Determinism

[Lilly of the Valley]

Okay:

Enviroment X influences you such that are more likely to do behaviour Y than those not subject to environment X.

How about we put a number of the 'more likely'. Let us say that you are 55 per cent likely to do X, when people not subject to environment X are 50 per cent likely to do X.

Doesn't this mean that environment X causes the 50 per cent to become 55 per cent?

It causes it to be that much more likely. But likelyhood doesn't equal having to do something.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

As I said, most people are still stuck with the idea of punishment.



They are either deterrents or a means of making sure that the society recoups a certain amount of money in recompense for certain less harmful kinds of anti-social behaviour.



Again, our justice system is flawed because we have this notion of punishment. If you look at the recidivism rates, you will see that a few months in jail either deters a person from behaving the same way twice or it means that they are massively more likely to do it again - or even worse things.

If we got away from the notion of punishment, we could address this problem.

So people are in no way responsible for their actions?

 

[D McCloud]

The problem w/ this is that there is no responsibility on the person's part. If someon kills someone...it's not their fault...they didn't choose that, it was the environment and such...or genetics......Why should people get arrested then...it's not their fault...they didn't choose that course of action?

Determinism doesn't mean that people don't have responsibilities, and we should let murders roam the streets. In fact, I would say it's more of a reason to put murders and people who are a severe danger to society in jail.

The reason we have a legal system is to protect people and their rights. As a society, we don't want to put people in jail, we need each other to survive. However, because because crimes happen that jeopardize our ability to survive as a society, we are forced to put people in jail(cause/effect).

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Determinism doesn't mean that people don't have responsibilities, and we should let murders roam the streets. In fact, I would say it's more of a reason to put murders and people who are a severe danger to society in jail.

The reason we have a legal system is to protect people and their rights. As a society, we don't want to put people in jail, we need each other to survive. However, because because crimes happen that jeopardize our ability to survive as a society, we are forced to put people in jail(cause/effect).

Yet, it says that our actions aren't chosen. If we don't choose an action...aren't we w/o responsiblity?

 

[David Gould]

So people are in no way responsible for their actions?

No - the concept has no meaning.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

No - the concept has no meaning.

What do you mean?

 

[David Gould]

What do you mean?

Without free will, responsibility has no meaning - in other words, it makes no sense to say, 'John is responsible for X'. Of course, as I do not think that 'John' exists - or Lilly of the Valley or me - exist in the way that is commonly thought, I think the notion of responsibility fails in other ways, too. But that is another discussion.

 

[D McCloud]

Yet, it says that our actions aren't chosen. If we don't choose an action...aren't we w/o responsiblity?

I wouldn't necessarily say that.

It's hard to draw a distinction between what we can individually be held responsible for, and what we can't. In fact, I would say responsibility is more of a societal issue. People need others to survive, and therefore it's societies responsibility to make sure that people arn't disadvantaged in such a way that cause them to do things that hurt our ability to survive as a whole

 

[levi501]

So people are in no way responsible for their actions?

Exactly. Ultimately we aren't responsible for our actions.

Society however must protect itself. So despite it not being the criminal's fault, we must incarcerate him to protect the rest of us.

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Without free will, responsibility has no meaning - in other words, it makes no sense to say, 'John is responsible for X'. Of course, as I do not think that 'John' exists - or Lilly of the Valley or me - exist in the way that is commonly thought, I think the notion of responsibility fails in other ways, too. But that is another discussion.

But if there is no responsibility then aren't we just a bunch of robots doing the will of the environment? And then comes the issue of how the environment came to decide all of this...was it just random?

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

Exactly. Ultimately we aren't responsible for our actions.

Society however must protect itself. So despite it not being the criminal's fault, we must incarcerate him to protect the rest of us.

If it's not his fault...then why is the death penalty instilled? Also...since supposedly no one is responsible for their actions, is it perfectly right to do anything, such as kill someone. I mean...the person didn't choose it...so is it really bad?

 

[Lilly of the Valley]

I wouldn't necessarily say that.

It's hard to draw a distinction between what we can individually be held responsible for, and what we can't. In fact, I would say responsibility is more of a societal issue. People need others to survive, and therefore it's societies responsibility to make sure that people arn't disadvantaged in such a way that cause them to do things that hurt our ability to survive as a whole

How can society have responsibility if the individual people that make society can't even chose what to do freely? Doesn't the environment determine this, since it is what is responsible for things anyway? The environment even determines society...does it not? So how can society then have control over it?

 

[D McCloud]

How can society have responsibility if the individual people that make society can't even chose what to do freely? Doesn't the environment determine this, since it is what is responsible for things anyway? The environment even determines society...does it not? So how can society then have control over it?

Our environment doesn't control every descion we make, it's only part of determinism. People make descions based on the positive and negative outcomes it has on them and the ones they love.

Our education, economic status, laws, the emphasis we place on gender and race are all things determined within a society.

 

[David Gould]

But if there is no responsibility then aren't we just a bunch of robots doing the will of the environment?

I am unclear what you mean by 'just' in this context. We are incredibly amazing things, capable of love and hate and a myriad of other emotions, with astonishing imaginative capacity which enables us to do things that nothing else that we know of can do. And, yes, we are robots.

The environment does not have a 'will'.

And then comes the issue of how the environment came to decide all of this...was it just random?

The environment makes no decisions. And, no, it was not random. The operations of the laws of physics/chemistry/biology are not random - when you drop a ball in a gravity well, it falls towards the centre of the gravity well, for instance. It does not move randomly.

 

[t_w]

I do believe in Determinism, but it's in spite of quantum physics. Logically it make sense that if the exact same variables are in place the exact same result should occur. So to me the hidden variable theory sounds plausible.

Determinism was wrong far before quantum mechanics. Stochastic events are entirely random - the previous state does not determine the current state. An example would be the pressures of certain gases. For this reason, if you take a snapshot of the universe, and know every single piece of information, velocity, mass etc. of each atom, you cannot accurately predict a future state of the universe.

 

[t_w]

And, no, it was not random. The operations of the laws of physics/chemistry/biology are not random - when you drop a ball in a gravity well, it falls towards the centre of the gravity well, for instance. It does not move randomly.

Many laws of chemistry are completely random.

 

[David Gould]

Many laws of chemistry are completely random.

They are? So when you add sodium to water you can get any particular result?

Or are you talking about quantum chemistry?

 

[t_w]

They are? So when you add sodium to water you can get any particular result?

Or are you talking about quantum chemistry?

Not quantum chemistry. I suppose this could be called physics, but the properties of gases are more relevant to chemistry, and besides, all laws of chemistry can be reduced to laws of physics, just as all physical laws can be reduced to mathemtical expressions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic#Natural_science
An example of a stochastic process in the natural world is pressure in a gas. Even though each molecule is moving deterministically, a collection of them is computationally and practically unpredictable. A large enough set of molecules will exhibit stochastic characteristics, such as filling the container, exerting equal pressure, diffusing along concentration gradients, etc. These are emergent properties of the system

 

[David Gould]

I do not know anything about stochastic processes. However, I do not think that that does not change my point. The operations of the vast majority of processes are not random.

(and even random quantum and stochastic processes can be modelled and predicted, which shows that there is regularity in their randomness).

(I am not a determinist, by the way - I am a practical determinist)

 

[David Gould]

computationally and practically unpredictable.

In other words, they are not actually random - simply unpredictable in practice. Two very different things. Emergent properties are not actually random. There is no break in deterministic causality.