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.

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

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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?