Philosophy Now Forum

Is there any proof of the human mind being deterministic or non-deterministic?

Please provide at least one peer reviewed scientific source to backup your claims!

QuantumT wrote: ↑Mon Oct 15, 2018 12:09 am Is there any proof of the human mind being deterministic or non-deterministic?

Please provide at least one peer reviewed scientific source to backup your claims!

This is a false dichotomy.

Define your criteria for determinism? Absolute (e.g theoretical) or partial (practical) determinism?

If you are speaking in absolute terms then to determine if if a human mind is deterministic with statistical means (e.g science) requires you to solve the Halting Problem first ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem ). And if you can determine exactly what a mind is going to do then - you don't need scientific evidence.

If you mean partial determinism - then, you don't need science. I know how my girlfriend is feeling based on observing her body language. I know how she will respond if I say X vs Y.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:23 pm This is a false dichotomy.

Define your criteria for determinism?

Are our likes, dislikes and choices genetic? So that when we make a so called "free" choice, it is in fact a choice we were preset to make?

An crude example:

Dave likes rock music and brunettes. He smokes Camels, drinks Heineken and votes lefty. His main hobby is his motorcycle. He is a pacifist unless provoked. He doesn't want children, and does not believe in God.

If you cloned Dave and gave him a totally different childhood, would he still prefer rock, brunettes, Camels, Heineken, left-wing-politics, motorcycles, pacifism, no kids and no God?

Separated twins studies should clarify this. Know of any?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:44 pm s, dislikes and choices genetic? So that when we make a so called "free" choice, it is in fact a choice we were preset to make?

What if some are, and some aren't?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:44 pm Dave likes rock music and brunettes. He smokes Camels, drinks Heineken and votes lefty. His main hobby is his motorcycle. He is a pacifist unless provoked. He doesn't want children, and does not believe in God.

If you cloned Dave and gave him a totally different childhood, would he still prefer rock, brunettes, Camels, Heineken, left-wing-politics, motorcycles, pacifism, no kids and no God?

Separated twins studies should clarify this. Know of any?

I have bumped into a bunch of studies that show that far more than we give credit for is genetic - traits like intelligence, temperament, aptitude etc. Will try and dig them up.

But one must ask the question. If you separated the twins into two societies - one society doesn't have rock music, brunettes, camel or Heineken.

I think that would answer your question? How can you 'like' something you have never experienced?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:44 pm

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:23 pm This is a false dichotomy.

Define your criteria for determinism?

Are our likes, dislikes and choices genetic? So that when we make a so called "free" choice, it is in fact a choice we were preset to make?

An crude example:

Dave likes rock music and brunettes. He smokes Camels, drinks Heineken and votes lefty. His main hobby is his motorcycle. He is a pacifist unless provoked. He doesn't want children, and does not believe in God.

If you cloned Dave and gave him a totally different childhood, would he still prefer rock, brunettes, Camels, Heineken, left-wing-politics, motorcycles, pacifism, no kids and no God?

Separated twins studies should clarify this. Know of any?

Are genetics determined by "choice" considering the manifestation of certain materials in the environment cause a change in the genome, which at minimum activates or deactivates certain genes. Do genes cause the actions which change genes? Or do the actions determine the nature of the genes? Both?

The problem with all "vs." arguments is that all it does is effectively cause a form of division, that while providing progressive definition of the two points being argued, leads to a contradiction where reconciation is inevitable because the question becomes one of hierarchy where one point is effectively "higher" than another thus necessitating a form of "supremecy" which is not always the case considering all hierarchies are dependent upon there bases.

Our thoughts are structured so we always act determinsically when we are logical. I am not sure if our feeling is structured in response to past experience. I am not sure about free will since I cannot prove that I could do otherwise.