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 :)

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

It depends. Freedom of choice isn't always great. Nonetheless, it is generally better to have choices.

Yes but determinism isn't telling us "don't think" — flannel jesus

So you are free to either think or not think, and nothing but free will decides when you think or don’t think.

So how is that a world of determinism?

1) Consequence is being used separate from any concept of causality. — I like sushi

A consequence is an effect. So “consequence is being used separate from…causality” is confusing and needs more explanation.

And I have no idea why that is important to your experiment.

Note: Neither group KNOWS if their belief is True or False. — I like sushi

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?”

Or

The question is what Group belief is better? — I like sushi

But you are asking me, from outside the two groups, which group’s belief is better.

So I get to know choices are real, but the people in the experiment don’t know this.

- A choice not to choose is still a choice.
- A choice to deny that you can choose is a choice.
- A choice to believe there is no choice, against your better judgment, is a choice. — I like sushi

So all of the people in the Group that believe in determinism are morons, making all of these choices, in a world they don’t know choices are real.

- 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? — I like sushi

I have no idea. Your first and third questions seem like psychology questions to me.

The second question is “ability to choose fate” better than “not choosing your fate?” Why is the scenario relevant to this question?

Your fate can sometimes suck - so wouldn’t it be better if, when it looked like it was going to suck, you had the ability to choose your fate?
But if you have the ability to choose, or change your “fate” then it wasn’t really “fate” at all.

So this question is not clear enough to me even though I tried to answer it and gave you my reasons.

I think you lost sight of the train of conversation

I think you lost sight of the train of conversation — flannel jesus

I don’t think I ever had sight of it.

Anyway, thinking, to me, is the ground and a condition of freedom. It is because we can think at all about anything, that we might be free. So having your own thoughts are determined, and then basing choices on those thoughts as determined, (so no choice), makes no sense to me.

This conversation means we have access to freedom from the causal chain. We are freeing ourselves right now.

So I am having a hard time deliberating (building a free choice) over whether it is better to believe in freedom or determinism.

This conversation means we have access to freedom from the causal chain. — Fire Ologist

This conversation seems predicated on causality to me - if it were free of the casual chain, we would just be writing random stuff. You're writing to me as if you read what I wrote, indicating that your words are not free from the casual chain.

That's not meant to be a proof of determinism, for the record, just causality operating in the context of your thoughts and words.

This conversation seems predicated on causality to me - if it were free of the casual chain, we would just be writing random stuff. You're writing to me as if you read what I wrote, indicating that your words are not free from the casual chain. — flannel jesus

That is beautiful!

I agree language is functioning to convey meanings and yours and my logic is functioning to respond meaningfully to each other. All can be causally determined steps.

But to say what I just said, I had to step out of the causal chain, look back on the causal chain, and then re-enter the chain with this post. So whether I post anything is not determined. I am in the act of freely choosing to respond. My response has its determinants. But responding at all is not determined by anything other than my free choice.

I don’t know how this is the case. But to say I am not free would seem to mean “I am not” since of all is determined, this post was not my choice, and the “I” that chose to post did not so chose.

Determinism means there is no “I”, the agent that is free from the causal chain to deliberate about when to think, choose which thoughts to believe, and choose which thoughts to express.

Maybe I am not free, but that means maybe I am not me.

And that means this whole conversation isn’t a conversation between two individuals, but an outpouring of many many other causal determinants.

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.

but I can (I believe) make some predictions about how they would act — I like sushi

So this is a thought experiment in psychology?

But to say what I just said, I had to step out of the causal chain — Fire Ologist

Do you really have a solid reason to believe this? What is it? Why did you step out of the casual chain? Did something... cause that?

Do you really have a solid reason to believe this? — flannel jesus

No. It’s like proving matter exists. Seems plain to me that there is a “me” as a distinct body and my awareness of this (my mind) is distinct within that body, but I can’t prove it.

That fact that I can believe I am free means to me that I have to be free, because I have a belief without causes. So that is the best proof.

My beliefs define or carve out the “me” - when so believe, I create myself, and this creation is outside the causal chain, or it wouldn’t by “my”.

I prefer to have my beliefs caused by rational thought and evidence, not beliefs without causes.

I prefer to have my beliefs caused by rational thought and evidence, not beliefs without causes. — flannel jesus

The issue is are they “my” beliefs. Not whether they are based on reason. What causes “you” to claim your beliefs are “yours”. Regardless of whether they have been built of rational thought and evidence. How are they “your” beliefs if they are wholly determined by a causal chain?

Of course I use reason and evidence to base my beliefs. But one they are my beliefs and I act on them, I am the cause of those effects, I am the determinant. Not the causal chain without me.

Not the causal chain without me. — Fire Ologist

Without? No, of course not. We're part of the causal chain, not merely victims of it.

That fact that I can believe I am free means to me that I have to be free, because I have a belief without causes. So that is the best proof. — Fire Ologist

That is a valid point. They're isn't even an answer to the question of how webs of physical interactions are conscious/have subjective experience/are aware. Add to that the question of how these webs of physical interactions ever got the idea that they are not completely subject to physical interactions.

We're part of the causal chain — flannel jesus

What do “you” add to the causal chain, if “your choice” is determined? What happens when the chain bumps into “you” if the effect of “you” is determined?

If “my choice” is caused by something that is not my choice, it is not “my choice”.

