A question for athiests

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

I think i know where you are going with this, but just in case i am wrong, why are you saying this matters in this conversation?

You obviously just said that the universe if finite. Alright, inifinity does not make sense in our universe. That being the case, there must have been a beggining to all things finite (that being the definition of finite). Obviously, then, the universe could not have logically come out of absolutely nothing, The significance of this is that there must have been an infinite something to start the finite. We made the infinite up because it does not exist in ou universe. It does not mean something separate from our universe is not infinite.

Um, you must not know the contrasts and updates to physics if you believe what your saying.

 

[Asimov]

But it must be established that an infinite MUST exist to create our universe since there cannot be an infinite number of events.

Not it mustn't, and again I say why not?

This means that a single "uncaused caused" must have started the initial singularity of space-time.

Special pleading.

Because this being existed before the universe it is separate from the rules of that univserse. This is the only possible explanation in light of our universe.

No it isn't. If the rules of "this reality" only apply to "this reality", then any previous reality could have different rules.

2. Because of entropy the universe is degrading, moving to chaos. If the universe were infinite, it would have already come to that point where it is at a point of total chaos (no energy necessary for work).

You don't understand "entropy" or the laws of thermodynamics. You're also assuming that before the singularity that the laws of thermodynamics applied to the universe.

 

[jeff992]

Um, you must not know the contrasts and updates to physics if you believe what your saying.

and these would be...

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

and these would be...

Go to barnes and noble, and look it up.

 

[jeff992]

Not it mustn't, and again I say why not?

yes it must actually. If the universe if finite than it must have come from something infinite because it cannot come from nothing. There would be abbsolutely no reason for it's existance. You have to ask yourself why something exists rather than nothing. Only an infinite can make sense in light of a finite beggining.

Special pleading.

....

No it isn't. If the rules of "this reality" only apply to "this reality", then any previous reality could have different rules.

exacly. A parallel infinite must have made the finite.

You don't understand "entropy" or the laws of thermodynamics. You're also assuming that before the singularity that the laws of thermodynamics applied to the universe.

i did not assume that. So explain how the laws of thermodynamics work in this case.

 

[jeff992]

Go to barnes and noble, and look it up.

thats what i thought. I dont think you know at all what you're speaking about.

 

[Asimov]

yes it must actually. If the universe if finite than it must have come from something infinite because it cannot come from nothing. There would be abbsolutely no reason for it's existance. You have to ask yourself why something exists rather than nothing. Only an infinite can make sense in light of a finite beggining.

Why can't it come from nothing?

exacly. A parallel infinite must have made the finite.

No, because the universe would actually not be finite. It would only reset itself.

i did not assume that. So explain how the laws of thermodynamics work in this case.

Of course you're assuming that. You're arguing that the laws of this universe don't apply to anything that you're positing. Why can't it be for what the universe was prior to the singularity?

Entropy has nothing to do with chaos, or disorder.

 

[MorkandMindy]

yes it must actually. If the universe if finite than it must have come from something infinite because it cannot come from nothing. There would be abbsolutely no reason for it's existance. You have to ask yourself why something exists rather than nothing. Only an infinite can make sense in light of a finite beggining.

[special pleading] ...

exacly. A parallel infinite must have made the finite.


i did not assume that. So explain how the laws of thermodynamics work in this case.

working backward...
The 'laws of thermodynamics' are not meaningful in a singularity.

Thermodynamics is the science of heat engines/heat pumps often reversible carnot engines. Essential is a heat source and a heat sink. Where do you get those when you only have a singularity?

You can't claim everything has a cause if you are serious about being scientific. If you want to play a game and claim every event has a cause (note my substitution of event for effect because by definition an effect has a cause, so that was begging the question something awful) then claiming that the first event was an uncaused cause is breaking your own rules, hence as Asimov says 'special pleading'.

Since you are attempting to explain Cosmology from everyday experience, which I'd say is a bit ambitious, why do you insert 'infinite' which even cosmologists always normalise out asap?

You are replacing some difficult to understand science with something utterly terrifying so would you please enlighten us with your grasp of infinity that is crucial to your understanding of cosmology?

 

[jeff992]

working backward...
The 'laws of thermodynamics' are not meaningful in a singularity.

Thermodynamics is the science of heat engines/heat pumps often reversible carnot engines. Essential is a heat source and a heat sink. Where do you get those when you only have a singularity?

