4 ms·

> ability to take actions that are not defined merely by the state of their brains and inputs. How would one prove/falsify that one's actions are merely a func

by dalmo3 5y ago

> ability to take actions that are not defined merely by the state of their brains and inputs. How would one prove/falsify that one's actions are merely a function of their brain state and inputs? Even assuming we have a perfect mapping of the brain and perfect measurement of all neural action, experiments still happen over time and the act of observing changes the observed, so you'd never have repeatability. It seems to me that determinism is as unscientific as the soul hypothesis.

vidarh 5y ago
You can reduce that problem arbitrarily: To falsify determinism all you need to show is any instance, however small, of a non-random source of events without a measurable source. To raise serious questions, you don't even need to prove the existence of such an effect - just finding even individual particles reacting in ways that seems to show structure (so e.g. ruling out randomness) without a reasonable idea as to cause would justify substantial effort in identifying the cause, and each failure to identify any would successively and significantly weaken the justification for determinism. In other words: Same as with any other hypothesis for which no experimental data in history indicates otherwise. Given that most of our reality involves trusting cause and effect, and to an extensive amount measuring it, and no such origination has ever been shown, it is justified to consider determinism to be true until there's data to show otherwise.
- dalmo3 5y ago
  I'm none the wiser. What is a "non-random source of events"? Did you mean sequence of events? Picture a band playing live on stage. Is the music produced random? Is it measurable by brain state/inputs? What if one of the musicians is slightly off tempo? What if one of them plays a wrong note? Is that sequence of events random enough? And is it still all measurable? > each failure to identify any would successively and significantly weaken the justification for determinism Failure to justify could also be explained by determinism. As could every other outcome from every experiment, since determinism is, by definition, the meta cause of cause and effect itself.

by dalmo3 5y ago

vidarh 5y ago

You can reduce that problem arbitrarily: To falsify determinism all you need to show is any instance, however small, of a non-random source of events without a measurable source. To raise serious questions, you don't even need to prove the existence of such an effect - just finding even individual particles reacting in ways that seems to show structure (so e.g. ruling out randomness) without a reasonable idea as to cause would justify substantial effort in identifying the cause, and each failure to identify any would successively and significantly weaken the justification for determinism. In other words: Same as with any other hypothesis for which no experimental data in history indicates otherwise. Given that most of our reality involves trusting cause and effect, and to an extensive amount measuring it, and no such origination has ever been shown, it is justified to consider determinism to be true until there's data to show otherwise.

dalmo3 5y ago
I'm none the wiser. What is a "non-random source of events"? Did you mean sequence of events? Picture a band playing live on stage. Is the music produced random? Is it measurable by brain state/inputs? What if one of the musicians is slightly off tempo? What if one of them plays a wrong note? Is that sequence of events random enough? And is it still all measurable? > each failure to identify any would successively and significantly weaken the justification for determinism Failure to justify could also be explained by determinism. As could every other outcome from every experiment, since determinism is, by definition, the meta cause of cause and effect itself.