The answer to me is that the act of choosing is the same act of creating the self that chooses. I exist while I am choosing. I individuate myself in the moment of choice. If all is determined, the “I” is not individuated, and “my” “choice” are illusions at best but not existing and not part of the causal chain.

Self detemination is self creation.

What do “you” add to the causal chain, if “your choice” is determined? What happens when the chain bumps into “you” if the effect of “you” is determined? — Fire Ologist

I'm not adding to it, i'm part of it, I'm a piece of it. It defines me, I am defined as a part of it.

If “my choice” is caused by something that is not my choice, it is not “my choice”.

If your choice is not part of the causal chain, then you're not causaing it.

Add to that the question of how these webs of physical interactions ever got the idea that they are not completely subject to physical interactions. — Patterner

Wondering if I am free requires freedom to happen. A machine that honestly wonders whether it is free or not has freed itself from the machine. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have found space to outside of the causal chain to wonder about anything.

I'm not adding to it, i'm part of it — flannel jesus

That’s a contradiction. You say you are a part of the causal chain. All of the parts add up to the chain. So what do “you” add to the chain of determined causes and effects? All of the other parts add up to the state of affairs. You say you are part of the causal chain - what part is “you” specifically. What is individuated as “you” in the causal chain?

I’m saying, once you admit there is a “you” - a thinking, deliberating, believing thing - you have individuated a thing that can be free to choose, not a thing that can only serve as a pass through for causes from outside it to effects following it.

If we were things like robots, we’d be part of the causal chain. “Self” awareness breaks the chain, can make a rational decision as “my choice” and by acting on that choice rejoin the causal chain.

what part is “you” specifically — Fire Ologist

the part here, now, where i am. I'm not some addition that someone decided to add in, that wasn't previously there. Everything that is "me" has always been part of the causal chain of the universe, and is now "me", and will continue to exist after I'm dead and those parts are no longer "me". The thing I call "me" is not separate from everything else. I don't think that's a contradiction.

I’m saying, once you admit there is a “you” - a thinking, deliberating, believing thing - you have individuated a thing that can be free to choose — Fire Ologist

I actually DO think I'm free to choose - I just mean something different by 'free to choose' than you do, because 'free to choose' to me doesn't involve negating my place in the causal chain. What it means for me to choose is precisely for the part of the causal chain that is "me" to causally go through a decision making process, and then interact with other things that are also part of the causal chain to enact (or try to enact) the output of my decision making process.

What it means for me to choose is precisely for the part of the causal chain that is "me" to causally go through a decision making process, and then interact with other things that are also part of the causal chain to enact (or try to enact) the output of my decision making process. — flannel jesus

You come to a fork in the road and the cart is rolling forward and you may either go left or right.

Left or right is going to happen. So when you go left and the fork is behind you, what caused this left?

To me, in a deterministic world, there was no choice made here. What caused left can be found by adding up all of the things in the causal chain.

If one of those things in the causal chain is “your choice”, then you’ve added in an individuated “you” who made that choice. If this you is only comprised of causes before this you (like everything else must be comprised) and if this you functions only accordingly to necessity (as everything else functions), then there could never have been a you that could have possibly made any other choice but to go left. So there was no choice, and choice is an illusion having nothing to do with where you went at the time you hit the fork in the road. You didn’t choose left, you played out the deterministic forces that pushed things left.

If you think you live in a wholly deterministic world, then the notion of a choice, and a free agent who claims “my” choice, are unicorns, not actual efects, not actual causes, not part of any chain, just words.

↪Fire Ologist Yes but determinism isn't telling us "don't think" if we're already thinking - determinisms the one telling us think! Or rather, "we" are defined by determinism, and "we" are defined as "things that think" — flannel jesus

Determinism tells us exactly what to think, and exactly when to think it. Yes?

Happy to hear I communicated accurately, yes the fretting thing. Also glad my observations (despite your, warrantless as it turns out, concern) turn out to also be accurate. Lastly, as I predicted, the way Determinists approach decision making (as you confirm) is similar, if not identical to that of everyone else.

As to why folks who believe humans can't actually choose between options would "fret" about making "wrong" choices, I have no answers (never did). It's just a question.

Not in the way that this person was telling determinists what to think. If someone wants to make an argument that it "tells" us things, they should disconnect it from the thing that started this conversation, which was a person who isn't a determinist saying determinists should stop trying to think, or something equally silly.

Determinism isn't whispering suggestions on what or how to think in anyone's ear.

Also glad my observations (despite your, warrantless as it turns out, concern) turn out to also be accurate. — LuckyR

No idea what this means

As to why folks who believe humans can't actually choose between options would "fret" about making "wrong" choices, I have no answers (never did). It's just a question. — LuckyR

I answered that, but I'll try to answer it more clearly:

Either a) fretting about decisions frequently produces better decisions than not fretting, in which case it makes perfect sense for EVERYONE to fret about decisions

or b) fretting does not produce better decisions, in which case it doesn't make sense for ANYONE to fret about decisions.

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.

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.

Granted, when we are talking about 'choice' itself then maybe you feel this comparison is ill-fitting? — I like sushi

It hasn't been made to fit yet. I still don't see any sensible lines to draw between determinists and non determinists in regards to fretting. Either it's beneficial or it's not - if it's beneficial, it makes sense for everyone to do it. If it's not, it makes sense for no one to do it.

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.

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.