Probability Argument Against Determinism

Ariston · Mar 9, 2015

quatona said:
If it were the case that you can freely choose your thoughts, the argument as you presented it would make a strong case against the notion that freely chosen thoughts are more likely to be accurate.

So what do you find wrong with my argument exactly? I would be delighted to give it up if I got a sound criticism rather than a statement of faith. Seriously, I want to give it up if it is false. And it really wouldn't make a strong case against the reliability of reason on libertarianism if it were wrong since libertarians do not believe that free thinking makes thinking infallible but (in my opinion) only that there could be grounds for relying on a general trustworthiness of cognition where there couldn't be on determinism.

quatona · Mar 9, 2015

Lewis' argument depended on determinism because he thought (and he was right in my view), that any coherent atheist would be a determinist. So determinism is innate to his argument. In other words, Lewis is making the same point as me only extending it to naturalism.

My recommendation: take some basic logic classes.
It´s too late for LiarLordLunaticLewis, though.

quatona · Mar 9, 2015

Ariston said:
So what do you find wrong with my argument exactly?

From my very first post I have given you countless clues at which points you are jumping to conclusions, misrepresent determinism, etc.etc.
I´m afraid I can´t do more for you, given your reluctance to address the given objections and add the missing links.

Ariston · Mar 9, 2015

quatona said:
From my very first post I have given you countless clues at which points you are jumping to conclusions, misrepresent determinism, etc.etc.
I´m afraid I can´t do more for you, given your reluctance to address the given objections and add the missing links.

LOL!!! Remarkable. I still cannot get an answer. All you have are assertions that it is wrong and insults. But you should relax. Its not that I chose to type this. I was destined 13.8 billion years ago to make these logical mistakes. Go easy on me.

Ariston · Mar 9, 2015

I am out. But thank you all for your considerations and for challenging my argument.

Received · Mar 9, 2015

I think the irony here is that you don't believe in determinism but you seem terribly determined to not respond to your critics.

Ariston · Mar 9, 2015

In case anybody was confused about the argument, I cleaned it up again for clarity. It still seems sound as far as I can tell. I welcome any critiques against the argument though I am uninterested in arguing whether the grounds for libertarianism are superior since this is strictly an argument against the justification for believing in determinism.

quatona · Mar 9, 2015

Ariston said:
But you should relax.

I am relaxed.

Its not that I chose to type this. I was destined 13.8 billion years ago to make these logical mistakes.

As I told you before I wasn´t defending determinism in this thread. I was criticizing your particular argument against it. There can be stupid arguments for totally correct conclusions.
There is another one of your logical mistakes, for you. But I am totally convinced that you didn´t choose to make them. That´s why I and many others put so much effort in helping you.

Go easy on me.

I went easy on you. It´s nothing personal, anyway.

I just think you are very ambitious and have a lot of self-esteem (which isn´t a bad thing per se), seeing that you feel you can single-handedly decide an age-old philosophical discussion.
Btw, I have never come across this argument - so it seems to be indeed an original. Kudos for that. We don´t see that often here.

I just feel it´s necessary to tell you that your task is completely out of your league. You would have to be a genius, and you are not.

Plus, if you come up with a sensational new theory/proof/argument, you better be your own worst critic. You should turn every bit and piece in your argument upside down several times, check it for consistency, coherence etc., you should make sure you´ve got the terminology right, you should make sure you have understood the idea that you are tackling.
In any case, when being so bold to claim you have invented a sensational new argument, you should make sure you aren´t going to be called upon beginner´s mistakes.

Ariston · Mar 9, 2015

quatona said:
I am relaxed.

As I told you before I wasn´t defending determinism in this thread. I was criticizing your particular argument against it. There can be stupid arguments for totally correct conclusions.
There is another one of your logical mistakes, for you. But I am totally convinced that you didn´t choose to make them. That´s why I and many others put so much effort in helping you.

I went easy on you. It´s nothing personal, anyway.

I just think you are very ambitious and have a lot of self-esteem (which isn´t a bad thing per se), seeing that you feel you can single-handedly decide an age-old philosophical discussion.
Btw, I have never come across this argument - so it seems to be indeed an original. Kudos for that. We don´t see that often here.

I just feel it´s necessary to tell you that your task is completely out of your league. You would have to be a genius, and you are not.

Plus, if you come up with a sensational new theory/proof/argument, you better be your own worst critic. You should turn every bit and piece in your argument upside down several times, check it for consistency, coherence etc., you should make sure you´ve got the terminology right, you should make sure you have understood the idea that you are tackling.
In any case, when being so bold to claim you have invented a sensational new argument, you should make sure you aren´t going to be called upon beginner´s mistakes.

"I am relaxed" (10 hrs later)

I hope so. So is your argument just an ad hominem? Was my argument false because I am not a genius? (Shoot, I didn't think of that. I better go revise it now). Seriously though, insults against me do not weaken the force of my argument. I agree with your claim that I need to be revising it but that is part of the reason that it is on this site. I want it critiqued but slandering me is not helping that. Let me know what your objection is, or where you think that it is incoherent, and I will either give it up or revise it. It's not a challenge, I just want the best argument possible or a sound refutation. I have asked many times now so when ever your ready.

quatona · Mar 9, 2015

Ariston said:
"I am relaxed" (10 hrs later)

So is your argument just an ad hominem?

It wasn´t an argument. It was an explanation why I am not willing to do your work for you.

I am still waiting

For what?

or was my argument false because I am not a genius.

I want it critiqued

You got plenty of critique and hints - you just preferred to ignore them.

