Thats one of the reasons this determinism doesnt make sense to me, among many. People should not be held accountable because it was there destiny to be a criminal and that there was nothing that they could have done to prevent it?

Determinism makes the universe sound like it was designed a specific way, and that requires a designer(god?). I dont see why a god would create a static universe where all outcomes were known. A person could not strive for good? Could not change, make progress, because their destiny was already laid out for them.

This blows the heaven and hell theory out of the water(didnt believe it anyway) A person would be damned before they were even born, with no chance for redemtion, no choice...nothing. Its rediculous.

And if you are an Atheist, than it seems unlikely that such a perfectly ordered static universe would have arouse from chaos.

You are confusing determinism with fatalism. The fatalist believes that it does not matter what he does, since if he is fated to be a criminal, that is what will happen. But, the determinist believes that what choices he make can, and sometimes, will, intervene in the chain of causes, and will, therefore, change the effects and what will happen. So, the fatalist believes that all his choices will inevitably lead to the same place, so why choose at all? But the determinist believes that what he chooses to do will make a difference to what happens, and will make choices. I am a determinist, not a fatalist.

Hi,

Determinism, like all other concepts are all over the place which is about par for the course.

Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The basic question is: What is making the choice?

Rich

Well you have to follow that logic to its end...

'should' is a "funny" word to use in a deterministic universe. You see people will be held accountable because it was the law enforcers destiny to condemn the criminal. It is not as though the law enforcer is outside the deterministic universe. He does not have the "ability" to "hold" anything or anyone "accountable". Does a pinball have the ability to hold the bumper accountable for its actions? That is just nonsense talk, as there are no such words that would be used to describe such a situation. Life is just like that, we have "created" these words to in the end only confuse ourselves more. :perplexed:





Ehhh why is that so? If your speaking of the Christian beliefs you will know that no one deserves to go to heaven, everyone deserves to go to hell. So its a blessing that some people are shown mercy.

Ok chaps, I agree, it has got a little off topic so here is my response...

As far as I can tell, the conclusion that free will, at least, "true free will" does not exist no matter how you spin it, which is why I am so very confused as to why the whole debate seems to hinge on "determinism vs non-determinism", which I think actually has little or nothing to do with it. Think about it, objective claim: Either an event has a cause, or it does not...true or false...now interestingly, neither of these options allow for an event like a "choice" to be "free" in anyway. If the choice was determined, then it was that determining factor that controlled the outcome of the event. If the choice was not determined, then again, it was not you, but random chance that controlled the outcome. Randomness is not control. I neither no nor care if the universe is deterministic or not because it doesn't make any real difference to my life. Personally I think that some things are deterministic, in fact, most things, and a very few things are random. Neither of which is controllable though, "true control" I would say, does not exist, because you must always ask, what controlled that if not randomness?

So thats the facts, I think...open to debate that one...Now as regards the "interesting" factor. Actually I think a life without free will is far more interesting. Life is not about controlling everything its about exploration. From the day you are born til the day you die, you are put in a certain situation with a certain genetic profile, for the purpose of "experiancing" existence, and finding more and more about yourself each day, and when it is all over, finding another like minded human, mating with them and passing the gift of existence onto the next generation. Yes, that is the meaning of life arn't I a genius! My point is, a choices are not made they are discovered, every time you choose something you have discovered more about yourself, I find this idea facinating!

As regards ethics, a lack of free will doesn't affect it in the slightest, merely the idea of "moral worthiness", which is a totally different arena and, to be honest, a rather abhorent idea. Nobody is any more "worthy" than anyone else, however, they do find themselves performing actions that are either desirable by the mainstream, or not. Ethics is, simply, a recognition that other people exist and a system of acting accordingly, since everyone's circumstances are unique their ethics too are unique. Ethics is an inescapable result of our being a social species, it is ingrained on us just as much as any other social species. Someone who commits destructive harmful actions, would reasonably be punished because it 1-teaches them not to commit evem more harm, this is desirable, 2- protects others from dangerous people and 3- deters others. None of this is dependant upon him/her beinbg "worthy" of this, nor does someone need to be "worthy" of my praise to get it. If someone has done an altruistic thing, then praise them so that they learn that altruism yields positive results. Yelling at people and saying that they "should" or "could" have done otherwise, is utterly pointless and achieves nothing, the deed is "done!", past tense! So what is important is what you do about it "now!".

Sorry that was quite long...

Determinism, is a sociatal influence and hence it is being within that society that your moral judgement is observed.

Free will, pertains to the individual and provided that the social network that abounds is not effected by your free will or affects it, your choice is performed.

I imagine I have come across like a smarty pants, we call it an abrieviation of cockatoo but I did not want to sound like the preverbial gallah, which would be no different than a crow, audibly. In fact I will scratch the first remark and leave it to you all.

Determinism does effect free will. Determinism will put you in a certain location, in a certain circumstance, and that is when your free will comes in. However, the fact that your choice is still determined means that determinism has effected your free will.

i.e) The bus was running late. Carl really needed to get to school, so he considered walking. His two choices were waiting for the bus to come, or simply continuing to walk. After five more minutes had passed, Carl decided to walk. The bus was late because it ran someone over. The person who got ran over had run into the street to save his dog. The dog got out because the fence holder got undone. The fence holder was out of place because someone forgot to put it back when they went into the backyard. Carl was late because some person far far away had forgotten to lock the fence back up.

Carl had the choice to go on the bus, or to walk. But he wouldn't have had to choose, if not for the choices being determined for him.

