Thanks for that insight! Interesting :up:

So in light of what I said you are framing yourself as 'moral' not 'ethical' in regards to AN? I say this because of the following:

My views are odd - because I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons) but I don't take anything seriously enough to think this is a view I could enforce. And nor would I want to. I have better things to do. Thsi is an intellectual position that I do believe in, but as with all of my positions, I think they apply to me. I can simply think one has their reasoning wrong without impugning htem intellectually. — AmadeusD

This is directly in line with what I outlined as 'moral' and almost entirely opposed to the 'ethical'. Do you agree that what you say here aligns with what I stated as being a 'moral' stance rather than what I stated as an 'ethical' stance? If not why? (Note: I used these terms fairly loosely so there is wiggle room).

ANs do believe in the extinction of society being the ethically correct outcome of hte near-middle future. But, not by genocide. Not it's better 'for society'. It 'is better'. Full stop. — AmadeusD

No they do not. Only if they proclaim AN as an 'ethical' paradigm that must be followed by others. When it comes to believing that it should be followed the same would not apply if should is framed as a suggestion rather than am order based on irrefutable reasoning.

You are a believer in AN? If so I am curious what your views are. I know already know well enough what Schopenhauer believes what about you? Even if you are one of those I said I would have 'contempt' for I would still like to try and understand why you think what you think :)

morals as personal position and ethics as suggested action.

I am not saying I understood what they said just that it made me think of this. Whether they can apply it or not we will see.

One possible route would be licensing for parentage. — AmadeusD

I have mentioned this before. That is not exactly something I would favour but it falls far away from the kind of of extreme I was talking about - an essential ban on procreation - which is not really what AN is about.

It's possible you missed that your arguments support action, while what I'm outlining supports the position. Maybe? — AmadeusD

I have a feeling this is parallel to something I have tried to mention before on the subject of AN.

Often what is ethical is used synonymously with what is moral. With AN we are really talking about a 'moral' view (individual conscience) whereas as an 'ethical' view (general rule for society) it is something quite different.

The lack of common distinction with these terms causes discussions about AN to become fractious. This is why you see so many people believing that others are condoning the extinction of the human species - they see the 'ethical' stance as saying this is better for society (the destruction of society is better for society).

Brain would equate to body. I am sure you know of the most famous case in neuroscience: Phineas Gage.

An argument for some kind of self permanence, in the sense you are talking, would probably be better grounded in emergentism or something more applicable to entropy at large - meaning metaphysical grounding rather than in physicalism.

Personally speaking I think of 'Philosophy' as essentially meaning "ways of thinking about ..." rather than "love of knowledge," which is too question begging for me.

In theatrical performances the line between the audience and the performance often disappears in many cultural traditions (see Clifford Geertz for that regarding his experiences in Bali).

What I was trying to highlight in that quote from Nietzsche is how we partake in the performance and reveal something harsh about the reality of human existence. The essence of such brutal experiences (secondhand or imagined) taps into the essence of being human. We cherish such stark encounters with brute reality.

The 'pleasure' may be interpreted as more or less a recognition of reality as a means of value even though there is suffering - or rather because there is suffering.

Anyway, this is a topic that hits some familiar ground for me as I ended up reading 'Beyond Good and Evil' and then realised I needed to read 'On the Genealogy of Morals' first and then realised I needed to read 'The Birth of Tragedy' prior to that ... and then eventually I started with Aristotle's Poetics and worked my way back to 'Beyond Good and Evil'. I recommend doing this, it is fun watching different threads of ideas weaving together and interesting questions surfacing.

I think this sums up Catharsis fairly well and answers the question of why tragedy gives 'pleasure':

§17 - Dioysiac art, too, wishes to convince us of the eternal delight of existence - but we are to seek that delight not in phenomena themselves but behind phenomena. It wishes us to acknowledge that everything that comes into being must be prepared to face a sorrowful end. If forces us to look at terrors of individual existence, yet we are not to be petrified with fear. A metaphysical consolation wrests us momentarily from the bustle of changing forms. For a brief moment we really become primal essence itself, and feel its unbounded lust for existence and delight in existence.

- Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy

It almost sounds like schadenfreude is trying to muscle in here? Is that the real hidden question? I think Cartharsis is quite a different beast to Schadenfreude. Maybe discussing the distinction could prove fruitful.

I've come to see some limits to his thinking and I continue to think through that. — Moliere

The same for all philosophical ideas as far as I can tell. I hate it when I cannot see something wrong with someone's thinking BUT I know there is always something.

