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

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". It requires control over emotions to not fret over decisions. You've been talking past me this whole time because you've missed the context apparently.

You think none are or cannot be zen monks? — I like sushi

I think they aren't all zen monks. Some are - in fact Zen Buddhists generally believe in determinism - but clearly not all determinists are zen monks

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.

Although, to be generous, it seems all conscious states are emotional states — I like sushi

No need to be generous, just Google what it means to fret about something. First result is "to be constantly or visible anxious" for me. Anxiety is an emotion. Being anxious is an emotional state. I'm not saying anything wild with my interpretation, I'm using the very most basic straightforward definition of "fret".

You're being the exact opposite of generous if you are arguing this much about not fretting being a matter of controlling emotions.

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.

Maybe they meant that determinists are less likely to fret about certain situations — I like sushi

But that's not what he said. He said he's observed that they do fret, he didn't say he's observed that they're less likely to fret. If anything, he's expressing consternation that he HASN'T observed that they fret less.

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, I made a tiny error. — I like sushi

We all do, I appreciate the acknowledgement.

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

Right. Worded that way sounds like a consciousness telling us what to think. I would say determinism means the web of physical events is our thoughts. But that doesn't mean some thinking entity is causing the physical events to play out the way they do in order to create those thoughts.

Worded that way sounds like a consciousness telling us what to think. — Patterner

But the context is that we do have a consciousness literally telling determinists what to do, here in the thread. So comparing THAT - a real thinking entity actually telling people what to do - to determinism "telling people what to do", just doesn't make all that much sense to me.

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.

I think you've missed the context again

Worded that way sounds like a consciousness telling us what to think.
— Patterner

But the context is that we do have a consciousness literally telling determinists what to do, here in the thread. So comparing THAT - a real thinking entity actually telling people what to do - to determinism "telling people what to do", just doesn't make all that much sense to me. — flannel jesus

But, in that context, the "consciousness literally telling determinists what to do" is, itself, determined. So it's still a consistent theory. I was trying to say some non-determined consciousness arranged/arranges everything so that the webs of physical events that are our thoughts are exactly as they are by design. The exact thoughts we have were intended.

The exact thoughts we have were intended. — Patterner

Intended by whom?

Intended by whom? — flannel jesus

Beats me. By whatever non-determined consciousness is behind them. Different people who believe this type of thing might have different ideas. Some might say a universal consciousness. Some might say God. Some might say other things. I'm just saying the consciousness literally telling determinists what to do in the context of this thread - that is, the consciousness that made the op - would (presumably) be as determined as the rest of us. Just another part of the gigantic web of physical events that are all of our thoughts.

Intended by whom?
— flannel jesus
Beats me. — Patterner

In a deterministic world, equating “I choose” with “consciousness telling me what to do” is a metaphor. Nothing is actually “telling” anything. It’s cause and effect. Determinisim.

I don’t tell my heart to beat, or my stomachs acids to break down food. That just happens in my body.

If I have to choose vanilla or chocolate ice cream and “I choose” the vanilla because I there is only enough chocolate for one serving and I want my wife to have the option of chocolate or vanilla, in a deterministic world, I didn’t choose - vanilla was bound to be what I ate because of all the things the led me to that fork in the road. It’s not because of what I want that after eating ice cream there is still both chocolate and vanilla left for others. I can believe I was a great guy leaving others both flavors, but due to all of the influences and motions in my brain, just like I don’t tell my heart to beat, I don’t tell my mind what to think, and so the “choice” of vanilla was not because of anything “I” “decided” - it was determined, as I was determined to think and believe what I was determined to think and believe. My “choice” really just happened in my body like everything else about me - caused with or without my consciousness.

And I agree with Patterner that I have no idea how to explain the ontology of non-determinism. If I am free, then no matter what causes lead me to a fork in the road, in order to be free, choosing X or Y at that fork comes from nowhere else but me.

The way I see it, one needs a “self” in order to make a choice, and this “self” must be able to account for all causes prior to it (or enough of them) to seize control of the causal chain and insert this self in it by making the sole determination of outcome. The self seizes control, and the self creates its own choice; then the body acts. I don’t know how, but if the world is deterministic (and it may be), then there is nothing real about “myself” or “my choice” or “freedom”.

