The_Ist

Hello everyone.

I'm having trouble determining (no pun intended) the role of man's ability to reason from a hard determinist point of view (I am not a hard determinist, just FYI).

If hard determinism is true, then whatever I think is what I had to think. My thoughts are determined by completely external circumstances to myself. I don't see where rationality comes into play - if I think in a fashion that seems logical to me, it is only because I have no choice but to think that way and to think that it is logical, regardless of whether or not it actually is.

Reason seems to involve the ability to consider alternatives and pick an option that makes the most sense, given what is known. But from a hard determinist point of view, there really are no alternatives - I will think whatever thought I was externally determined to think. There is no control.

From a hard determinism POV, there's no point in arguing that hard determinism is right or that the non-hard determinist position is wrong, because what each person believes on the issue is what he has to believe on the issue.

But, then again, if you're arguing for hard determinism in a hard determinist world, it's only, once again, because you had to.

I don't know, the whole idea seems incoherent to me. But maybe that's because I'm absolutely destined to see it incoherently.

John Page

No, your thoughts are determined by processes internal to you + external stimuli. Do you think this reasonable?

Jet Grind

Well, are you really going to act any different whether or not you think you have free will? I mean, if it were proven today that you do not have any free will whatsoever, would you really act any different than you would normally. Would you stop using reason?

Just a few questions I wanted to ask.

Dr. Retard

When I think of reason operating on my beliefs, I don't think of "picking options" like I pick breakfast cereals. Reason seems to involve a process that happens naturally -- if I see a lot of plain evidence for p, I will believe p. There's not a lot I can do about it. I can't snap my fingers, and then disbelieve in the existence of the sun. It's not like winking or chewing. It's not under my direct control.

There is some indirect influence we can exercise. We can choose what books to read, what people to talk to, etc. This will affect our beliefs. We can often choose what to think about, and to stop thinking about something. Usually it's easiest to stop thinking about something if you fear thinking about, if you have strong feelings about it. For example, some religious people think it's inappropriate to subject their religious beliefs to critical scrutiny, or feel fear when they do so, so they gladly choose not to do so. Same goes with other emotionally charged beliefs (e.g., politics). Then people get to retain the beliefs they're comfortable with. But, again, this isn't direct choice of beliefs. It's just indirect influence on the natural process.

Maybe you can practice 'choosing' your beliefs, and get good at it. Maybe Zen Masters are like this. Maybe some crazy people.

In any case, beliefs arrived at via an evidence-sensitive deterministic process seem more (not less) respectable than those arrived via pure choice. So I've never really 'got' this line of anti-deterministic argument. And I'm not even that committed to determinism!

(Also I don't get why hard-determinism is under discussion. Soft-determinism, which I subscribe to, is committed to freedom of the will, not 'doxastic voluntarism' -- the ability to pick and choose your beliefs 'at will'.)

John Page

Yes, a fatalistic attitude might set in if you don't believe you have that freedom.

Carl Treetop

As a "hard determinist" you would realize that your thoughts are products of the combination of your genes and environmental influences. You would also realize that life is competitive and that you have a survival instinct (which is expressed mostly through the pleasure/pain principle). So of course you would still need to use logic and make decisions as best you can. Your decisions would be governed by genetic/cultural influences, but you would be largely unconscious of this (unless you did a rigorous self-examination of your beliefs in conjunction with a study of nature and human nature).

Carl Treetop

You would continue to use reason, but there would be a shift in your behavior.

Our courts of justice distinguish between criminal acts and the same acts committed due to insanity. The former are punishable, the latter generally are not. The former is considered to be done of free-will, the latter is considered to have a cause beyond the perpetrators control. Observers are less angry and more compassionate in the latter case.

With the realization that all acts are determined, there would be more compassion and less anger toward people in general. There would tend to be more tolerance and understanding toward anyone whose actions one personally does not like.

So a person who comes to adequately understand the determinist philosophy, and who accepts it and practices it, is likely to experience changes in his/her emotional reaction to certain acts of others, for the better. This person would also be less prone to feelings of shame and inappropriate guilt. Even if an entire society adopted the Determinist philosophy, society would still impose sanctions, since people would still operate according to the pleasure/pain principle. Personal responsibility would still apply.

acronos

From a determinist’s point of view, human choice is just a vastly more complicated version of a river choosing to carry out more limestone than granite. Genes, experience, and the current circumstances set the pathway of such a choice. Or another way of thinking about it, the choice is set by combining the neural connections and chemicals in the brain with the input of the senses. The determinist is saying that what we chose is based on who we are which after a long chain of cause and effect is ultimately based on things we have no control over such as our choice of parents. Most determinists don't believe that makes who we are any less. We can still even choose to change who we are, only that our choice to do so is ultimately based on things for which we had no control.

sodium

It's important to distinguish between fatalism and determinism. Fatalism says that the same things will happen no matter what we do. Often arguments that are given against determinism are really arguments against fatalism instead.

Let's say that my house is on fire. I reason that either I will escape or I won't, it's all externally determined, so I might as well just sit on the couch and see what happens. That's not determinism, that's fatalism.

If I burn to cinders as a result of this philosophical position, than from a deterministic point of view, you have the right to term my behaviour as idiotic. Of course, at some level, I did not choose to be an idiot. It's the result of genetics, environment, and that sort of thing. But I still chose a bad course of action, and i'ts still possible to learn from my bad example.

In fact, I would try to get out of the house, but not because I believe in some extra-physical sort of free will.