I do n`t view life as an evolving mind, what does that even mean? The way in which I view life alters as my mind evolves though, but not necessarily in totality fundamentally. I do n`t quite agree that there are lots of sources for prejudice, there are lots of reasons for prejudice. Prejudice is caused by a gap in thinking, hence defined as ignorance. "Sources" suggests too much to information, and prejudice is at odds with information, it does n`t want to hear it. I do n`t agree that there has to be a god in this, and if there were he`d of granted us free will, we are determined because it is the only way in which we can possibly hope to function.. I`m more than happy with myself the way I am. I do n`t mean to put it quite that way, of course there may be God, but I do n`t think you can find the answer here.

I do n`t view life as an evolving mind, what does that even mean? — celebritydiscodave

It means the Mind is constantly learning. Maybe some people stop learning and stop evolving?

Prejudice is caused by a gap in thinking, hence defined as ignorance. "Sources" suggests too much to information, and prejudice is at odds with information, — celebritydiscodave

There is never a gap in thinking. Thinking is continuous, except when we are in a state of unconscious. I think you mean to say is that the reason for prejudice is when someone doesn't agree with a non-prejudiced point of view, whatever that may be.

we are determined because it is the only way in which we can possibly hope to function.. — celebritydiscodave

Well, I guess the gods determined some people to be prejudiced. And that's the way it is.

It should read "with" an evolving mind in that case, but even then it is not well put, "as" renders the line meaning something totally different, that you consider the world to be a mind.
Prejudice is not on paper, it is in the real animate world, between people. When one entertains biases for every member of a given generation, this whether they be younger or older,, biases which do not on every last occasion apply, this is an example of prejudice, age prejudice come reverse age prejudice. Thinking that you know more than can be known about a person on account of how long he or she has been alive; but obviously, your thinking would be required to be negative.

should read "with" an evolving mind in that case, — celebritydiscodave

There is no "with". The Mind is evolving.

that you consider the world to be a mind. — celebritydiscodave

The two are inseparable.

I`m finished on that one,

Read up in quantum mechanics. There is no separation in any system between the observer and the observed. It is all entangled.

I'm always OK when it is Determined that conversation has ended. You don't think you made the decision, do you?

Could you please provide any reference for quantum entanglement of everything?

Google it. It is fundamental.

I did before asking question. People just say different things. In fact, this is a hypothesis that cannot be tested because of the existence of the horizon which limits our observable universe.

Entanglement is fundamental to quantum mechanics. The observer is entangled as is everything else. As I said elsewhere, there is no separation anywhere.

Rich is determined that QM is true!!!

[replyp

Rich is determined that QM is true!!! — charleton

Did you decide to write this or was it the Laws of Nature that decided to exhibit humor. Like Greek Gods, the Laws of Nature mimic everything that humans do! Coincidental?

Did you decide to write this or was it the Laws of Nature that decided to exhibit humor. — Rich

You are trying to draw a false distinction.

FYI Greek Gods, like entanglement are constructs.

Just pointing out the similarity between gods and it's modern construct, the Laws of Nature. The gods had a sense of humor as does the Laws of Nature. Curious.

Very little of anything here even makes any significant sense and as such it places itself at opposing poles to being interesting. Much is even obviously ridiculous, such as nature being influenced somehow in its thinking by humans, or is that humans by nature, equally ridiculous for they are one of the same. Anyone can converse to one side of actual issues in this way, for nothing of significance is required to be contemplated, but the best philosophy is a product of those that hit the subject matter head on. The mind does not evolve, the mind merely changes, it takes for many generations to pass before one can even begin to think in terms of an evolving mind..

The problem with determinism is that it cannot explain the beginning of everything.