Sadly people tend to stick resolutely to one idea or another believing it is infallible. I am wary of folk who put any philosophical idea on a pedestal. I believe there is something to be learnt from them all but that none have any universal application.

Here is something that might interest folks here.

There's No Free Will. What Now? - Robert Sapolsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvDrFwyW4k&t=2804s

I think it could be interesting to have a particular Member on of the forum as a focus for a month. Where others are actively encouraged to engage in 2-3 of their ideas/thoughts in threads (maybe highlight them somehow).

Obviously it would be a case of asking Member(s) to prepare for this. It could even be a joint effort perhaps? With 2-3 Members focusing on 2-3 particular topics and interacting that way?

Just a passing idea so not thoroughly fleshed out. I think for such thread it would make sense to be a little more strict too in terms of sticking to the topic in the OP rather than like elsewhere on the forum where threads can take a life of their own and meander into other interesting areas of discussion (which is great!). Just feel a more rigid format for something like what I am suggesting could be interesting in building a more thorough engagement with people who are particularly knowledgeable/passionate in more specific areas.

Literally everything I say is a lie, therefore, not literally all things others provide are true.

This is assuming lie as equivalent to some opposite forms.

How we interpret the sentence matters. Some will do so more literally than others and use their own methodology. If it is paradoxical then try to make it not so and see if any meaning can be established.

We don't have one for thinking with consciousness, and one for thinking without consciousness. — Patterner

Thinking that is not in a state of consciousness is not thinking - dreaming is a conscious state btw.

We don't have one for thinking independent of the physical events of the brain, and one for thinking that is the physical events of the brain. The ideas of thinking without consciousness and thinking being nothing but the physical events of our brains are not parts of our culture, or our language. — Patterner

Because such would be fairly nonsensical so specificity would be required to distinguish such ideas.

Is this because our culture and language grew in a people who, rare individuals aside, never considered these concepts? The things we have words for are the things the people assumed were true without even saying. — Patterner

They exist is specialised fields but are often uncommon in colloquial speech. An example of a technical jargon being transferred to daily parse is "meme," but it did lose a fair bit of its meaning once taken into colloquial speech.

If terms are rarely used they quickly die or are repurposed. A great many philosophical idea from people like Kant or Hegel are often construed in many different ways by different people.

Time is probably the most troublesome concept philosophers have to deal with.

If this discussion is going to continue down the road of analysing determinism and such (outside of the dictates of the OP) then I might as well throw this out there:

https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/phimp/article/id/782/

It is worth considering the manner in which the terms 'reactive' and 'responsible' are used in distinguishing between deterministic and libertarian attitudes towards the broader question of free-will.

So what flavour of determinist are you? Sounds like Hard Determinism?

I am talking about the context of the OP and made a point about determinism in a non-determine world compared to ... well you should know by now because I must have repeated myself about 4 or 5 times.

In the context of this thread (assuming Non-determinism) it makes some sense - but I would not word it in that manner.

As an example someone might say: "My liberal views tell me what to do." as a figure of speech it is perfectly reasonable to say this.

Okay, I made a tiny error.

He says he has observed no real difference. He then asked if you fret less. So you are effectively trying to counter my argument.

My argument would still stand that there is no reason to assume that determinists and non-determinists have the same emotional reactions to different situations.

A pure fatalist would have no way of accepting this though because they are pure fatalists.

Okay, let me show you another way of interpreting what that person could have meant:

Maybe they meant that determinists are less likely to fret about certain situations not that they necessarily have more or less emotional control, but that their belief in a deterministic world means they are more easily able to let go. Maybe we can call this the "Que sera sera!" reaction to some given situation. This would be the more rationally weighted choice for a deterministic mindset than a non-deterministic mindset.

You've been talking past me this whole time because you've missed the context apparently. — flannel jesus

I do not think so.

The entire context of this conversation is one person suggesting determinists not fret about decisions - that is the same as saying "determinists should have more conscious control of their emotions". — flannel jesus

That is your interpretation. One does not necessarily follow the other. I can see quite clearly another way of viewing how someone does or does not fret about something based on differing foundational beliefs that has no primary bearing on controlling emotional states. Although, to be generous, it seems all conscious states are emotional states if you follow what I believe is the current scientific consensus on this.

If you have a hard deterministic mindset that would follow I guess. I doubt you do though, and that no one really acts with a fatalistic attitude all the time.

And determinists aren't zen monks, so talking about determinists as if they have more conscious control of their emotional state seems entirely unjustified to me. — flannel jesus

You think none are or cannot be zen monks? In the extremes we can reveal a lot about the world. This is apparent in physics at least.