You can't claim everything has a cause if you are serious about being scientific. If you want to play a game and claim every event has a cause (note my substitution of event for effect because by definition an effect has a cause, so that was begging the question something awful) then claiming that the first event was an uncaused cause is breaking your own rules, hence as Asimov says 'special pleading'.

Since you are attempting to explain Cosmology from everyday experience, which I'd say is a bit ambitious, why do you insert 'infinite' which even cosmologists always normalise out asap?

You are replacing some difficult to understand science with something utterly terrifying so would you please enlighten us with your grasp of infinity that is crucial to your understanding of cosmology?

you're right about the thermodynamics, that was a bad example. i am new to philosophical-like thinking and even though i know many prominent philosophers/scientists i cannot emulate their arguments quite yet, must do much more research. But then again, no one else here in this conversation (besides yourself possibly) has really much idea of what they are talking about scientifically or philosophically.


Actually i can claim that because there is not reasonable scientist or thinker who argues that an entire universe came from absolutely nothing. That is just absolutly ridiculous. I am not saything that the first event (beggining of this universe) was uncaused. I am saying it was caused by an uncaused being that is infinite by nature and separate from this universe.


have you read the past few pages of posts? Explain paragraph (Red 1) further if you will, more specific the better. I am guessing you are refering to why i am talking about infinity? There is obviously the modal cosmological argument which assumes an infinite. This argument has been used by cosmologists for centuries, but i am using a different one.

Again, paragraph (red 2) you might want to read 5 or 6 pages back. When you do that i will further explain my concept of infinity in application to cosmology. I'm not sure utterly terrifying is right, possibly just not fully articulate, but the theory is strong.

 

[David Gould]

I can't say exactly what Russell is saying here because I don't remember him expounding on it in detail. He was saying that naturalism requires that all activity, material or non-material, is subject to cause and effect analysis. I quoted Russell just to add some new words that are not my own and a new approach to the topic. What I think it reduces down to is that, if naturalism is correct, all is cause and effect, even our so-called independent rational thoughts. However, rational thoughts are only relevant if ground and consequence relationships exist, which they cannot in a naturalistic universe, because all is cause and effect. Therefore, the very basis of rationality, consciousness, and our beliefs about man no longer have ontological foundation.

Not true. In fact, without determinism, our thoughts would be irrelevant. With determinism, our thoughts are provoked by our environment and our biology and are thus applicable to them; without determinism, our thoughts are in no way linked to our environment.

In other words, if I was writing a treatise on mathematics then without determinism it would not be possible for me to write a sentence that actually made any sense. (Well, it would be possible - it would just be incredibly unlikely, given the range of non-sensical sentences available to me).

Furthermore, naturalistic metaphysics rests on man, at some point, being able to make ground and consequence arguments which naturalism itself cannot account for. So, inductive reasoning, within a naturalistic framework, is a belief of faith. In the end, under naturalism, our discussion on this forum is equivalent to two bottles fizzing at different velocities. I’ll get back to you about my thoughts on determinism. But, just to get the ball rolling, without free will, how do you view things like justice and government?

There is no such thing as justice, and we need to accept that free will does not exist in order to get over this hurdle. Government is a practical matter - a reaction to the complex environment that is human interaction.

Also, if determinism is true, how do we deal with disagreement?

We do exactly what we do now: argue, fight, sulk, struggle, test, rant, rave, apologise, claim victory, concede and come to a conclusion.

The thing is, at the moment I am deterministically programmed to be - for example - on the left. This programming has come about through interaction of my biology with my environment. Further interaction with my environment could change that programming or reinforce it. One of the ways that programming changes is through thinking about the issues involved and arguing about them with others.

 

[Silenus]

Well, Thanks for the response Gould. I was starting to get lonely and feeling quite forsaken. I have a few irons in the fire, as the saying goes, so my response will need to brief, but I'll try to start the ball rolling . . .

Not true. In fact, without determinism, our thoughts would be irrelevant. With determinism, our thoughts are provoked by our environment and our biology and are thus applicable to them; without determinism, our thoughts are in no way linked to our environment.

In other words, if I was writing a treatise on mathematics then without determinism it would not be possible for me to write a sentence that actually made any sense. (Well, it would be possible - it would just be incredibly unlikely, given the range of non-sensical sentences available to me).

