Determinism versus Determinism

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

Determinism versus Determinism

Post by Philosophy Now »

Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/141/Determinism_versus_Determinism
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: Determinism versus Determinism

Post by Vitruvius »

"There are two possible explanations. On one account, compatibilism may simply derive from an arbitrary standpoint and imply logically contradictory things. We see this in the accounts of those compatibilists who reject the notion of free will yet encourage people to live as if it exists. They say that even if free will does not exist, we have to act like it does. They also argue that moral practices are important for regulating people’s behavior. Yet they fail to explain to us how anything, including moral beliefs, can have a power in changing peoples’ behavior if the course of the world is already determined from the Big Bang. What we end up with is to me a logically contradictory view that can’t be explained outside of the realm of illusion.

However, compatibilism may also derive from purely semantic differences – in other words, from having a different definition for the term ‘determinism’. This can be why at times determinists talk over each other and derive completely different conclusions on ostensibly the same subject."

***************

That's some very well presented information. It's like it was written by a machine, to inform another machine about two branches of determinism. Thesis and antithesis. I imagine the synthesis will be in the next chapter about emergent properties. Emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviours which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole. That so, there's no contradiction between causality and free will; and thus moral responsibility.

With the 26 letters on a keyboard, we can write a million English words, and combine those words into any number of meaningful sentences. In physical reality, there are 118 chemical elements and four fundamental forces, which interact causally to form compounds like DNA, which builds proteins, giving rise to cells which incorporate mitochondria to produce energy internally, and so on it goes - qualitatively distinct properties emerging from the causal interaction of elements, like a million monkeys hammering away long enough on a million typewriters might eventually write a poem.

If we regard intellectual intelligence as an emergent property, we need not deny free will exists to maintain causality, nor ignore causality to maintain moral responsibility.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Determinism versus Determinism

Post by jayjacobus »

Vitruvius wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:14 pm "There are two possible explanations. On one account, compatibilism may simply derive from an arbitrary standpoint and imply logically contradictory things. We see this in the accounts of those compatibilists who reject the notion of free will yet encourage people to live as if it exists. They say that even if free will does not exist, we have to act like it does. They also argue that moral practices are important for regulating people’s behavior. Yet they fail to explain to us how anything, including moral beliefs, can have a power in changing peoples’ behavior if the course of the world is already determined from the Big Bang. What we end up with is to me a logically contradictory view that can’t be explained outside of the realm of illusion.

However, compatibilism may also derive from purely semantic differences – in other words, from having a different definition for the term ‘determinism’. This can be why at times determinists talk over each other and derive completely different conclusions on ostensibly the same subject."

***************

That's some very well presented information. It's like it was written by a machine, to inform another machine about two branches of determinism. Thesis and antithesis. I imagine the synthesis will be in the next chapter about emergent properties. Emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviours which emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole. That so, there's no contradiction between causality and free will; and thus moral responsibility.

With the 26 letters on a keyboard, we can write a million English words, and combine those words into any number of meaningful sentences. In physical reality, there are 118 chemical elements and four fundamental forces, which interact causally to form compounds like DNA, which builds proteins, giving rise to cells which incorporate mitochondria to produce energy internally, and so on it goes - qualitatively distinct properties emerging from the causal interaction of elements, like a million monkeys hammering away long enough on a million typewriters might eventually write a poem.

If we regard intellectual intelligence as an emergent property, we need not deny free will exists to maintain causality, nor ignore causality to maintain moral responsibility.
You are on the right track

People do what more powerful people want because they fear being punished. That wouldn't work if they were robotic. They would be driven by algorithms.

Slaves and minorities that become liberated change their behaviors.
Post Reply