Plus, I am not really sure why you would think anyone is suggesting 'more conscious control'? Maybe someone else suggested this.

Not deciding (or delaying) is a decision of sorts.

Determinists share the same basic human psychology as non determinists. They react emotionally to the same types of things in the same types of ways. They aren't zen monks who spend a lot of time meditating and gaining complete control of their emotional state. If they fret, they fret for the same reasons as non determinists, and if it's not beneficial, it's also not beneficial for non determinists. This whole "fretting" conversation doesn't seem to have any sensible lines to draw in the sand between determinists and non determinists. — flannel jesus

Holding such diametrically opposed beliefs does kind of suggest a line in the sand somewhere don't you think?

As an example. If we had someone with a strong libertarian belief and someone with a strong utilitarian belief it would be in error to suggest they would deal with every choice in the same way. Granted, when we are talking about 'choice' itself then maybe you feel this comparison is ill-fitting?

When a tough decision presents itself it is completely justified to say that a deterministic mentality and a non-deterministic mentality could easily present with the same solution (ie. 'its a toss up'). Ata deeper level it could also be considered the same form the point of view of unconscious preferences surfacing to tip the balance. Meaning a deterministic mindset may consciously act as if their decision is arbitrary when in fact it is running on the subconscious basis of previous experiences in the decision making process.

If neither group knows the truth of freedom or determinism, then, to them, the truth of freedom is irrelevant. Your question in the thought experiment as THEY would put it is : “since we don’t know whether freedom or determinism is true, which is better to believe?” — Fire Ologist

I am saying that one is true and they are both ignorant of the truth. We (us now) are viewing this scenario from outside. I do not care what they say, but I can (I believe) make some predictions about how they would act differently in identical situations because believes their actions are irrelevant towards the effect of future events.

Maybe try this one on for size:

- Is having the ability to choose your fate better than not having to choose your fate? — I like sushi

That you focus on the means of judging better as determined by what is true is interesting. Even more interesting that you assume everyone does this and only this.

Thank you :)

I have added this to the top of the OP:

This is a thought experiment. Two quick caveats

1) Consequence is being used separate from any concept of causality.

2) The above statement becomes prevalent as we reach the point of contemplation.


The scenario:

- The world is populated with people whose choices are real.

- By ‘real’ this means the choices they make are (at least in some part) free from the dictates of apparent physical causality.

- In this world people have two differing sets of beliefs.

Group A believe that causality is ‘real’ and their lives are completely predetermined (a false belief).

Groups B believe that their choices are ‘real’ and that they can alter their futures independent of apparent causal factors (a true belief).

Note: Neither group KNOWS if their belief is True or False.


The question is what Group belief is better?

In answering this open question maybe try considering the following:

- A choice not to choose is still a choice.
- A choice to deny that you can choose is a choice.
- A choice to believe their is no choice, against your better judgment, is a choice.
- Would person A and person B faced with the same scenarios act in the same manner assuming they were biologically identical BUT possessing the opposite beliefs as outlined?
- Is having the ability to choose your fate better than not having to choose your fate?
- If person A and person B live out their beliefs and then believed they were wrong and took on the opposing belief how would this effect them?

You seem to be looking for an objectively correct answer. — Patterner

Not at all. That is an assumption you inserted.

From my perspective your reply looks a little like this example (as with many others here):

What is your favourite film genre? Why?

Answers:
- Horror films.
- I like rock music.

Why?

Answers:
- There is no objective answer
- I like rock Music

See my frustration now?

I can ask the question again here and see if you do or do not understand it ...

If the world is non-deterministic is it better to believe your choices have an impact (which they do in said 'non-deterministic world') or that they have no impact (which is false, because they do)?

Note (you should completely ignore this but if it helps): Your choices are not necessarily determined by previous events. This is a scenario where you can actual and real choices that can lead to different future outcomes. If there is any argument against this principle then refer back to OP where I stated we do not really know one way or the other how the universe operates and probably never will. You have to accept a degree of ignorance regarding ideas of causality.

Whatever you deem better.

Well, if, in fact, all action is determined, it’s the exact opposite of “wandering” anywhere.
There is no more wandering in a deterministic world, where nothing can possibly wander off course and everything remains set on a fixed immutable path. — Fire Ologist

I have stated repeatedly in this case it is NOT deterministic.

For the last time.

If everything is predetermined then it makes no difference what you believe because your beliefs are also predetermined (obviously).

If nothing that came before directs your choices 100% then what you believe effects your course of action. From this perspective (assuming a non-deterministic world) what is better to believe?