I think you need to provide some scaffolding before I’ll accept this statement because I don’t see how it can possibly be true. It is true, that determinism does mean that you have direct connection to phenomena, but not to the universe as a whole, but only part. This is why, under determinism, we have different personality and responses, due to the difference in our hereditary and environment. Provoked is a euphemism, our thoughts are determined, and therefore, have no truth-giving content. If I believe something based on nothing more than environmental impulses or genetic predisposition, I have no reason to believe that they are objectively true. Truth itself, under determinism, necessarily becomes purely subjective. Our thoughts are not applicable to our environment, a better analog would be enslaved by them. Thoughts to be true, must be able to ascertain the ground of things, and they cannot if they are all caused by phenomena outside our control. Rationality, in order to be effective, must be uncaused. The moment assertions can be traced to a cause that is not part of a ground and consequence relationship, it no longer has truth-telling capacity. Your second statement

without determinism, our thoughts are in no way linked to our environment.

assumes that I must have my responses caused by my environment to be applicable to my environment. However, that statement is only true under a pure empiricist or possibly extrapolated from a Kantian epistemology. I hold none of these. Under a theist worldview, my rational thoughts are, by nature, a reflection of the divine nature that created the world and; therefore, have direct connection to my environment. My rationality has truth telling ability. I have no ding an sich problem. Especially for a Theist, there is no issue or separation between the rationality of the human mind and the reality itself. both are united in the divine essence and purpose. However, determinists can't hold to any true concept of rationality, and therefore, any real concept of truth. My determined rationality is nothing more than a result of chemical fizz. All I have is my perceptions caused by my genes and environment.

There is no such thing as justice, and we need to accept that free will does not exist in order to get over this hurdle. Government is a practical matter - a reaction to the complex environment that is human interaction.

And therefore, no concept of ethics and right and wrong. Therefore, might makes right and government itself is a kind of absurdity.

We do exactly what we do now: argue, fight, sulk, struggle, test, rant, rave, apologise, claim victory, concede and come to a conclusion.

The thing is, at the moment I am deterministically programmed to be - for example - on the left. This programming has come about through interaction of my biology with my environment. Further interaction with my environment could change that programming or reinforce it. One of the ways that programming changes is through thinking about the issues involved and arguing about them with others.

However, that change has no bearing on truth, only on my encounters with my environment. The reasons arguments cause change isn’t because they’re true, its because they fit some hereditary or environmental background. In any dispute in a determinist universe, just like in determinist ethics, the only true and ultimate end point of dispute is an appeal to force.

Here are some quotes from smarter people . . .

(belief) is merely the result of his heredity and environment, and of nothing else. He does not hold his determinist views because they are true, but because of such and such stimuli; that is, not because the structure of the universe is such and such but only because of the configuration of only part of the universe, together with the structure of the determinist’s brain, is to produce such a result . . Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinist’s arguments as being really arguments, but only as conditioned reflexes . . .

if my mental processes are totally determined, I am totally determined either to accept or reject determinism. But the sole reason for my believing or not believing X is that I am casually determined to believe it I have no ground for holding my judgment is true of false.

Determinism rests upon laws that explain nature in terms of casual necessity. For example, the apple falls because of the law of gravity; the dog salivates at the sound of the bell because of training; animals procreate because of genetic impulses. Despite the usefulness of causality in scientific endeavors, if it is applies to humans, it destroys the possibility of knowledge, truth, value, and virtue. Determinism destroys the ability to have knowledge, because it destroys human reasoning and it destroys morality because it decimated the free choice upon which goodness depends.

 

[quatona]

Silenus, I tried to understand your reasoning. I guess I must have been missing something, but to me it looks like one huge argument from consequence. "Determinism is wrong because it doesn´t allow for the world to be as I´d like it to be."
It´s not like I deny you the right to reject determinism for that reason or something, but before discussing the details of your reasoning I would like to know whether it´s meant to be a logical refutation or merely a "The idea makes me uncomfortable." So far I can´t help feeling it´s the latter, in which case I wouldn´t see a basis for a rational, logical discussion.

 

[Silenus]

I have time for one sentence . . . I'll expound more later

determinism is self-refuting

 

[quatona]

I have time for one sentence . . . I'll expound more later

determinism is self-refuting

Looking forward to the substantiation of this claim.
Please make sure you do not merely show how determinism is self-referential (a property that it - unfortunately and necessarily - has in common with every other concept of the human condition).