Entanglement is fundamental to quantum mechanics. The observer is entangled as is everything else. As I said elsewhere, there is no separation anywhere. — Rich

But notice when you refer to physics, there are the underlying terms of your perceptual/cognitive system that are always already there making the perception possible. One way to put it is that even to conceive of causality, it requires the, if you firmly hold to this ide in all things (as we must because we cannot conceive of an exception; causality is apodictic) causal matrixes of mind (not to put too fine a point on it) to do this, which is blatant circular reasoning. You could conclude that certainly the principle of causality is compromised since it cannot be conceived apart from it own application. But then, this applies to all claims about anything whatsoever. The conclusion is clear: no foundational terms like this can have meaning beyond their intuitive evidence, and this evidence is always compromised, undone, really.

Then the only course of action available is to examine the conditions of its undoing, knowing full we that this too is subject to the same objections. But at least the focus has reached a a more fundamental level, for now we are giving analysis to the very basis of this very strong knowledge claim, the principle of causality. Then all eyes turn to one place: language. Before quantum physics can be what it is, we have look at what it means know at all.

All problems in philosophy end this way. This is why science will never be philosophy.

roll a pair of dice — RepThatMerch22

I'm reminded of the time when I started a thread on die roll and coin flip randomness. As you said, true, each roll/flip is completely determined (if you have knowledge of the initial conditions of the die/coin, you can predict the exact outcome of the die/coin).

Amazingly, if you roll a die/flip a coin a large number of times the frequency of the outcomes begins to approximate the frequency of randomness i.e. the experimental probability approaches the theoretical probability; note that the theoretical probability assumes true randomness. In other words a deterministic system can produce true randomness. Isn't that fascinating?

If all I said is correct, and randomness has something to do with free will, compatibilism must be true.

if you have knowledge of the initial conditions of the die/coin, you can predict the exact outcome of the die/coin — Agent Smith

How you wanna do that? Can you know the outcome before the dice show their outcome? We could get rich love!

Look at a behavior that’s just occurred, and let’s make it an atomistic thing like pulling a trigger. Here are the four neurons in your motor cortex that told your muscles to flex. You ask, Why did those four neurons just do that? To show free will, show me that those neurons would have done exactly the same thing regardless of what all the other neurons around them were doing. But that’s not enough. Show me that those four neurons would have done the exact same thing if you weren’t exhausted, or stressed, or euphoric, or blissful, or if your hormone levels had been different, or if the trauma that happened a year ago had never happened, or if you hadn’t found God 30 years ago, or if you had been raised in another culture, or if you had completely different genes.

If you could change all of those variables and those four neurons would still have done that exact same thing at that moment, you’ve just proven those four neurons have free will. But you can’t. Everything is embedded in what came before.

do you really think that humans and ants are the same ?

free will cannot explain the beginning of things either.

Most people just assume that free will is true and maybe it is in some capacity but I think that determinism is way more likely because it feels morso like things are determined at times as apposed to me changing the outside word around me with my free will.

what is the difference between fatalism and determinism ?

determinism is more specific than fatalism. Fatalism is the idea that the destination is determined (by some kind of spiritual force, usually), but that how you get there isn't.

So maybe you're fated to die at the age of 27. You could live your life normally and die in an accident. But maybe you find out you're going to die at 27, and you want to avoid fate, so you do everything you can not to be vulnerable to accidents, which pretty much means never leaving your house, never getting a job. So your whole adult life, you never leave, you stay safe, and meanwhile your parents are growing to resent you because you're just mooching off them for free. One day, when you're 27, your pissed off dad decides to kill you himself.

Fatalism actually can involve libertarian freedom in the in-between moments, as long as you arrive at the correct destination. Determinism, on the other hand, doesn't have any spiritual forces deciding some specific end, instead every moment must follow causally from the last - there's no libertarian freedom in the in-between moments.

My view is that determinism must be true. — RepThatMerch22

The notion of truth and falsity are inapplicable in a completely deterministic context. The fact that you are able to offer a statement about the truth or falsity of something means that your capacity for making a statement must, at bare minimum, not be subject to determinism.

thanks for explaining that now I have a better understanding of them both.

My view is that determinism must be true.

At the most basic level, things happen because they are caused by other things.

