4 ms·

>if the mind is deterministic how can we change our views There's nothing incoherent here. Determinism doesn't mean you can't change your views, it just means

>if the mind is deterministic how can we change our views There's nothing incoherent here. Determinism doesn't mean you can't change your views, it just means that the change was not acausal in some manner. You can still form new beliefs from being exposed to new ideas. Determinism doesn't mean you are a static thing that can never grow and change with your environment, it just means that the dynamics of your changing person was written in the initial conditions of the universe. But at no time point do you have access to all future influences, and so you will still change as time passes.

sgt101 10y ago
But the change of views is not a matter of decisioning, it's a matter of inevitability. Stars cool - because they do. I contend that poets write - because they want to.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  Sure, but what makes poets want to write? How does the answer being "the initial condition of the universe" instead of some acausal mechanism change anything of importance?
  - sgt101 10y ago
    Because if it is the initial condition of the universe then there is one history and everything is predestined. This has a number of implications like : - everything could be predicted - criminals are not responsible for their behavior - human life is not sacred - our thoughts are not real It's this last one that catches me; predestination means "I think therefore I'm not really me" we then need to abandon the whole of rationalism and retreat to the caves!
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      I don't see these points as following from determinism. >everything could be predicted Not at all. Think about what you need to predict someone's behavior. You need to emulate the entire universe (at least within the cone of causal influence) and then run it long enough for the thing you're trying to predict to occur. Essentially you're creating a duplicate universe and just seeing what happens. You're not predicting, you're observing. In this tangent universe, the person is thinking and deciding just the same. So ultimately the decision is still the necessary precursor to the event. >our thoughts are not real Our thoughts are real, they're just highly complex interactions of physical atoms. Our thoughts aren't non-physical, or acausal, or anything supernatural. But I don't see these properties being necessary for our thoughts to be real and hold value to us. As I said before, our thoughts necessarily precede our decisions which necessarily precede our actions. What else do you want from your thoughts?
    - abiox 10y ago
      > criminals are not responsible for their behavior you remain "reponsible", however the basis for bloodthirsty retributive self-gratification is diminished. it begins to be clear that the only rational course is rehabilitation and positive reinforcement. > human life is not sacred no more or less than before. i'm not sure what this even means, exactly. > our thoughts are not real ...eh? > I think therefore I'm not really me ...eh? imho, "i think" is unproved. that which observes thought and that which emits thought are not by necessity the "same thing".

sgt101 10y ago

But the change of views is not a matter of decisioning, it's a matter of inevitability. Stars cool - because they do. I contend that poets write - because they want to.

hackinthebochs 10y ago
Sure, but what makes poets want to write? How does the answer being "the initial condition of the universe" instead of some acausal mechanism change anything of importance?
- sgt101 10y ago
  Because if it is the initial condition of the universe then there is one history and everything is predestined. This has a number of implications like : - everything could be predicted - criminals are not responsible for their behavior - human life is not sacred - our thoughts are not real It's this last one that catches me; predestination means "I think therefore I'm not really me" we then need to abandon the whole of rationalism and retreat to the caves!
  - hackinthebochs 10y ago
    I don't see these points as following from determinism. >everything could be predicted Not at all. Think about what you need to predict someone's behavior. You need to emulate the entire universe (at least within the cone of causal influence) and then run it long enough for the thing you're trying to predict to occur. Essentially you're creating a duplicate universe and just seeing what happens. You're not predicting, you're observing. In this tangent universe, the person is thinking and deciding just the same. So ultimately the decision is still the necessary precursor to the event. >our thoughts are not real Our thoughts are real, they're just highly complex interactions of physical atoms. Our thoughts aren't non-physical, or acausal, or anything supernatural. But I don't see these properties being necessary for our thoughts to be real and hold value to us. As I said before, our thoughts necessarily precede our decisions which necessarily precede our actions. What else do you want from your thoughts?
  - abiox 10y ago
    > criminals are not responsible for their behavior you remain "reponsible", however the basis for bloodthirsty retributive self-gratification is diminished. it begins to be clear that the only rational course is rehabilitation and positive reinforcement. > human life is not sacred no more or less than before. i'm not sure what this even means, exactly. > our thoughts are not real ...eh? > I think therefore I'm not really me ...eh? imho, "i think" is unproved. that which observes thought and that which emits thought are not by necessity the "same thing".