 

[Silenus]

Looking forward to the substantiation of this claim.
Please make sure you do not merely show how determinism is self-referential (a property that it - unfortunately and necessarily - has in common with every other concept of the human condition).E]

Well, I'm not sure what you're asking me not to show here. But my previous response had two points.

1)

In this case I was trying to show how the point that determinism gives direct access to the world in a way that other systems do not in false. In fact, determinism doesn't do this as I commented in the first part of the other post.

2) now this second part does have the feel of what you are saying, however, I don't agree that this makes it invalid or irrational. One does not accept axioms, one chooses them, and if an axiom forces you to engage in contradiction and throw out a large portion of what seems real, that axiom needs to do a good job of explaining why what I think is real is an illusion. I don't see any problem with demanding determinism to explain centuries of collected human wisdom from many traditions.

However, determinism is self-contradictory or at least forces me to believe that contradictory things are true. If determinism is true, than I cannot help but believe what I believe. I have no choice. Now, my beliefs are either true or false. If my beliefs are false, than so are everyone else’s, because we all cannot choose but believe what we believe and we all have beliefs caused by nature. All beliefs are caused and they all have the same causes. Therefore, your belief in determinism is as false as my belief in God. However, if your belief is true, it is true because it was caused by existence. There is no way to deteremine (no pun intended) truth or falsehood. If your belief is true, than so is mine, so it is true that we are determined and it is true that we are not determined. Both are true. So, I must claim, to continue, that truth is subjective. But, if truth is subjective, determinism is subjectively true, and therefore, only true for some people. So some of us are determined and some of us are not . . . As I apply determinism to more and more situations, it leads me to believe more and more logical absurdities. So, yes, I have a correspondence problem with determinism and I have a logic one.

 

[us38]

However, determinism is self-contradictory or at least forces me to believe that contradictory things are true. If determinism is true, than I cannot help but believe what I believe. I have no choice. Now, my beliefs are either true or false. If my beliefs are false, than so are everyone else’s, because we all cannot choose but believe what we believe and we all have beliefs caused by nature. All beliefs are caused and they all have the same causes. Therefore, your belief in determinism is as false as my belief in God. However, if your belief is true, it is true because it was caused by existence. There is no way to deteremine (no pun intended) truth or falsehood. If your belief is true, than so is mine, so it is true that we are determined and it is true that we are not determined. Both are true. So, I must claim, to continue, that truth is subjective. But, if truth is subjective, determinism is subjectively true, and therefore, only true for some people. So some of us are determined and some of us are not . . . As I apply determinism to more and more situations, it leads me to believe more and more logical absurdities. So, yes, I have a correspondence problem with determinism and I have a logic one.

The bolded stuff does not follow. Just because some beliefs are false does not mean all beliefs are false. And yes, while all beliefs do have a common cause far enough back, there are also different causes that act on causally separated objects.

 

[quatona]

Well, I'm not sure what you're asking me not to show here. But my previous response had two points.

I just asked you to make sure you are really showing that determinism is self-refuting (as you announced you would do), and not merely showing that it is self-referential.

1)

In this case I was trying to show how the point that determinism gives direct access to the world in a way that other systems do not in false. In fact, determinism doesn't do this as I commented in the first part of the other post.

I´m not sure anybody made that claim, in the first place. I for one don´t.
Even if determinism does not "give direct access to the world" (whatever that might mean - I really have no idea), that doesn´t mean it is self-refuting.

2) now this second part does have the feel of what you are saying, however, I don't agree that this makes it invalid or irrational.

Well, that´s why I didn´t say it would make it invalid or irrational. I just pointed out that every human concept about human conceptualization is necessarily self-referential, and I asked you not to merely show self-reference and then assume you have shown self-refutation.

One does not accept axioms, one chooses them,

Says who? Certainly not determism. If you want to show that a theory is self-refuting or inconsistent, you better not start from a premise that directly contradicts the theory.

and if an axiom forces you to engage in contradiction and throw out a large portion of what seems real, that axiom needs to do a good job of explaining why what I think is real is an illusion.

I´m not sure which part of determinism you refer to as axiomatic, and I am not sure where determinism contradicts and throws out a large portion of what seems real, in your opinion.
To me there are no such contradictions.

I don't see any problem with demanding determinism to explain centuries of collected human wisdom from many traditions.

