Probability Argument Against Determinism

[Ariston]

Of course not. There should be only few axioms, and they should be signified as such in the very beginning.
Anyway, I don´t know what this sentence does here. I sense that you don´t know what an axiom is. Nobody asked for axioms.
[quote) Since determinist believe in causality, "triggered" is a description of the occurrence of a mental event (perhaps from the firing of neurons) in a person becoming cognizant of their belief.

Determinism, in a nutshell, states that every event is the necessary result of a large number of previous events/occurances. It doesn´t postulate a single "trigger", and even less does it state what the specific causes are for a given event.

Yes.

No - you ascribed notions to determinism that it doesn´t hold.

On a general note, I take issue with your habit of changing the OP continuously. I don´t insinuate inferiour motives on your part, but yet I don´t think it´s ok to do that. All responses made to the OP will be perceived as though they had been made to OP as it reads currently.

1. The number of hypothetical results is irrelevant for the actual result of a cause-effect process. For that we´d need to take a closer look on the process itself - i.e. what are the factors that the result is caused by.
2. Since "dice roll" is the very prime example for a random process (and since your argument hinges on the idea that determinism postulates random processes), and since determinism postulates anything but random processes, you are completely off track here. This can´t be fixed or revised. It´s just a complete misunderstanding of determinism on your part.

Yes, another thought: Initiatially, your keyword was "determinism". In the meantime you have changed it into "mental determinism". I must confess I have never run across this term. Maybe you can give us a source where a protagonist of "mental determinism" explains his philosophy - just so we know what it is that you have changed your topic into?[/QUOTE]

1. I am not sure how the definition of determinism and my use of the word "trigger" changes anything but like I said, I will consider changing it for clarity sake. 2. I have altered the argument slightly as I read it and refine it on the basis of criticism. I do not intend to mislead anyone, but only to develop the most solid argument possible. 3. Your criticism about the a dice role being random, I partly responded to in my response to "Recieved" above but I will clarify the dice role concept since some will likely imagine randomness (although no committed determinist would). 4. As to identifying which part of the brain is responsible for which mental functions, I cannot see this being particularly relevant for my argument. What is important for my argument and uncontroversial (for any mental determinist) is that beliefs are in fact determined. In any case, I think I am going to end this thread. I believe now that you are right in stating that I am not the man for the job in devising an argument and working out all the ambiguities. And then, I still have doubts that, even if it is sound, that it is going to be compelling. 5. Finally, I came across the the term "mental determinism" in a critique of the Libet experiment by Richard Swineburne. "Mental determinism" is a term to distinguish determined mental activity from "physical determinism" which is the belief that the physical world behaves in a wholly mechanistically (even though at the micro level there is indeterminism). For the hard determinist or people who would identify as determinists, this is not a distinction that is disputed. I only used the word to emphasize the that thoughts and beliefs are determined in a closed causal chain.

 

[Ariston]

Sorry about what I said on the other thread. I don't really think that about you.

 

[Received]

I see your point but I am willing to grant like any determinist (while acknowledging a degree of indeterminism) that the outcome of a role of a dice is determined. It is only random in the sense that we can not predict the outcome before hand.

I'm just saying that applying the dice roll metaphor to our beliefs is a misleading metaphor, because it implies that beliefs are random, just like a roll of the dice. According to a determinist, beliefs are also determined, but there isn't anything random about this determination of beliefs.

 

[Ariston]

I'm just saying that applying the dice roll metaphor to our beliefs is a misleading metaphor, because it implies that beliefs are random, just like a roll of the dice. According to a determinist, beliefs are also determined, but there isn't anything random about this determination of beliefs.

Ya I can see that. It's very hard to imagine what metaphor I could use to communicate a determined outcome for a belief that would almost certainly be false or could be true but not justified given the range of existing view points. I intend to emphasize that given determinism, our beliefs are determined but unlikely to be true since there is a range of viewpoints on that matter and determinism is in no way privileged (then to suggest that that belief as held is unlikely to be correct given that belief). I could just offer a brief clarification of the dice metaphor in terms of the dice obeying mechanistic regularities as they would hold. It should be stated that for the hard determinist, probability is illusory or just a way of saying that we cannot predict an outcome.

