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 :)

But I didn't ... how do you not understand what I am saying? You can stay here and talk to someone else about something else if you wish, but it would probably serve you better to go somewhere where people are talking about what you are talking about.

Your time, your words.

Not interested in that discussion whatsoever.

Go here: the-argument-there-is-determinism-and-free-will

Not clear what you mean.

Maybe looking into ideas surrounding emergentism would help? Sounds like the kind of ballpark you are playing in.

There is a very real difference as outlined in the OP.

Choice is real.

Choice is not real.

The idea is then to argue why, or why not, BELIEVING in Determinism or Non-determinism is better than the other; if at all?

First, we need to outline what is meant by these terms.

Determinism frames the premise that our futures are set and unchangeable (human choices are not real), whereas non-determinism frames the premise that humans can change their fate (human choices are real). — I like sushi

I made it clear what I was talking about.

It is not "incorrect" you just did not read how I was using the terms.

It makes more sense if you just tell me how this is applicable to the problem I was posing.

More to the point, do you think someone who believes in Determinism would put up more of a fight than someone who believes in Non-determinism? That is what I was asking.

I said, plain and clear, that a believer in Determinism would not because they would not believe they are losing anything.

If there is no discernable difference why would you choose artificial reality over actual reality.

Maybe there are people who wish to float in a vat until they die completely oblivious to reality. I have a pretty strong feeling these people are in the minority though. Their are drug users, so it is not too much of a stretch to conclude that some would opt out of living a genuine life.

If you are a hedonist you are a hedonist. I am not really here to argue against hedonism as the topic is focused on the 'what if non-determinism'.

Do you think someone who believes in Determinism compared to Non-determinism would be more or less likely to enter the 'experience machine'?

It is your job to say what you are talking about.

There is no argument. Just some mundane statements.

This is WAY off topic now.

@flannel jesus Same for you. The conditions are given in the OP and it is quite clear that 'Determinism' in the sense I am categorising it is of consequence ONLY from the proposed 'Non-Determinism' being true.

Huh? The point is you would not enter the machine because it was not real.

Risk is essential in any endeavor.

When it comes to religion, and religiosity in general, altered states of consciousness are the mainstay of the most basic rituals and ceremonies (institutionalised or otherwise).

I'd settle for a step closer than we were before. — Dan

For the potential problems of the kind of non-sentient AI systems that may arise in the relatively near future, this is a worthy aim for sure!

I am certainly more inclined to look toward Moral Scepticism myself btw.

no, I am concerned with solving ethics entirely. — Dan

I am not really sure what you mean by "solve ethics entirely" here? Sounds a bit like attempting to count to the highest possible number. Needless to say where I think that will end.

Finding better methods is certainly possible though I think. I really do not think it takes much to show how irrelevant it is to try and offer up a tangible proof of moral absolutism. If I do then all I can say is where doubt exists doubt exists.

As I have noted to you already, there is scope to push the means of measuring further but there will never be any 100% validated methodology, only one that will work well enough under almost every circumstance (in the manner you framed the problem).

From what I have read fairly recently of Bernard Williams in 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy' I am inclined to view morals of obligation and such as not really within the realms of philosophy. There can be a philosophy of anything, but just because there is a philosophy of morality it does not mean there is anything essentially philosophical about Morals.

it is better to consider this freedom being protected rather than promoted. — Dan

It may even be beneficial to reduce freedoms too in some circumstances. The more freedom people have the greater the weight of responsibility.

This is besides the point to the problem you set out though. I am fairly sure you are more concerned with this as a potential use for AGI regarding a robust moral system to protect humans rather than cause undue harm?

I think I might be able to attempt a work around somehow ... might not fit into your criteria but will be fun.

Currently in the process of writing an essay on Liberty so this kinda thing is in my field of vision.

I am curious about what you would say to people who choose to have less choices. Basically they purposefully shirk responsibility and prefer not to choose.

Do we enforce a protection of choices against the will of such people? If so how can you justify this as it seems contradictory to the claims made for freedom consequentialism.

How far does paternalism factor in here if we are assuming rational and able people who are well informed and educated? I understand that it would likely enforce loss of freedom if it was judged such an action would reduce net Freedom?

This is intentionally quite a low bar to set for understanding, and means that people need not be well-informed in order to be free. They only need to understand what choices they are making and what it means to make those choices, such that they are able to apply their rationality to them. — Dan

This is a bit of a stretch considering people need a pretty high degree of understanding to contemplate possible consequences. This makes the whole scheme of Freedom Consequentialism ( as you frame it here) as somewhat elitist.

Regarding Satisficing Consequentialism I think this has better grounding when we define the 'minimal' as a kind of buffer zone rather than as an actual definitive line ... obviously this does not really help you as this is the very problem you posed that you wish to find a solution to!

If it is unsolvable then a cautious approach would make the most sense and then we find ourselves trying to resolve by Occam which side we should cut off or not. The qualitative aspect is really tricky so I do not see any simple work around that would outright counter the demandingness objection.

For these reasons I think a fresh approach may be warranted.

Interesting stuff :)

What if someone proves that it cannot be solved?

There is a phenomenon referred to as Christianity.

Are you saying anything else other than this? I cannot see that you are.

I think it is reasonable to say that a great number of us could give more. I see no reason for feeling guilty about going to the cinema or whatever though.

His argument has good weight to it as we all know the 'out of sight, out of mind' factor is big for all humans.

I honestly think it makes more sense for us to attend to what troubles are happening locally because, in terms of practicality, we are way more likely to contribute where we can immediately see and deal with certain social problems (plus people LIKE to actively help others rather than passively give money).

Ideally, if people have a decent income they should see what they can do and budget for it if they wish. Encouraging people to try once and see how they feel is likely more proactive than appealing to guilt (no matter how slight the appeal to guilt is).