I don´t see a problem with that, either. Then again, I see no need for an idea to be in agreement with tradition in order to be not self-refuting.
The fact that it is irreconcilable with other ideas only shows that it is irreconcilable with those ideas.
The term "wisdom" is problematic here. I´m not sure I would call determinism "wisdom", so I do not necessarily see it competing with ancient wisdom.

However, determinism is self-contradictory or at least forces me to believe that contradictory things are true. If determinism is true, than I cannot help but believe what I believe.

Yes.

I have no choice.

Yes.

Now, my beliefs are either true or false.

In regards to what? I understand you are assuming there is a "real world" out there, compared to which my beliefs are accurate or inaccurate. Is that correct?

If my beliefs are false, than so are everyone else’s, because we all cannot choose but believe what we believe and we all have beliefs caused by nature.

Now, that is a complete non-sequitur.
I don´t see how the question whether a belief is chosen or not has any bearance on the fact that it can be accurate or inaccurate.
[quoteAll beliefs are caused and they all have the same causes.[/quote]
Certainly not so. If we pick just two of the most important determining factors - genetics and environment -, we easily see that they are different for everybody.

Therefore, your belief in determinism is as false as my belief in God.

No, I don´t believe that, and your conclusion is based on illogical steps.

However, if your belief is true, it is true because it was caused by existence.

What?

There is no way to deteremine (no pun intended) truth or falsehood.

Ok.

If your belief is true, than so is mine, so it is true that we are determined and it is true that we are not determined.

Another non-sequitur.
From the fact that we cannot determine accuracy from inaccuracy there does in no way follow that something cannot be accurate or inaccurate. It merely cannot be determined.

Both are true.

No. You have merely shown that we cannot determine which is accurate.

So, I must claim, to continue, that truth is subjective.

No. You have started from the premise that there is objective reality out there, and you have now shown that we don´t have the means to determine it because we are subjective. Truth, by your reasoning, is not subjective - it is undiscernable. My beliefs either are accurate or inaccurate in regards to this "real world", no matter whether they are chosen or determined.

But, if truth is subjective, determinism is subjectively true, and therefore, only true for some people. So some of us are determined and some of us are not . . . As I apply determinism to more and more situations, it leads me to believe more and more logical absurdities. So, yes, I have a correspondence problem with determinism and I have a logic one.

Irrelevant, because expanding on invalid conclusions.

On another note, you would have to conclude the same about indeterminism if applying the same (flawed) reasoning.

 

[Silenus]

Well lets start over with what we both accepted from the last post after I clear up some thngs . . .

1) on the first point

I´m not sure anybody made that claim, in the first place. I for one don´t.Even if determinism does not "give direct access to the world" (whatever that might mean - I really have no idea), that doesn´t mean it is self-refuting.

I agree, my whole post wasn't all dealing with the idea of it being self-refuting. there were other things going on as well, and that's because you're not the only person i'm responding to. Gould made that claim here

without determinism, our thoughts are in no way linked to our environment.

so i was responding to that. As for my next part about choosing axioms and such, i wasn't starting any proof with that argument, I was clarifying why I thought it is okey to bring in arguments about the world as we know. i am assuming a correspondence theory of truth, although I didn't use any of this in my final argument

I´m not sure which part of determinism you refer to as axiomatic, and I am not sure where determinism contradicts and throws out a large portion of what seems real, in your opinion.
To me there are no such contradictions.

Well, there are concepts of justice, human nature, truth, nobility, ethics, scientific theories ability to establish truth by inference just for a few. How do any of these have anything but ironic content in determinism? If determinism is true, why should I care?

But, as I said before, these have nothing to do with what i said in my argument, these are just questions I think need to be asked. If you don't care for them, we're talk about something else.

Now, lets start with what you agreed with, with was a very small portion.

In regards to what? I understand you are assuming there is a "real world" out there, compared to which my beliefs are accurate or inaccurate. Is that correct?

well, yes, i believe in a correspondence theory of truth. Doesn't deterministic theory claim to explain the way things are? I always thought the theory tried to . . .

There is no way to deteremine (no pun intended) truth or falsehood. Ok.

