What is everyones opinion on determinism? I've been thinking

Also consciousness defies logical explanation for how can neurochemistry produce self awareness?

Determinism is ultimately a product of our understanding of causality. There are problems with our current understanding of causality, Hume showed it and so did the Buddhists like Nagarjuana.

Still that won't prove the existence of some soul/external agent entity that has power to defy the universal laws.

>>292259
>Determinism states that people cannot choose their actions and are determined to act in whatever way they do
>Free Will states that people choose their actions and will freely act in whatever way they do
>In either case people do what they do

The will dichotomy is literally nonsense.

>>292343
Are you going to post something useful or just post an ad hominem in the form of a dated meme?

>>292259
>Humans are just chemical processes
>and chemical processes have to follow the laws of physics
This claim literally sounds like pop science bs, how come I can imagine non-measurable sets that can't exist in this universe?

>>292356
Are you going to stop posting about your poor understanding of humans?

>>292376
Post credible information pointing out where my understanding is poor. Don't just attack the speaker.

File: spinoza.jpg (41KB, 283x360px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 283x360px

>implying there isn't irrefutable proof for determinism

determinism is an unavoidable conclusion. The next evolution is systems theory, cybernetics and the feedback loop, chaotic phenomena, and finally complex systems

Yes, causality is legit

>>292425
>Philosopher of science
>Not a scientist

>>292425
which is exactly how I used the phrase, numb-nuts

>>292397
http://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/2013jcpsrep.pdf

>>292365
I don't see how that would prove that free-will exists.

>>292397
http://www.humanillnesses.com/Behavioral-Health-A-Br/Brain-Chemistry-Neurochemistry.html

>>292259
I don't think true free will exists. However, our brain is obviously well capable of creating the illusion of free-will and that is fine too.

>>292397
What else is there? Neurochemical processes aren't all too well understood but their existence is well known.

It's up to you to find evidence that there is more than that.

>>292460
I doesn't prove that free will exists, but disproves the simplistic quoted claim. According to OP pure math can't exist.

>>292539
How does OP claim pure math can't exist?
>I don't*

>>292466
agreed.

Sentiments like resentment, guilty and blame only make sense with the underlying, subconscious assumption of responsibility, with in turn require us to implicitly assume free will. This is part of the human condition, that we have those sentiments and therefore free will exists "for us" without it necessarily exiting in the metaphysical sense.

sorry, had to rewrite, it's late.

>>292539
I don't see how that is the case.

You can describe all kinds of things that don't actually exist. I don't see how the conclusion that the ability to describe something that doesn't exist in this world somehow proves that there is more to the human thought process than biochemistry.

>>292560
>Humans are just chemical processes
>and chemical processes have to follow the laws of physics
One can easily imagine something outside the physical world though a simplistic chemical process (i.e. thinking).

>>292592
you can imagine elephants flying through the air with their farts.
This doesn't mean they can exist in the real world.

>>292595
> you can imagine elephants flying through the air with their farts
Yet each of these objects seems to exist separately in this world.

>>292613
Yes, you imagine elephants, these exist in the real world.
You imagine farts, these exist in the real world.
You imagine flying, this exists in the real world.
With determinism, we can say that you imagine elephants flying with their farts because you experienced each of these things in the real world.
Cause and effect.

File: 1435713429815.png (388KB, 800x768px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 800x768px

>people who conflate "the process of thinking is determined by the law of physics" with "you can't think anything that goes against the laws of physics"

This is like the second thread we've had about this today.

tl;dr free will doesn't exist, in fact it's an incomprehensible concept to begin with that people probably can't even define if they tried. You cannot just pretend to get rid of cause and effect. The opposite of determinism is just (true) randomness, and "choices" or "will" isn't supposed to be random either. So it's not determined, and not random, then what? There is no third choice. Even if you don't make this about "physical laws" and the universe itself, you still don't get free from causality and the problem of infinite regress.

Spinoza and Schopenhauer BTFO'd the concept ages ago and since then there has not been so much as a shred of counter-arguments against them, because there are none.
Some people cling to some unjustified forms of compatibilism as some kind of "compromise" which just feels about as anti-science as Cartesian dualism bullshit, or worse, just say "it's self-evident lalala i can't hear you", but quite frankly even these voices are dying out these days.

>>292259

The thing is that "laws of nature" don't compel anything to act in any way. They are just generalizations of the way certain concrete things in the world act. We merely use them to unify individual cases with each other to make a more universal case.

If we notice that the chemical constitution of brains allow for freedom in the subjects they inhabit, then we could easily construct a "law of nature" about it. Something roughly like:" If X has chemical properties XYZ then it can select between T1,.....,Tn as effects of its causation."

Likewise we have no reason to believe that their can't be something that can cause on its own volition without that volition being caused by something else. Something else may be responsible for its creation and continued existence, but this doesn't entail that its operations are all determined by a cause outside of itself.

Agent causal theories generally can nail these problems.