"better" can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Didn’t you say to assume we do NOT know whether non-determinism is true or not?? I think you mean: whether determinism or non-determinism is true, is it better to believe in one or the other anyway. — Fire Ologist

No, I said what I said. To be honest I am kind of getting bored of saying the same thing and people constantly thinking this is some kind of trick. Maybe I worded it badly but cannot think of a better way to word it. If you do not get it then nothing I can do I guess. I have tried.

The reaction up to now has been along the lines of I won't give reasons for my answer OR I will argue for some form of determinism or non-determinism OR will argue over which is true.

Which is better and why?

Now comes the harder problem. Which is ‘better’ to believe in the case that non-determinism is true? We can see clearly which is true, but truth does not tell us what is better. Some may be quick to argue that it is better to believe in what is true than in what is false. How can this be said with any certainty, though? It may just be that to believe in a determined world provides comfort and allows a kind of passive freedom, where a belief in non-determinism brings with it the stresses and strains of personal responsibility as the choices humans (rightly) perceive they make would bear the heavy weight of real consequences. — I like sushi

Your thoughts?

Note: I framed Determinism as preordained and Non-determinism as agency that is not effected by previous conditions and able to direct the path to the future. Which is better to BELIEVE?

There is no objectively correct answer. It is a matter of opinion. Many people believe it is 'better' to believe Determinism, and many believe it is 'better' to believe Non-determinism. Neither view gives an advantage in survival, attracting mates, scientific understanding, ability to be happy, or anything else. — Patterner

Why? You must have some form of reasoning behind this. Why is it so hard to show any kind of reasoning?

I asked quite specifically if Non-determinism is true. What is the better choice to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism.

Note: In answering this question those choosing would not know that Non-determinism is true. It is not a trick question.

I can put this even more simply:

Choices of agents can actively effect future events without being influenced by what proceeds them OR they are nothing but illusionary and all past and future events were 100% predetermined (like a movie).

Assuming no one knows that the first condition is true would it be better for them to believe in the first or second condition?

Is it better for them to wander into the future under the assumption their actions have zero causal effect on anything or is it better for them to believe their choices are meaningful and can effect outcomes?

That does not offer any kind of answer(s) to the question.

It more or less sounds like you are arguing with yourself about entering the experience machine or not. The only difference being one is willfully living a lie and the other choosing not to. This is besides the point of the question though.

Which is better to believe in a non-deterministic world: Determinism or Non-determinism? Not which is 'correct'. If one is 'better' why? You cannot know which is better so the truth of the situation is irrelevant. We are talking from a position of ignorance regarding the actual world.

If Non-determinism is true, then whether or not it is 'better' to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism is a matter of opinion. My opinion is it's better to believe in Non-determinism. — Patterner

Why?

it is better to understand that it is a false dichotomy — wonderer1

To my understanding everything is a false dichotomy.

It is a thought experiment essentially. You can leave it if you wish just like many leave the Trolley Problem alone.

Surely you understand that is not what I am asking.

If neither, then you are saying there is no difference if you believe one or the other. I did not mean believe neither, I meant believing in one or the other were as good as each other(if so why?)

I believe in Non-determinism, and I would not put up a fight. I would embrace the opportunity of the experience.

I do not believe a believer in Determinism would necessarily not put up a fight for the reason you state any more than they would not put up a fight if I tried to cut their arm off. Even if they were tied down with no possibility of avoiding the fate, they would not simply go along with it just because they believe it is preordained. — Patterner

Okay, now extrapolate this view and apply to the question I have been asking.

Is it 'better' to believe in Determinism or Non-determinism assuming Non-determinism is true? Why? Why not? If neither why?

This is why you are not getting the kind of answer from some of us that you want. — Patterner

I want any answer given with some kind of reasoning. The I have given there (in a round about way) is that those that believe in a preordained future are more likely to act in such a way (given that their beliefs effect their actions). If this is 'better' or not is not clear.

What I claim to have presented is an argument for Christianity. — Hallucinogen

For? For the existence of some supernatural realm? It is really unclear.

Obviously many different forms of altered states of consciousness exist. Many of the biological mechanisms needed to induce them are present in religious traditions. Prayer is one of them.

People have experiences of aliens abducting them, yet prior to ideas of UFOs there were no reports of alien abductions but plenty of instances of demons and angels. What this seems to point to is something is going on in the human psyche and people represent this in different ways based on mythos they are familiar with.

Note: Instances of people taking DMT show this more vividly too.

It is framed pretty much along fatalistic lines in the OP. I use the term Determinism in a specific sense relative to and opposite to Non-determinism.

Anyway, have at the rest of it if it tickles your fancy :)