Let me know what your objection is, or where you think that it is incoherent,

I did let you know. I told you already in my first posts where your premises were false (in that you ascribed tenets to determinism that it doesn´t hold) and where your conclusions didn´t follow from your premises. It´s not my job to tell you how they didn´t follow, mainly because that is impossible.
If I said "the grass is green therefore cars are fast" how would you show me that it´s a non-sequitur?

It's not a challenge, I just want the best argument possible or a sound refutation.

Ok, let´s start from scratch.
What, in your opinion, are the core tenets of determinism?

quatona · Mar 9, 2015

Ariston said:
Argument Against the Justification for Believing in Determinism

If I came to believe in determinism I would also have to believe that my belief in determinism was determined. Would this undercut my belief in determinism? I think so. But it is coherent. If determinism is true then my rational beliefs are determined and likely to be false (see below). But I hold my beliefs to be true (including my belief in determinism) and thus determinism is not justified in believing.
The anticipated objection will be that there are no good reasons to think our beliefs would be false if determinism were true. Importantly, the argument applies to rationality and not sense experience per se. 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, then the likelihood of this particular belief being veridical would be much lower than half.

Your entire argument hinges on the bolded part being a tenet of determinism. Please show where determinism says this.

Suppose there is a dice, and each side represents a different metaphysical belief: 1. Metaphysical Naturalism. 2. Theism, 3. Pantheism, 4. Panentheism, 5. Pansychism, and 6. Platonism. Now this dice is rolled and whatever position is facing up will become your belief about what is true about reality.

Wait. What´s got determinism to do with rolling a dice (i.e. randomized processes)? Determinism is about cause and effect.

Ariston · Mar 9, 2015

I will get to both of these. Give me a minute before you proceed. Thank you.

Ariston · Mar 9, 2015

I do not believe that every line need be an axiom in any analytic philosophy. 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. It should be taken for granted that since the argument is stated within a determinist paradigm, as it is stated above, the this is a wholly deterministic process, the prior paragraph providing the context for this sentence. It seems to read rather naturally but I will consider changing it for clarity. The dice role represents the range of possible beliefs that could be determined granting physical and mental determinism (which is numerous). Thoughts?

Davian · Mar 9, 2015

Received · Mar 9, 2015

Popcorn makes you fat.

Received · Mar 9, 2015

Ariston said:
I do not believe that every line need be an axiom in any analytic philosophy. 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. It should be taken for granted that since the argument is stated within a determinist paradigm, as it is stated above, the this is a wholly deterministic process, the prior paragraph providing the context for this sentence. It seems to read rather naturally but I will consider changing it for clarity. The dice role represents the range of possible beliefs that could be determined granting physical and mental determinism (which is numerous). Thoughts?

"Dice roll" implies purely random. It's not purely random, just as a drop of rain falling in a bottle isn't purely random; this drop here directly above the bottle top is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much more likely to fall in than one a mile away. And so on with each successively closer raindrop.

quatona · Mar 10, 2015

Ariston said:
I do not believe that every line need be an axiom in any analytic philosophy.

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.[/quote]
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.

It should be taken for granted that since the argument is stated within a determinist paradigm,

Yes.

as it is stated above,

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

It seems to read rather naturally but I will consider changing it for clarity.

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.

The dice role represents the range of possible beliefs that could be determined granting physical and mental determinism (which is numerous).

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.

Thoughts?

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?

Chany · Mar 10, 2015

Blind post based off yesterday's memory. I'm not reading eight pages of posts.

Classical probability, that of a dice roll, only works in situations where every outcome is equally as likely. That isn't always the case though. For example, let's consider a true or false statement "I am a human being". Either that statement is true or false. According to classical probability, the statement has a 50% chance of being true and a 50% chance of being false. Obviously, this does not appear to be the case.

The only way to assign probability in this case is subjectively. We cannot look at historical events to determine probability, so we are just making judgement calls based upon our reason and evidence. Since we are going to argue about reason and evidence, we might as well drop the probability and just argue about the topic of free will normally.

Ariston · Mar 10, 2015

Received said:
"Dice roll" implies purely random. It's not purely random, just as a drop of rain falling in a bottle isn't purely random; this drop here directly above the bottle top is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much more likely to fall in than one a mile away. And so on with each successively closer raindrop.

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.

Ariston · Mar 10, 2015

Chany said:
Blind post based off yesterday's memory. I'm not reading eight pages of posts.

Classical probability, that of a dice roll, only works in situations where every outcome is equally as likely. That isn't always the case though. For example, let's consider a true or false statement "I am a human being". Either that statement is true or false. According to classical probability, the statement has a 50% chance of being true and a 50% chance of being false. Obviously, this does not appear to be the case.

The only way to assign probability in this case is subjectively. We cannot look at historical events to determine probability, so we are just making judgement calls based upon our reason and evidence. Since we are going to argue about reason and evidence, we might as well drop the probability and just argue about the topic of free will normally.

Thanks. I was thinking about how this might effect the argument. Since I stated that it was an argument related to reason rather than perception, this is an important point since we perceive a world that behaves in regularities, sense perception might make the belief in determinism more probable than other options. Also, 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. Still, I can see where this analogy could be highly misleading. In other words if the outcome of the dice role is analogous to a persons heredity and environment (which conceivably could be different but is wholly determined on determinism) the set of beliefs, whatever that might be, are determined. For a determinist, determinism holds true for a dice role as for all of their beliefs and it seems inevitable that they are unlikely to be true and thus be hard to justify on their own basis. In other words, think of the dice role as determined and the outcome not being based on probability (since its not in a mechanistic universe. That is what I intended but I can totally see how that would be unclear since a dice role does imply randomness or the opposite of determinism.

Probability Argument Against Determinism

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Newbie

True love waits in haunted attics

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

"God"? What do you mean??

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Newbie

fallible

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

"God"? What do you mean??

Uncertain Absurdist

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency