There's no such a thing as a self made person

[paredler]

The way you start your life, what kind of family you come from already dictates what options you're going to have in life. And things like loss of a loved one or an accident that leads to disability can ruin all your years of hard work trying to build yourself.

 

[Jealous Blackheart]

I'd go a step further. The language you speak. The ability to communicate at all. Walking upright. Cooking. Drinking uncontaminated water.
Pretty much everything besides your basic biological functions are inherited in some way.

 

[derpyderpins]

Wish I could believe that. It would be so nice. Everything predetermined. No pressure. No reason to feel bad about yourself at all, because you had no agency.

But there are self-made people. It's possible, and one can increase their odds of becoming one through choice and effort. The shit part is that you can do everything right and still get screwed as you pointed out, but the possibility of success is there.

 

[Aergia]

Wish I could believe that. It would be so nice. Everything predetermined. No pressure. No reason to feel bad about yourself at all, because you had no agency.

Biological determinism is one of the few ideas I have a firm belief in,* but I think it is a mistake to think determinism entails a fatalistic mentality. A feeling of responsibility for your actions and your future—of pride for your achievements and guilt for your mistakes—is necessary if you want to grow and improve. (The kicker is that those feelings are themselves just the result of conditioning, brain chemistry, etc. that was out of your control, but you shouldn't try to get rid of them, because they serve an important purpose.)

*I have yet to encounter a counterargument that doesn't hinge on redefining free will

 

[derpyderpins]

Biological determinism is one of the few ideas I have a firm belief in,* but I think it is a mistake to think determinism entails a fatalistic mentality. A feeling of responsibility for your actions and your future—of pride for your achievements and guilt for your mistakes—is necessary if you want to grow and improve.

*I have yet to encounter a counterargument that doesn't hinge on redefining free will

Well, lol you and @Alexei_Kirillov could team up against me on biological determinism like you did with @LaVieEnRose regarding kids.

I believe there is a nature and nurture component to success. Some of the nurture will be out of your control, but some isn't. You know I firmly believe that humans are more than a sack of meat and chemicals, so I do believe the consciousness can develop the ability to overcome biological predispositions.

It's a deep topic that could derail this thread.

(The kicker is that those feelings are themselves just the result of conditioning, brain chemistry, etc. that was out of your control, but again, there is no reason why acknowledging this should make you give up.)

If true, I see it as a complete reason to give up. (Although I don't think it's true). When I list why I stay alive, it's about it being my life, with my choices and connections and passions and cares. To me, if I'm just a biological machine making real-time choices based on my genetic coding and nothing else, it removes everything good about life beyond raw pleasure. Then when I go to add up good vs. bad I fall into the 'well working away my life isn't worth it' crowd and there's nothing.

What is "I?" It's not the feelings and emotions experienced, because it is the "I" which is experiencing them, thus the "I" is external to them. We can map the brain and detail the functions of each part, but I personally don't think the "I" has a sole location therein. If it does, if we're just biological machines and these words are an inevitable consequence of the chip that is my brain, then everything good is a facade. It all falls apart.

 

[KillingPain267]

Not just that, any thriving life quality requires cooperation between humans with different skills. If you don't want to die slowly of pneumonia or frostbite you need a doctor and a clothing maker.

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

If true, I see it as a complete reason to give up. (Although I don't think it's true). When I list why I stay alive, it's about it being my life, with my choices and connections and passions and cares. To me, if I'm just a biological machine making real-time choices based on my genetic coding and nothing else, it removes everything good about life beyond raw pleasure. Then when I go to add up good vs. bad I fall into the 'well working away my life isn't worth it' crowd and there's nothing.

Oddly enough I think this is actually further proof of me and @Aergia's point, because one's reaction to the mere idea of determinism seems to be out of your control; it would never even occur to me to give up altogether based on this fact. Whether or not I have free will has zero impact on how I live my life. Interestingly, a philosophy/theology YouTuber, Alex O'Connor (timestamped to a relevant video), who is also on the determinist/no-free-will side of things, has observed this same reaction from others when confronted with his position (ie. people saying "well I'd just lie in bed all day if that was the case"), but like me, this isn't obvious to him.