 

[Star Adept]

Would determinism mandate a physical cause-effect to cognition? I say this because, as a schizophrenic who has been in a scan-study, there are no markers, physically, that correlate when I am in my fantasy realms. It is unlike dreaming where your brain will be more active in areas such as where you process vision, sound, and even the prefrontal cortex. The activity in my brain is steady-state (relatively, at rest, but awake) between times where I sense that I am in another reality. Does determinism have a cause-effect explanation for this?

Or, as I'm thinking about it, does determinism say that my life's events lead me to the condition? ...but then, when I go in and out is random, and with no marker, so how does that hold?

 

[Star Adept]

Or rather, is determinism just a falsification theory of predeterminism in that:

Present, as effect of Past, defines Future as effect from Present and Past.

vs

Past, Present, and Future, as determined by a definition outside of time?

 

[Davian]

Sorry about what I said on the other thread. I don't really think that about you.

Apology accepted. Let's try not to take ourselves too seriously here.

 

[quatona]

Ya I can see that. It's very hard to imagine what metaphor I could use to communicate a determined outcome for a belief that would almost certainly be false or could be true but not justified given the range of existing view points.

Well, the problem is not the fact that you can´t find a proper analogy - the problem is that your premise which you want to build into your analogy is false:

If you believe that a belief was determined out of any number of distinct beliefs and any one of those beliefs could have been triggered and is just as likely as any other

(emphasis added)
This is simply not what determinism holds nor implies.
If e.g. a proper, correct thought process on a given subject would inevitably lead to a certain result, it wouldn´t matter at all how many and what the alternatives are. So, for purposes of our discussion, one result is not as likely as another, yet the entire process can be entirely determined.
(I´m not saying that this is so - I am just pointing out how your premise is neither a tenet nor an implication of determinism.
Now, you may ask "But how do we know what is a 'proper, correct thought process'?" - which is indeed a huge fundamental problem, seeing that this question alludes to the self-reference of thinking about thinking. But it´s not a problem intrinsic in determinism. It´s a problem intrinsic in epistemology. That determinism can´t (and doesn´t even intend to) solve it any better than any of the alternatives doesn´t make a point against determinism.

Which leads us to another flaw in your argument: Ultimately it´s an argument from consequence: "If determinism is true, we couldn´t safely say which of several competing notions is true." Even if ignoring the fact that "free will" doesn´t solve this problem, either (actually even makes it worse): if, as you say, the logical consequence is that determinism is untenable, it would equally mean that every other view is untenable, as well.
This is - admittedly - an inconvenient scenario. Inconvenient doesn´t mean false, though. And here - unless you want to be guilty of holding a basic epistemic problem against just one of the competing ideas (while actually all of them suffer from it - you are invited to present an idea that is not affected by this very problem.

I could just offer a brief clarification of the dice metaphor in terms of the dice obeying mechanistic regularities as they would hold.

The problem of the dice-analogy is not that it is - as determinism postulates - entirely mechanistic. The problem is that it has your false premise ("determinism postulates or implies that the distribution of results is equally likely") is built into it, and that your conclusions thrive on this very aspect.

It should be stated that for the hard determinist, probability is illusory or just a way of saying that we cannot predict an outcome.

Even though this appears to be irrelevant for the given problem, I´d like to point out that this isn´t entirely accurate. Indeed, determinism postulates that for any given set of circumstances there is only one possible outcome (and, thus, probability has nothing to do with anything here).
This, however is not the reason why we can´t predict an outcome. That we can´t predict an outcome is merely a practical problem: We don´t (or can´t be sure that we) have access to all data required. Nothing to do with probability or lack thereof.