It is just as hard to explain what is going on in my head when I delude myself into making a choice in a deterministic world, as it is to explain what is going on in my head in when I make a choice in a world where there is room for freedom. It’s a bitch. But if the world is deterministic, there need be no talk of “I” and “choice” and “I am responsible” or anything that springs from or includes “I”. That seems delusional to me as well.
If “I” can be undetermined by the world, free to deliberate and make a choice, talking about what I do makes more sense to me, but talking about how this can even be possible sounds delusional.

So I choose to believe “I can choose” and demonstrate what is the case in so doing, but not how that is possible.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If it makes sense to you though, keep on keeping on.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If it makes sense to you though, keep on keeping on. — flannel jesus

But how does the phrase “make sense TO ME” make sense in a deterministic world? How do “you” make sense to you, if there is only a causal chain - where do “you” fit in there any differently than a heart beat? And the word “choice” becomes a metaphor for simply two relay racers passing the baton of cause and effect.

But how does the phrase “make sense TO ME” make sense in a deterministic world? — Fire Ologist

Once you have a fully featured model of what it means to make sense in any world, I think you'd find it means the same thing if we're deterministic or indeterministic.

I think — flannel jesus

I think that what “I think” is determined by me.

In a deterministic world, “me” is determined just as much as the thoughts thrust upon it, so “me” may as well drop out of the equation - “me” can’t direct or redirect any cause to any effect, because “me” is determined to choose exactly what was caused. So choice is non-existent, and “me” is metaphor for “it” which is now simply consciousness sensing as much of the determined flow as it can fathom, never able to learn more than it has been determined to learn, never able to step aside and direct even itself.

Thank you for expressing to me your thoughts on the matter

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.

Zen Buddhists generally believe in determinism — flannel jesus

And they think the self is an illusion as well. And desire, which supports choice, is a frustration of the real.

Thank you for expressing to me your thoughts on the matter — flannel jesus

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe these thoughts and expressions have been determined since my youth and I am taking credit for them like a fire takes credit for boiling water. In any case, since you are giving me credit for “my” thoughts, you are welcome.

But how does the phrase “make sense TO ME” make sense in a deterministic world? How do “you” make sense to you, if there is only a causal chain - where do “you” fit in there any differently than a heart beat? And the word “choice” becomes a metaphor for simply two relay racers passing the baton of cause and effect. — Fire Ologist

I think I understand what you're saying. I don't think you understand what he's saying.

Heart beat was a good thing to mention. In a deterministic world, a certain group of physical events takes place, and we call the overall activity a heart beating. Another certain group of physical events takes place, and we call the overall activity thinking. If Determinism is correct, there is no "me" aside from the physical processes. The "me" is the physical events.

The "me" is the physical events. — Patterner

Yes. I think I understood that.

Another certain group of physical events takes place, and we call the overall activity thinking. — Patterner

Yes, and in another certain group of physical events we call the overall activity “me choosing.”

So if all of the physical events are deterministic, what do we make of that choice?

If we say that choice can still be made out of me thinking, but me thinking is in turn made out of deterministic physical events, what do we make of that “me”?

I think the difficulty here is determinism makes it hard to explain what we experience (objects like “me” and activities like “deliberation”); non-determinism makes it hard to explain how our experience is even possible (who/what the hell am I to influence the causal chain).

Yes. I agree with you entirely. I argued the same position in another thread not long ago. The problem, I believe, is that languages were developed by beings who believed as you and I do. If, for many thousands of years, anyone had any inkling of determinism, or thought we did not have free will, they probably didn't have many serious conversations about it with many people. So we're stuck trying to discuss things with language that can't easily express the ideas. I was saying choices don't have meaning, and aren't "actual" choices.

I was saying choices don't have meaning, and aren't "actual" choices. — Patterner

:up:

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

In not remotely. I just thought FO didn't understand what fj was saying, and tried to get them on the same page.

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.