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'?

How about looking at it this way... If you were forced into the machine against your will, and you had reason to believe you would never be able to escape it, what would you do? Become catatonic because of the horror that your life would never be "real" again? Perhaps even kill yourself? Become an e-junkie so that you wouldn't be able to think straight, hoping you wouldn't remember the horror of your plight?

Could you not have a meaningful existence in the machine? Could you not be happy? Is that existence of no value? Would it be worth trying?

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.

The OP is incorrect that Determinists don't ponder choices in their daily lives, identically to how "non Determinists" do. Despite the fact that in Determinism the physical/electrical/chemical brainstate Determines the outcome of "decision making", as opposed to pondering and weighing options (ie thinking) within one's mind.

In other words, on Philosophy Forums folks will state that humans don't actually make true decisions, but everyone goes through the motions of decision making all day, every day as if they do, regardless of their stated stance on this topic.

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.

the alternative is that there isn't a real difference between those things.

Between a series of specific brain states, compared to pondering and weighing the options in ones mind.

Who is to say that the entire experience of pondering and weighing ones options in the mind doesn't emerge from, and is entirely supervenient on, a sequence of brain states, pushed forward by physical causality?

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?

There is a very real difference as outlined in the OP. — I like sushi

Just because some person wrote that there's a difference in some OP doesn't make it so

Let me put it this way:

There's these apparently competing ideas of how the world works. One idea is, we are "agents", and agents have minds and make decisions and use the bodies they're commented to to enact those decisions in the world.

The other idea is, the world chugs along via physical causality.

And then there's the compatibilist approach, and one way to frame it is as a combination of both of those statements. There are agents who are enacting their decisions in the physical world, but the implementation of an "agent" is also entirely physical and happens in brains. So you have the agential view of the world simultaneously with the physically-casual view of the world.

Not interested in that discussion whatsoever.

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

Not interested in that discussion whatsoever. — I like sushi

You made an op in which you talk about determinists and what they think and what their ideas are, and the consequences of their ideas - whether you like it or not, some determinists are compatibilists. You don't have to reply to me if you don't like what I'm saying.

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.

But I didn't — I like sushi

You didn't ... make an op in which you talk about determinists and what they think and what their ideas are? Come on dude.

Your op talks about determinism as if compatibilism isn't a type of determinism. It's not off topic to point out, hey, compatibilism actually is a type of determinism! And a compatibilist determinist would answer some of the questions of the op differently from how a non compatibilist determinist would.

The point being, of course everyone should deliberate on important questions, therefore the deterministic worldview leads to imprudent decisions — NotAristotle

But if you know that determinists do deliberate, despite being determinists, then you know that that's not an example of determinism leading to imprudent decisions.

Even putting compatibilism aside, I have spoken with many determinists in my life, and not a single one of them came to the conclusion that "determinism is true, so I should never deliberate" - so if that's the argument you have that determinism leads to imprudent decisions, it seems empirically that that's just simply not true.

In my experience, the kind of thought process that leads to things like "determinism is true, so I should never deliberate" isn't generally a thought process determinists usually think, it's usually a thought process non-determinists imagine determinists think. I don't know where I'm going with that train of thought, but I think it's interesting nonetheless. Non-determinists think, "If I was a determinist, I would think this", but determinists themselves almost never actually think this...

To start, if determinism is true, it makes no difference what we believe as what we believe is preordained. — I like sushi

Surely this is not true. If determinism is true then what we believe is preordained along with what we decide and what we do, but all these things still make a difference in the sense that they are determining causes of what happens. My belief that you have gone wrong here determines my act of writing this particular response. If I happened to believe you were right, I would not write this.

When I do my accounts, the result is predetermined on any view of determinism v freedom, because all the transactions have already happened. Nevertheless, I still have to do the sums, and doing or not doing the sums is necessary and makes a difference. In the same way, I have to actually tell the waiter the predetermined order that I will make from the predetermined menu that he has to show me, because that is how these things get determined, by my choosing act, that has to be primed with the menu information.

What is true is that determinism makes no difference to the decision making process that one is constantly going through, as that process is the determining of our actions; unless one falls into fatalism, which is false. "Waiter, don't bother me with the menu, bring me whatever my predetermined choice will be." The waiter cannot oblige.

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 :)

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. — I like sushi

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.

In essence, you are saying, "I am defining a Determinist as someone who will not fight this particular thing, and a Non-determinust as someone who will. My question is, do you think the person I've defined as someone who will not put up a fight will put up more of a fight than someone who I have defined as someone who will put up a fight?"

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

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.

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

Neither. It is better to become informed about relevant science than to settle for adherence to a simplistic philosophical position.

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?)

Surely you understand that is not what I am asking. — I like sushi

I was hasty and misread your "assuming Non-determinism is true" as "assuming determinism is true".

In any case, from my perspective you still seem to be asking about a false dichotomy between libertarian free will and fatalism, and I think it is better to understand that it is a false dichotomy and look beyond it. Thus my "neither".

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.

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

Since you put 'better' between ' and ', it would be a good idea to define how you are using the word at the moment. Otherwise, different people might answer based on their own interpretations of it. If we don't all happen to interpret it the same way, there might be no way to compare the answers.

For myself...

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.

If Non-determinism is not true, then the question is meaningless, since all any of us 'believe' is actually nothing more than the way the physical events play out.

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?

I would rather know what's going on, and base my decisions on that. The truth shall set you free, or some such crap. Let's say I'm happily married, crazy in love with my wife. Let's also say she cheated on me, and I don't know about it. I would rather find out, and have my life turned upside down with a divorce (if that is, indeed, the decision we came to) than go the rest of my life happily ignorant of the truth.

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.

Not my point. Say you're absolutely correct. Believers in the idea that thoughts are "pushed forward by physical causality" could just coast along believing that their cascade of brainstates are going to arrive at the inevitable conclusion. Yet they don't. They fret about making "wrong" decisions (making mistakes), just like the 99% of the non philosophical who've never heard of Determinism.

Yet they don't — LuckyR

yet they don't what?

They fret about making "wrong" decisions (making mistakes) — LuckyR

yes, that's certainly part of the process.

That does not offer any kind of answer(s) to the question. — I like sushi

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.

It more or less sounds like you are arguing with yourself about entering the experience machine or not. — I like sushi

Not in the least. I would enter. I think it would be an amazing experience.

The only difference being one is willfully living a lie and the other choosing not to. — I like sushi

There is no lie. It is another setting in which to experience. Putting on VR goggles is not a lie. Entering the Matrix is not a lie.

Pardon me, but that sounds like a post hoc rationalization (not an explanation).