 

[platypus77]

Biological determinism is one of the few ideas I have a firm belief in,* but I think it is a mistake to think determinism entails a fatalistic mentality. A feeling of responsibility for your actions and your future—of pride for your achievements and guilt for your mistakes—is necessary if you want to grow and improve. (The kicker is that those feelings are themselves just the result of conditioning, brain chemistry, etc. that was out of your control, but you shouldn't try to get rid of them, because they serve an important purpose.)

*I have yet to encounter a counterargument that doesn't hinge on redefining free will

Talking about fatalistic mentally:

I never even imagined that capitalism would ever see it's end, and I do think it will happen in our generation.

AI bros are dreaming about UBI.

Mark my words, what's coming next is way worse.

 

[derpyderpins]

Oddly enough I think this is actually further proof of me and @Aergia's point, because one's reaction to the mere idea of determinism seems to be out of your control; it would never even occur to me to give up altogether based on this fact.

But why would us having different reactions be evidence of determinism? Free will allows for people to come at problems differently.

Whether or not I have free will has zero impact on how I live my life.

If determinism is 100% then nothing has any impact on how you live your life :P

Interestingly, a philosophy/theology YouTuber, Alex O'Connor (timestamped to a relevant video), who is also on the determinist/no-free-will side of things, has observed this same reaction from others when confronted with his position (ie. people saying "well I'd just lie in bed all day if that was the case"), but like me, this isn't obvious to him.

Well, it's interesting because if it was the case then - rather than lying in bed - they would continue to do as they have done because they never had a say to begin with. (And I know you get this but I'm talking it out.) The theoretical difference isn't turning determinism on/off, it's the perfect information that determinism is 100% correct being added to the equation. It is knowing that you have no self. You are stuck in a shell watching a very slow and boring movie play out and you have 0 control over what happens, it's going to happen one way or the other, and most of it is going to suck.

With my view, it's more like a video game. Your character has stats, and a spawn point, and a class, and limitations, but ultimately even if the odds are stacked against you, you get to decide how it is played out. Even if it's janky and frustrating and stupid it is there, so might as well play it.

Giving someone 100% confirmation that determinism is true is like showing someone that the controller wasn't plugged in and they were watching a demo the whole time. Seems silly to keep hitting buttons in an attempt to influence anything at that point. You've been sitting there like a moron trying, when nothing you did mattered in the slightest to influence what happened on the screen. It would be deflating. (at least in my view).

 

[Aergia]

I believe there is a nature and nurture component to success. Some of the nurture will be out of your control, but some isn't. You know I firmly believe that humans are more than a sack of meat and chemicals, so I do believe the consciousness can develop the ability to overcome biological predispositions.

I don't think you need to be a physicalist to be a determinist tbh. Even if consciousness is its own entity (i.e. distinct from the meat and chemicals), the meat and chemicals naturally exert causal effects on your consciousness. Certain neurotransmitters yield certain feelings, the decisions your "consciousness" makes is dependent on the values instilled through your upbringing and experiences, etc.

It seems to me that every decision you make/thought you have/whatever feels like free will was either influenced by some other factor (emotional state, biological predisposition, upbringing, prior experience, etc.) or it was essentially 100% spontaneous/random. Either way, it wasn't really within your control. @Alexei_Kirillov's link reminded of me of another clip where Alex O' Connor expresses this idea much better.

(Tbh I was hesitant to derail the thread but I do think the title and OP already set things up for such a discussion.)

 

[derpyderpins]

I don't think you need to be a physicalist to be a determinist tbh. Even if consciousness is its own entity (i.e. distinct from the meat and chemicals), the meat and chemicals naturally exert causal effects on your consciousness. Certain neurotransmitters yield certain feelings, the decisions your "consciousness" makes is dependent on the values instilled through your upbringing and experiences, etc.

It seems to me that every decision you make/thought you have/whatever feels like free will was either influenced by some other factor (emotional state, biological predisposition, upbringing, prior experience, etc.) or it was essentially 100% spontaneous/random. Either way, it wasn't really within your control. @Alexei_Kirillov's link reminded of me of another clip where Alex O' Connor expresses this idea much better.

(Tbh I was hesitant to derail the thread but I do think the title and OP already set things up for such a discussion.)

I'll try to avoid repeating myself too much from my above response about why that's such a horribly glum outlook imo.