>>292643
> You cannot just pretend to get rid of cause and effect.

The problem is the assumption that every activity must be caused by something else, which is an unfounded principle. You can have a world were some things are determined and some are not.

>>292688
>citation needed

>>292629
Mathematical abstractions don't work that way.
>>292637
> When someone can't see the pop science kaku-tier implications of OP's statement.

>>292698
Then explain how they work.

>>292710
> Then explain how they work
Pretty funny coming from someone who never bothered showing a proof of their inter-universal Teichmüller-Physical-Chemical-Solved-Everything-About-Conscience-Ever theory.
> Yes, you imagine Sets, these don't exist in the real world.
> Yes, you try derive everything about Sets from simple Sets rules
> Yes, some faggot named Russell finds a hole in work.
> Yes, someone later manages to fix one your axioms.
> Yes, you still can't describe everything.

>>292778
>Uses concept they don't understand and can't explain as proof.

>>292778
Russells type theory avoids his own paradox faggot

Define "free will".

>>292295
Define "self awareness".

>>292778
The point is: there's no evidence of there being "more" to the human thought process.

If there's more, then provide some evidence of it. The fact that I can mathematically describe something that doesn't exist in the physical world is not prove of that.

I can give things that don't exist in reality a representation within computer programs, that doesn't mean that there is "more" to a computer than hardware and electricity.

>>292259
Determinism is essentially useless. At the end of the day, life is so complex, experiences so diverse, the brain so delusional, that you might as well live and pretend as if you have free will.

>>292868
this

File: image.png (25KB, 499x468px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 499x468px

>>292259
>calvinism
>absolute determinism

>>292893
Calvanism?

>>292324
THIS

Actions are determined one way or another.

What do people see that makes them believe in free will?

>>292259
Determinism is just a contemporary "scientific" way of talking about fate/destiny.

It's a linguistic spook.

>>292324
Not really, because there are implications.

For example in regards to punishment to crime.

>>292989
We can determine that by rehabilitating people who act in ways which are detrimental to society, that they may stop that behaviour.
We can use determinism in a constructive way.

>>292996
Of course we can. However, in many societies punishment is seen in a very different light, so it's not like the idea of determinism was universally accepted or had the same implications in regards to crime and punishment.

>>292259

So what's the ball?

>>293010
The big bang, I guess

>>292259
I think at least one anon was already keen to this but it bears reiteration.

The problem of free-will is that it is fundamentally incoherent. In the metaphysical sense as people usually mean at least.

Are the results of a so-called 'free'-will spontaneous? Regardless if you argue it as a purely physical phenomenon or as some transcendent 'form' or disconnected 'mind', you have to commit to either it being spontaneous/random, or it being caused to be a specific way externally to the agent. Neither case ostensibly satisfies the already very nebulous definition.

>>293067
The best explanation is that humans are psychic and able to sense the unmoved mover, then they see it and misinterpret what it is.

>>292259
okay john calvin
>fuck off op

>>293098
calvinists are compatibilists, im a hard determinist

>>293085
wat

>>293138
The unmoved mover makes actions happen and it isn't influenced by anything. Doesn't that fit the definition of free will? The mistake is that people don't realize that every human sees the same one.

>>293166
Do you have any evidence for this "unmoved mover"?

Which philosopher should I read if I want to know more about determinism and free will?

>>293190
It's an explanation for anomalies in human behavior. I don't have any evidence other than the anomalies that the explanation is constructed from.

There is the ontological argument for the unmoved mover, but that doesn't have to do with its relation to human behavior. Given that everything is part of a chain of cause and effect, there must at some point be an uncaused cause. Aquinas said that along with other stuff in that regard.

>>292259

What you're saying is based on a certain presumption regarding the nature of reality.

You presume that there is no such thing as true randomness; that everything in our physical world is bound to a series of variables - some known, some hidden - in a perfect and entirely predictable system of cause and effect.

If you spend a bit of time reading quantum physics you'll realise that that presumption is incredibly far from being established as a scientific fact.

You see, once you add truly random variables into the physical mix, the whole determinist house of cards comes crashing down.

Of course, that could all be subject to change depending on how our understanding of quantum physics develops in the future.

>>292259
It's funny cause I was thinking about stuff like this today and I come to this thread.
Plate of Shrimp.

>>293226
Free will tends to be the a conclusion of other philosophical stances rather than a subject itself. Generally philosophers do not spend a lot of time dwelling on it, despite it being a favorite topic for entry level.

>what is quantum mechanics

Determinism was disproven tens of years ago, kid :^)

Actions are determined, but it's impossible to predict actions 100%. We have no true knowledge of why one person acted this or that way.

A child which is hit by his father and loves his mother might become a mass murderer, and he might become a saint. Nobody can go into a court of law and say "I was determined to do crime because of x, y and z", because another person with the same x, y and z didn't do it.

In the end, if will is "free" or "determined" is a moot point. For practical reasons we must treat everyone as responsible for their actions.