All roads lead to Rome. That is determined. What we do along the way is not determined.

Nothing can be determined without a code to determine it upon. Find a code, behold determinism. Find architectural plans, and point to a building as determined. But without first acknowledging those plans, we cannot say that any building was determined.

Code comes in many flavors. Thought is transduced into action upon the codification of primal emotions. Fear is codified into "Let's get out of here" and therefor action is made manifest. Even if that code is only in your mind. Sensuality is codified into "Kiss Me" and therefor action is made manifest.

All codes point to a thought from a mind. Code is not the thought. Code only represents the thought. Code is the material bridge that allows the immaterial thought of an object to become the material manifestation of an object.

Yet there are objects (like rocks) that we can find no associating code. In these cases we describe our observations with code and call that object "Granite". Perhaps we'll find a code for Granite one day. If we ever do, we should consider associating that code with the thought from a mind.

Sometimes, but not necessarily. I think the implication is that we should emphasize character instead of action. Of course, we only know about someone's character based on their actions, but we should judge on the whole of them not on a particular (legal judgment is different, but even they take character into account).

For example: tiger woods cheated on his wife, I don't know him so it's hard to really judge.

What is hard to judge?

Assuming that determinism is right, we are still in ignorance as to that which is determined. Therefore we must suffer the burden of choice in any case. If we accept that determinism is true, this may itself affect the way we feel and act. I think determinism appeals to some people. Spinoza liked it. It's poetic, crystalline, perhaps comforting in some way.

The only thing that can show determinism is code. Find a code, behold determinism. No code, no basis for claiming determinism.

Well, I don't "believe" in determinism. We see cause and effect in the practical realm but this is not conclusive to some machine-like predictability. I think it would take a code, something almost tautological, to provide for strict determinism. The only necessity is logical necessity(Wittgenstein's opinion), which is a projection of the human mind(my opinion).

How could your opinion be determined without a code to determine it upon? All codes are a projection of a mind. And DNA shows that it doesn't necessarily have to be a human mind. That's what code is... a physical projection of a mind. Code is an material lens that allows us to peer into the immaterial realm of thought.

BTW... Bee Waggles, Wolf Howls, and Whale Song also discredit humans as the only ones capable of projecting thought into physicality. It takes a code to determine determinism.

That's an interesting question. Let's assume there is a code that correspondeds to human thought. Can human thought understand its own code? I don't deny that determinism is possible, but that for me the evidence is inconclusive.

I also think we largely believe what serves us. I think we have irrational reasons to rationalize.

As we should. No thought may be manifest without a code to think that thought upon. Thought, is a codified description of experiential awareness.

The first sunrise is experienced, not thought about. Experiential awareness is upon us. Thinking occurs when we attempt to describe that experience... round, warm, orange, radiantly dancing across the mountain tips where fairy's used to dream.

No code may be authored without a mind to determine its representation. See a standing building... no need to conclude it was determined. As Dawkins suggests, it may only be apparent design. But find a codified description of the building before it arose in physicality... find the plans, and know that this building was determined to stand by the thought from a mind.

Code is the empirical evidence of thoughtful determinism.

It sounds like what you mean by "code" is similar to what I (and Hegel) mean by concept. Sure, we experience reality thru the lens of concept. And "concept" is a word that refers to the concept of concept. "Code" is a fine, of course, but I don't see it used that way much. I've programmed computers and it's that sort of thing that comes to mind when I see "code." Lingual code or concept is significantly different than mechanical/mathematical code. It's a network of metaphors that take their meaning from context, past and present.

Code and concept are different. The medium is not the message. Code represents concept, but they are not the same.

Code is material.

Concept is immaterial, if by concept, you mean, thought from a mind.

Code only represents the thought. It's the perfect inductive reasoning to claim that all code is authored.

I don't see how code can transcend thought, unless we are talking of mysticism. I would like to understand you, though. If code is not concept, what is it? Do you mean code is the manifestation of concept? That concept is an abstraction from a structure already there?

I don't believe in mysticism. I don't believe in a concept of "supernatural". As far as I'm concerned, if there are ghosts, then it's perfectly natural for them to be there. If there is a God, then it's perfectly natural for there to be a God.

Heh, in a "potential" universe with God's existence, it would be supernatural for that God not to exist.

It is what it is. I'm just trying to see it for what it is rather than what I want it to be.




Code points to a concept, but it is not the concept. The letters L-O-S A-N-G-E-L-E-S are not the same thing as a mega metropolis on the western coast of the United States.

Code is a material lens that allows us to view the immaterial realm of thought.

A DVD or MPeg4 is not "Sunday Bloody Sunday". That concept we call "Sunday Bloody Sunday" may be represented and pointed to in many different ways... sheet music, vinyl grooves, magnetic tape, binary, color coded, smoke signals... it can even be codified into touch sensation. Many different mediums all pointing to the same concept of "Sunday Bloody Sunday".

As well, U2 sells 10 million records... all pointing to the same concept. They didn't sell 10 million concepts. They sold 10 million different records all designed to communicate 1 single concept. A concept from 1 single mind.



In this discussion, I'm using the term concept and thought synonymously. Code manifests upon the rails of conceptualization. Code manifests upon the process of thinking. The codification of thought is the process of thinking. The codification of concept is the process of conceptualization.




Not at all. Concept is a gift of creation, for all concepts are created. The more an entity has the capacity for language bearing faculties, the more greater the ability to create abstract conceptualization... thinking.