The feel good factor is good enough reason contribute and there is no need to tie people in knots of guilt about what they do or do not do. Far better to merely appeal to people's better nature and ask them to 'give it go' and see if they feel any emotional benefits from such actions.

I see universals as meaning only ONE kind of thing. There are different types of 'walking' but not different types of 'the number one'.

If you cannot ask "what kind?" it is a universal.

Is justification the same as reason, apology, exculpation, defense, plea, rationale, rationalization, pretext, excuse - or something else? — Vera Mont

I would describe it as picture painting. The reasons for doing so vary depending the criteria. Justification can be a statement, a reply or a discussion with yourself. Each is quite different and serves different purposes.

When justifying your own actions or statements, according to what factors do you formulate your argument? — Vera Mont

Who I am talking to, what I want to say and how I may be wrong.

On what grounds do you decide whether a justification is appropriate and valid? — Vera Mont

Cynicism. This is true for my own justifications and others.

The simple truth is humans lie to themselves probably more than they lie to others. Watching how others justify themselves can help us understand some ways in which we fool ourselves.

Examples from any area of experience would be helpful. — Vera Mont

I have no reason to justify myself to you ;)

Some good points and interesting perspective there. Made me think.

I guess I am particularly curious about the Purpose (teleological) and Value (axiological) aspects involved when applying the "Experience Machine" to this question.

Note: let us stick to plain English rather than throwing around jargon though for now (much like with various nuances of Determinism).

Nozick tried to show that raw 'pleasures' are not necessarily what humans are pursuing. He pointed at the belief in the reality of the experience as being a factor that outweighs a pursuit of 'pleasure'.

Extracting this idea and applying to what is 'better' to believe, for the problem I have posed, shift the focus of the argumentation. By this I mean that we decide what is 'better' so how we Value the different positions matters.

Assuming Non-determinism (in any degree) can we provide evidence to state that belief in non-determinism trumps belief in determinism (as outlined in OP). I think we can.

The dynamic between living a so-called good life and living a life adhering to reality seem to be entwined. Reality seems to expose itself as the Purpose we carry for living; or rather, exposing reality is the Purpose for living.

Future is certainly tied up within this. Many people's access to 'pleasure' is generally in the immediate now, in temporal isolation, and in sensation. The Purpose is something more substantial as it is reality seeking.

The pleasure is ephemeral and perhaps an immediate reactionary guide; focus on the visceral experience. The Purpose both concrete and expansive in a temporal incompletion - we are always seeking reality through the real rather than abstractly measuring it in terms of 'pleasure'.

Note: I am trying to be concise here so as not to muddle the line of thinking.

Now, if we view Purpose as both reality led and reality leading - instead of goal driven - believing in no temporal Purpose (Determinism) clearly defeats Purpose as a led and leading aspect of human life. For non-determinism we then have the task of what that means as a Purpose led and leading being and to what extent our strain and stresses of responsibility factor in or not, then provide the evidence for this (if possible).

As an example of the ideas above (in case it is difficult to follow): I had a gut feeling that I should apply the thought experiment of the 'experience machine' to determinism vs non-determinism. The gut feeling is merely 'pleasure' directed, but the underlying mechanism of all this is Purpose. This reveals that a 'better' belief is the belief that drives Purpose, therefore believing in having purpose is certainly better than not believing in Purpose.

The only remaining question then is whether or not there is an optimal degree of belief in non-determinism and whether or not an argument for belief in determinism can be realised within these bounds?

I think it is far more likely it would lead to no decisions at all (which is a decision). We could also then argue that a non-deterministic belief would lead to procrastination and no decision making too though.

I think I outlined fairly well why there is no serious point in talking about Determinism as True in the sense I framed it. If it is false it might still be 'better' to believe in compared to believing in Non-determinism.

The entire point of this thread is to explore this. On the surface it may appear that it is 'better' to believe in Non-determinism. The question is can you provide good arguments for this belief and strongman the Determinism position too?

Nice information but irrelevant to the problem posed. Call it fatalism if you wish. I simply tried to outline what I was saying for this scenario as simply as I could (no need to get into the nuances of jargon).

The question now is not about what is true because we have no current way of unraveling this question in any simple manner. The question posed here is what is better to believe. — I like sushi

Few ask this. In short, believe whatever makes you do the more correct thing. If your beliefs in this matter don't significantly influence your day to day decisions, then the beliefs don't particularly matter. If fear of the wrath of the FSM makes you a better person, by all means make that part of your beliefs. — noAxioms

Yeah, I have not seen many ask this question. They just get tied up arguing about something they have no certainty about. Some prefer X and other mock X for thinking they can prefer X. The argument there is dead in the water.

I believe this problem is a kind of side door into the whole Determinism debate without really caring what is or is not correct.

I can only know that the future is out of my hands, but I can’t say it is set.

All I know is that my present state is not the result of me being free from forces that always precede my present state, and free enough to insert my own choice into the chain and tide of forces that placed chocolate ice cream in my mouth.

But those forces could be random. They could be some other free agent, operating me like a puppet at their free will - who knows? But I need not conclude that my future is set; only that my present was constructed by other than my choices. And that my future is not mine to set by my “choices”.

Maybe this is the same result, but I think it makes it more scientific if a question, and less dramatic with words like “fate”. — Fire Ologist

Irrelevant. Except for part in bold. We do not know so let's not waste our time speculating and see if we can say more about how one belief may or may not be 'better' than the other.

The rest of your post is you arguing with yourself and moving beyond the question posed in the OP. I am REALLY not interested in anything other than the question I asked and its possible ramifications.

Clearly determinism for humans is a moot point if true. The question is really about the belief in either if determinism (as outlined in the OP) is false and non-determinism is true.