I'm taking it from the okay that this is not a problem? I'll go from here then. Since we cannot know whether anything we believe is true or false, I have no reason to believe i am right or wrong. If I assume I an right, I also must assume that the other person who disagrees with me is right. But then I belive in free will and you believe in determinism, and so I can't assume i'm right because that leads toa contradiction. I could assume I'm wriong, but then It follows that we're both wrong. Or I could assume nothing. I could just be and scrap any pretense to knowing anything and just flow with the punches. Either way, i have to rightfully reject determinism either by assuming I'm wrong or by assuming nothing. This discussion goes back to being fizz. And, by the way, why, if you are a determinist, do you have such a love of logic? If determinism is true, I have no reason (logicall orotherwise) to be logical. These arguments have nothing to do with determinism explaining itself, these are the results of the application of the theory.

 

[quatona]

Well lets start over with what we both accepted from the last post after I clear up some thngs . . .

1) on the first point



I agree, my whole post wasn't all dealing with the idea of it being self-refuting. there were other things going on as well, and that's because you're not the only person i'm responding to. Gould made that claim here

good you clarified that, because your announcement you would be going to show how it´s self-refuting and the fact that this post was the follow-up made me assume it was meant to make this point.
Ok, since this wasn´t meant to make the point, I am still looking forward to how you are going to show determinism to be self-refuting.

so i was responding to that.

I fail to see how this assumed objective reality being a determining factor for our notions poses a problem. It would be the prerequisite for a connection between our notions and this reality. Whilst the idea of chosing our ideas regardlessly of what this objective reality is would make the two necessarily unconnected even more. So the problem of discerning how our notions are connected to an assumed objective reality isn´t solved by non-determinism.

As for my next part about choosing axioms and such, i wasn't starting any proof with that argument, I was clarifying why I thought it is okey to bring in arguments about the world as we know.

The world as we know apparently differs from person to person.
Anyways, it appears to be most reasonable to argue from the world as we know it, but it does no appear to be reasonable to argue from the world others know it.

Well, there are concepts of justice, human nature, truth, nobility, ethics, scientific theories ability to establish truth by inference just for a few. How do any of these have anything but ironic content in determinism?

How would they have any more than ironic content if they were arbitrarily chosen without the "world as it is" being a determining factor?
You point out a fundamental problem of consciousness and perception, but this problem exists for "choice" at least as much as for "determinism".

If determinism is true, why should I care?

This is not a valid question in determinism. You care because you are determined to care. You don´t care because you are determined to not care.

But, as I said before, these have nothing to do with what i said in my argument, these are just questions I think need to be asked. If you don't care for them, we're talk about something else.

You already know what I am interested in (the reason I entered this thread): I am interested in seeing a logical refutation of determinism that doesn´t come down to "I don´t like the idea", and in the promised demonstration that determinism is self-refuting.

well, yes, i believe in a correspondence theory of truth. Doesn't deterministic theory claim to explain the way things are? I always thought the theory tried to . . .

Not really. It tries to explain how we get to do what we do.
Admittedly, this theory has the problem of being self-referential, just like any other theory concerning this question. I find it not a good idea to hold this basic problem against determinism, but to ignore it when considering other theories.

I'm taking it from the okay that this is not a problem?

(Thanks for bringing my spelling mistake to my attention! )

Depends on what you mean when saying "is not a problem".
It sure is a troubling thing, generally.
It is, however, not a problem of determinism in particular. It is a problem that comes with any other explanation as well.

I'll go from here then. Since we cannot know whether anything we believe is true or false, I have no reason to believe i am right or wrong.

Au contraire, in determinism you have plenty of reasons that determine you to think you are right.

If I assume I an right, I also must assume that the other person who disagrees with me is right.

No, I don´t see how that follows. If accepting the scenario that we cannot discern a supposed objective reality existing out there, we merely need to accept that the other person could be right (and I could be wrong). The idea that something is an accurate understanding of the objective reality and something else is not, is not irreconcilable with the idea that we cannot discern it. It merely causes me to accept uncertainty, but in no way it forces me to assume that opposing views must both be right.

But then I belive in free will and you believe in determinism, and so I can't assume i'm right because that leads toa contradiction. I could assume I'm wriong, but then It follows that we're both wrong.

No, that doesn´t follow at all.

Or I could assume nothing. I could just be and scrap any pretense to knowing anything and just flow with the punches.

Yes - you will flow with the punches if you are determined to flow with the punches. "Flow with the punches" includes every behaviour, in determinism, btw. Even questioning your own ideas can be counted as "flowing with the punches", because that´s what you are determined to do.

Either way, i have to rightfully reject determinism either by assuming I'm wrong or by assuming nothing.

