outcomes, like predicting the weather.

Technology can increase the predictive value in many situations by reducing the number of variables as in traffic and aviation accidents, by correcting technology problems such as correcting design of vehicles and airplanes based on analysis of previous cause and effect outcomes.

 

[Skwim]

Not yours?!?!? Where did they come from? Your mixing and matvhing stuff that does not fit.

There's a "source" link right after entry (5). (The last entry comes from Wikipedia--my error in forgetting to include its link.)

I primarily go with the scientific view of determinism without complications of different categories.

Your choice, of course, but this doesn't negate the existence of those I listed.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

There's a "source" link right after entry (5). (The last entry comes from Wikipedia--my error in forgetting to include its link.)
.

I see some problems: (1) You include the word 'robotic' in terms of hard determinism, and robotic is not part of the definition. (2) I provided the qualification why robotic does not fit the definition. (3) The only definition I specifically do not agree with is 'soft' determinism. It is not useful and as far as human will is concerned, because it appears to advocate 'Libertarian Free Will', which those who advocate 'Libertarian Free Will' do not advocate any form of 'determinism' except for Divine determinism. (4) The definition of compatibilism is OK, but too brief, and does not work as separate from the others. Compatabilism is a deterministic philosophy that only allows for very limited free will (Dennett describes it as 'wiggle room.'), which would not be equivalent to 'soft' determinism.

Your choice, of course, but that doesn't negate the existence of those I listed.

What you listed is only a brief Reader's Digest version list and incomplete. I do not disagree with everything on the list.

 

[Skwim]

I see some problems: (1) You include the word 'robotic' in terms of hard determinism, and robotic is not part of the definition.

It doesn't have to be. It functions as an implied conclusion of the nature of hard determinism.

(2) I provided the qualification why robotic does not fit the definition.

And I used it to say that it does.

(3) The only definition I specifically do not agree with is 'soft' determinism. It is not useful and as far as human will is concerned, because it appears to advocate 'Libertarian Free Will',

Well, it doesn't advocate at all. None of the concepts do. However, it is consistent with the notion of "Libertarian Free Will." And that you don't find it useful is beside the point.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't have to be. It functions as an implied conclusion of the nature of hard determinism.
And I used it to say that it does.

Again, not part of the definition and your use of 'robotic' goes beyond the scientific view of 'determinism,' because it is not mechanistic. The variation in the outcomes of cause and effect events in nature insures that the future outcomes are not 'robotically' predictable..

Well, it doesn't advocate at all. None of the concepts do. However, it is consistent with the notion of "Libertarian Free Will." And that you don't find it useful is beside the point.

.

The problem again is that those who advocate 'Libertarian Free Will' reject scientific determinism.

 

[Skwim]

Again, not part of the definition

And again, I didn't say it was.

and your use of 'robotic' goes beyond the scientific view of 'determinism,' because it is not mechanistic.

And I disagree. However, just to make sure we're on the same page here, how about defining "mechanistic" for us.

The variation in the outcomes of cause and effect events in nature insures that the future outcomes are not 'robotically' predictable..

Didn't say a word about predictability. It's immaterial to the foundation of determinism. It's a blind alley.

The problem again is that those who advocate 'Libertarian Free Will' reject scientific determinism.

Not necessarily at all:

"Libertarian free will
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature
and free from any predetermination by God."
source


Question: "What is libertarian free will?"
Answer: Libertarian free will is basically the concept that, metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being, one who operates independently, not controlled by others or by outside forces.
source


What is Libertarian Free Will?
Freedom as understood in the libertarian sense means that a person is fully able to perform some other action in place of the one that is actually done, and this is not predetermined by any prior circumstances, our desires or even our affections. In other words, our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature.
source


What is libertarian free will?
Theologically speaking, Libertarian Free Will (LFW) is the view that peoples' choices are free from prior cause and that our fallen, sinful nature does not constrain moral choices.
source


The theory of libertarian free will means that a person can choose between two actions or many actions, without the constraining influence of a sovereign God.
source

.




​