If you roll a pair of dice, the result is not random, but determined by the laws of physics. If you knew all relevant information (e.g. force of throw, distance of throw, angle of throw, nature of surface, etc.), you could figure out what the result would be.

Take that simple example and apply it to everything. The fact is that you couldn't have all the information to determine what could happen, for example, with human behaviour. But hypothetically if you did, then you would be able to predict it with ease.

How different are we from ants, really? Ants are just less complex. How different are ants from dice? Think about it.

Free will must be an illusion. You only do things because something in your brain told you to. If you understood all the chemistry and physics behind the operation of your brain, you would be able to see why you do things.

Ultimately, the free will vs. determinism debate is useless and probably harmful. If you believe in determinism, people become depressed and feel hopeless because they view themselves as prisoners. From a practical standpoint that isn't a useful way to live a life.

If you believe in determinism, people will ask what happens of criminals who commit atrocious crimes. Well, that is still determined. Should they bear the blame though? Absolutely - because otherwise civilisation would not work.

But putting aside morality, etc. -- if you think about this question on the most fundamental cause/effect level, it is undeniable to me that determinism simply MUSt be true. What exactly is truly random? Events in the universe only occur as a result of the operation of physical laws.

Boltzmann once wrote in his preparatory notes to a series of lecture hes gave at Cambridge regarding a topic that was considered by many scientists to be nonsense – the existence of atoms – that:

“It’s easy to go to atoms from representations, but it is hard to go from appearances to atoms.”

The problem, Boltzmann contends is that we have to somehow “...choose the most suitable expression” despite “...want[ing] to define things which cannot be defined”. Because of this, Boltzmann claims that “...it is not merely accidental if one should despair about how to explain nature and spirit”, we are simply – as Wittgenstein would say – running up against the walls of language.

Why do I mention this segment from Boltzmann? Because, he recognized that, in some sense, we are forced to use certain expressions to picture reality, yet at the end of the day, these are simply words we’ve created, and we are really just picking the best expression. If I set up a dichotomy between “free” and “determined”, and ask “which should I apply to myself?”, I’ve in some sense created the problem. Is “free” vs “determined” a meaningful way to set up the problem? Especially if I am inclined to disavow the very possibility of anything in the entire universe as being “free”? What then is the meaning of the expression? Clearly, there are “degrees of freedom” since we never truly encounter anything which I can contend is “truly free”, yet I can meaningfully delineate between those things which have some degree of freedom and those which have none. So, “freedom” is not an absolute term, but a relative term – something is more or less free than something else. Using your manner of speaking, we might say something is more or less “predictable” such that some things are fundamentally unpredictable despite being determined, and some are.

My point, is that this whole debate is really a tangle of words. We invent the expression and then apply it, and then are confused by the application – asking, at what point does this break down? Clearly, I am more free than a rock, or an ant, and this has meaning that we all agree to. But, when we ask, “well, are we ‘trulyyyyy’ free???” We are just caught in the illusion of our words, thinking they mean more than their application.

Can you say more as to why determinism undermines truth or falsity?

Can't why I say something still be true or false, I'm just determined to say what I say? I realize this was a month ago so I understand if you don't recall what you were thinking about this topic.

Can't why I say something still be true or false, I'm just determined to say what I say? I realize this was a month ago so I understand if you don't recall what you were thinking about this topic. — NotAristotle

Like your making a false statement is deterministically produced? But do you mean this in the sense that you are mistaken, so your statement is a reflection of inaccurate or incomplete knowledge? Because in that sense, probably every factual statement is materially incomplete in some way. So falsity is just a degree of truth. Or if you meant that your intention to deceive is deterministically produced? That would be a straight up self-contradiction, as soon as you introduce the concept of intention you introduce a break in the claim of universal determinism. Otherwise you're just begging the question when you assume (prove) there is no intentionality. In which case, the universe (determinism) doesn't deceive, it just produces incomplete truths. Free conscious intentionality is the only conceptually consistent basis for "falsity" in any meaningfully strong sense. Seems to me.