If applying your reasoning to non-determinism you end up with the same dilemma.
On another note you can assume whatever you assume, the only logical consequence would be that you allow for the possibility that you are wrong.

This discussion goes back to being fizz. And, by the way, why, if you are a determinist, do you have such a love of logic?

Because I am determined to have it.

If determinism is true, I have no reason (logicall orotherwise) to be logical.

Sure you have - if you are trying to be logical you not only have reason, but are even determined to try to be logical.
If you have a choice in being logical, you don´t have any reason to be logical. Unless something (preferably the world as it is) determines you to accept logic as the preferable tool. Else your choice of logic or non-logic is completely arbitrary and based on nothing, lest the assumed objective reality out there.
See, I am not assuming that you chose to engage in logical fallacies. You have been determined to make them.

These arguments have nothing to do with determinism explaining itself, these are the results of the application of the theory.

No, these are basic problem of conscious being trying to explain consciousness and cognition. Every theory will run into this dilemma. The theory that you - independently an assumed objective reality - choose what to believe more obviously than any other, because it denies a causal connection between the supposed objective reality and my idea of it right from the start.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

good you clarified that, because your announcement you would be going to show how it´s self-refuting and the fact that this post was the follow-up made me assume it was meant to make this point.
Ok, since this wasn´t meant to make the point, I am still looking forward to how you are going to show determinism to be self-refuting.




I fail to see how this assumed objective reality being a determining factor for our notions poses a problem. It would be the prerequisite for a connection between our notions and this reality. Whilst the idea of chosing our ideas regardlessly of what this objective reality is would make the two necessarily unconnected even more. So the problem of discerning how our notions are connected to an assumed objective reality isn´t solved by non-determinism.


The world as we know apparently differs from person to person.
Anyways, it appears to be most reasonable to argue from the world as we know it, but it does no appear to be reasonable to argue from the world others know it.




How would they have any more than ironic content if they were arbitrarily chosen without the "world as it is" being a determining factor?
You point out a fundamental problem of consciousness and perception, but this problem exists for "choice" at least as much as for "determinism".

This is not a valid question in determinism. You care because you are determined to care. You don´t care because you are determined to not care.


You already know what I am interested in (the reason I entered this thread): I am interested in seeing a logical refutation of determinism that doesn´t come down to "I don´t like the idea", and in the promised demonstration that determinism is self-refuting.



Not really. It tries to explain how we get to do what we do.
Admittedly, this theory has the problem of being self-referential, just like any other theory concerning this question. I find it not a good idea to hold this basic problem against determinism, but to ignore it when considering other theories.





(Thanks for bringing my spelling mistake to my attention! )

Depends on what you mean when saying "is not a problem".
It sure is a troubling thing, generally.
It is, however, not a problem of determinism in particular. It is a problem that comes with any other explanation as well.


Au contraire, in determinism you have plenty of reasons that determine you to think you are right.

No, I don´t see how that follows. If accepting the scenario that we cannot discern a supposed objective reality existing out there, we merely need to accept that the other person could be right (and I could be wrong). The idea that something is an accurate understanding of the objective reality and something else is not, is not irreconcilable with the idea that we cannot discern it. It merely causes me to accept uncertainty, but in no way it forces me to assume that opposing views must both be right.

No, that doesn´t follow at all.

Yes - you will flow with the punches if you are determined to flow with the punches. "Flow with the punches" includes every behaviour, in determinism, btw. Even questioning your own ideas can be counted as "flowing with the punches", because that´s what you are determined to do.

If applying your reasoning to non-determinism you end up with the same dilemma.
On another note you can assume whatever you assume, the only logical consequence would be that you allow for the possibility that you are wrong.

Because I am determined to have it.

Sure you have - if you are trying to be logical you not only have reason, but are even determined to try to be logical.
If you have a choice in being logical, you don´t have any reason to be logical. Unless something (preferably the world as it is) determines you to accept logic as the preferable tool. Else your choice of logic or non-logic is completely arbitrary and based on nothing, lest the assumed objective reality out there.
See, I am not assuming that you chose to engage in logical fallacies. You have been determined to make them.

No, these are basic problem of conscious being trying to explain consciousness and cognition. Every theory will run into this dilemma. The theory that you - independently an assumed objective reality - choose what to believe more obviously than any other, because it denies a causal connection between the supposed objective reality and my idea of it right from the start.

Your a rad dude.