TimB
Lois, In terms of determination, it doesn’t matter if what our “conscious mind” (as the audience) perceives and processes is “reality”. What we do, say, think, etc. by virtue of that, are also potentially salient factors that can contribute to what we do subsequently.
Lois: Yes, but everything goes into the soup of our determining factors and we have no conscious control over which factors hold sway.
Patrick D
I just had a thought. (that’s two since Saturday) . Based on the contents of this thread, it seems I may be technically incorrect about fortune telling.
If we live a determined life, it should be technically possible to map out a person’s life with some accuracy. I don’t mean by visiting an astrologer, who claims to be able to do just that. I’m thinking of a computer programme. I know nothing about computer algorithms. I suspect that far too much accurate data would be needed for a useful programme. Perhaps with a lot less data, a broad outline of some useful life aspects could be determined (?) . Kind of like a far more sophisticated psych test than used currently.
Too sci-fi ?
Lois:
Afraid so. It may be technically possible to map out a person’s life with some accuracy, but there is no way we can possibly know all the determining factors that go into what we do. There are billions of them and thy keep changing. So it may be that IF we could know all the factors and which ones would take precedence, we could predict future behavior, but in reality, that would be impossible. Besides that, your desire and ability to predict is also determined.
Lausten:
Lausten wrote:
Though since then I read LoisL at May 22, 2019 at 1:46 am.
Well thank you Lois, in all the years we been butting heads on this, I’m pretty sure you never explained it quite like that. It’s relatable, I have a new found appreciation for what you’ve been trying to explain.
I was thinking about the same thing.
——
Lois: wow. What a nice thing to hear, i appreciate it very much, especially considering it came from you.
Citizen’s Challenge: I just thought of a better analogy to describe my discomfort with the way Lois describes the Free Will question.
Many of us have had the wonderful experience of seeing or walking past someone and something passes between you two.
Suddenly, the blood is pumping, the nerves are tingling, and things are never quite the same. Whether the encounter ends in deep love at first sight, deep physical passion at first scent, whether feelings fade or remained alive in one form, or another, for the rest of your days. It actually does happen. If it’s never happened to you it may be difficult to believe – but take people’s word for it, it happens.
Now sure a neurologist can deconstruct that into various pheromones and other stimuli – inputs and various receptors being triggered, which released cascades of hormones and other molecular goodies that process this and that, then kicked off other cascades that continued down their molecularly driven pathways, and so on and so forth and be done with it. First comes love then comes marriage then comes baby in the baby carriage.
And sure, guess there’s no arguing with that, or the science behind it – but jez,
if that’s the best you can do with that moment when another human grabbed you by your innards from across the street or room and upended everything you knew before. Well hell, it just seems that life (or is it our mindscapes I’m meaning to say?) is wasted if that sort of deconstruction is the best we can do with this human, yeah okay, biological dance.
———
all of the phenomena you describe can still be attributed to determinism. Just because two people are drawn to each other, doesn’t mean determinism is not at work. Determinism drives everyone’s thoughts and actions, even the thoughts and actions of two people who have “found” each other.
CC: “the blood is pumping, the nerves are tingling, and things are never quite the same. Whether the encounter ends in deep love at first sight, deep physical passion at first scent, whether feelings fade or remained alive in one form, or another, for the rest of your days. It actually does happen. If it’s never happened to you it may be difficult to believe – but take people’s word for it, it happens.”
Lois: Of course it happens and it has happened to me, but that does not contradict determinism. It’s that two people were determined to have those feelings when they met. In other words, both were primed for it. When you have positive feelings like that and you share them with another person it says nothing against determinism. Do you think your and her feelings came out of free will? Would that add to the experience? That sounds to me even less likely than determinism at work. Do you think you willed her and her feelings into existence?
PatrickD:
Kind of fits Voltaire who said “most men lead lives of quiet desperation” . Not sure I’m quite there yet, although as I get older, far fewer things seem to matter.
—-
Lois: if you’re determined to live a life of quiet desperation, you will. The same thing would happen if we had free will. I can’t see how desperation is any more likely in someone who believes in determinism than free will.
Whenever discussions of free will vs determinism come up, someone is bound to wonder how morality and responsibility are possible with determinism. This question comes from people who don’t have an understanding of determinism. Morality and a sense of responsibility come from 0ur determining factors just as every other thought or action we have. I see no reason to think those things depend on free will. If you’re determined to be moral and responsible, you will be. If you’re not you won’t be. Does anyone think that free will creates morality and responsibility? How would that work? Those feelings are dependent on countless determining factors, just as everything else is—and we have no control over them.
I’m afraid you’re right; at this point I’m unable to get my head around determinism in that I’m unable to separate it from predestination. I’m not arguing the point because I don’t yet understand. I will, eventually. I’ve done some reading and am about to dip my toes in some Bertrand Russell . I find him relatively easy to understand…
Thank you for your patience.
I can relate Pat.
This has been an interesting thread and gone much better than others on the topic. I’m sorta at the just soaking it all in phase myself.
Cheers, Lois, well done.
Patrick D
I’m afraid you’re right; at this point I’m unable to get my head around determinism in that I’m unable to separate it from predestination. I’m not arguing the point because I don’t yet understand. I will, eventually. I’ve done some reading and am about to dip my toes in some Bertrand Russell . I find him relatively easy to understand…
You will sooner or later. Russel’s good but Imdon’t remember that he addresses determinism directly.
Maybe this will help.
Determinism is like evolution, it finds its own path as it unfolds, without a designer.
Predestination is like creationism, it needs a designer to exist.
Lois
Tim B
I agree with ur basic premise PD. The only complicating factor in predicting the future, besides the sheer, astounding, breathtaking, extraordinarily awesome, almost unimaginable complexity and amount of data involved, is that some events, I believe, can only be predicted within certain probability parameters.
loisL
That’s true but there is also the problem of not knowing which of countless factor(s) take precedence over other factors. This process probably changes every moment, too, and it would probably be impossible to predict, even with a computer algorithm, given the sheer number of determining factors and their individual strengths for overcoming competing factors.
TimB
But not everything that is passed on, is necessarily a positive aspect. Consider Type II diabetes for example. It generally manifests after the human has had lots of opportunities for reproduction, so it is difficult to say that Type II diabetes is contributing to the survival of the species. It is just a problematic artifact that hitched a ride on the evolution train.
LoisL. That’s all true, Tim. We can’t predict evolution of species either, we can only take an educated guess. Biological evolution passes on undesirable artifacts, too.
Just as an instance, “individuals who are carriers for the sickle cell disease (with one sickle gene and one normal hemoglobin gene, also known as sickle cell trait) have some protective advantage against malaria. As a result, the frequencies of sickle cell carriers are high in malaria-endemic areas.” [CDC - Malaria - About Malaria - Biology]
So sometimes a trait is passed on because it helps the entity survive in one aspect, but also contributes to its demise. I suspect this happens often, even in psychological determinism.
A daunting task, that’s for sure.
CC wrote:
Cheers, Lois, well done.
Thanks, CC, I appreciate it.
Lois