Free will being influenced by emotional state, predisposition, upbringing, etc., is 100% something we're in agreement on. The question is, if you could put me in one state and test a choice 1,000 times, even with all of those influences, can I fluctuate between whether I pick A or B, or will I always run through the same "code" of transmitters and factors and thus reach the same conclusion. Would I have chosen to be a lawyer every time? Would I have asked my wife out every time? It gets more to the point on the smaller scale: I'm depressed and I know it would be good for me to eat something and take a walk, will I do it? If determinism is 100% controlling, then whether I muster up that strength to make the good choice is out of my control. Now, even more terrifying is if the only thing that gets me to make the good choice is the belief that determinism is not 100% controlling when it actually is. That is how, with Alexei's video/example, if we introduce knowledge that determinism 100% controlled, I'd probably never make the good choice.

 

[Aergia]

It is knowing that you have no self. You are stuck in a shell watching a very slow and boring movie play out and you have 0 control over what happens, it's going to happen one way or the other, and most of it is going to suck.

Determinism says your story has been written—but it doesn't mean that your story is going to continue the same way it's played out so far or that it is going to be a boring story.

If determinism is 100% controlling, then whether I muster up that strength to make the good choice is out of my control.

But it shouldn't stop you from trying. Maybe you are fated to muster up the strength. You don't know. Because the future isn't actually a blank slate but so long as it looks like one you'll feel free even if you've accepted determinism on the intellectual level. To put it more succinctly, the illusion of free will is itself an effector.

Edit: I do think the question of whether believing determinism will cause one to give up is a highly subjective thing. I (and AK, as she's said) find the idea very unintuitive. Though I guess the question of whether it's true and the question of whether it's helpful are two different things either way.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Well, lol you and @Alexei_Kirillov could team up against me on biological determinism like you did with @LaVieEnRose regarding kids.

I'm a tiger, not a lion. I don't need a pride to take you down.

 

[derpyderpins]

Determinism says your story has been written—but it doesn't mean that your story is going to continue the same way it's played out so far or that it is going to be a boring story.

Life is a boring story, though. Even if you live an "exciting" life, you sleep, eat, bathe, etc away most of it. The interest comes from it being yours, which determinism eliminates. It's just the life of this computer you're stuck in and looking out of.

But it shouldn't stop you from trying. Maybe you are fated to muster up the strength. You don't know. Because the future isn't actually a blank slate but so long as it looks like one you'll feel free even if you've accepted determinism on the intellectual level. To put it more succinctly, the illusion of free will is itself an effector.

That's kinda what I was saying and to me it's horrible if free will is the illusion keeping me moving. That would make me want to believe prison planet theory because this entire world and everything functions on a lie. All of the bad and evil and pain that I argue is worth it for that human experience is a lie because there is no human experience, and we're just too stupid to know that we have no control, which is the exact fuel that keeps us moving things along. To me that's horrifying, not inspirational at all.

Edit: I do think the question of whether believing determinism will cause one to give up is a highly subjective thing. I (and AK, as she's said) find the idea very unintuitive. Though I guess the question of whether it's true and the question of whether it's helpful are two different things either way.

Could you explain your view? I explained why I would give up, and you somewhat just reinforced it with your above example: that I make the effort to get up because of the illusion of free will. If the illusion is gone, then why . . . Anything?

I did watch both of your clips, although not long into the one with Beardsley mcbeardson. Honestly I don't find it convincing, but that's okay. It's a similar vibe to the videos Pluto recommended to me where the guys were talking about nothing being real, just the perception of that thing, where I just have too many questions as I'm listening that are unanswered and I get turned off by the person being so incredibly certain of their radical concept without hedging at all. Don't take it to heart. It's probably a character flaw on my part that's predetermined.

E* my sentences are getting run-on-y and bad, sorry. My eyes are tired.

 

[Aergia]

Could you explain your view? I explained why I would give up, and you somewhat just reinforced it with your above example: that I make the effort to get up because of the illusion of free will. If the illusion is gone, then why . . . Anything?

My point is that I don't understand why you wouldn't try in life if the predetermined thing that follows from you trying could be a good thing for you. You'd be doing yourself a disservice. When I refer to the illusion of free will I mostly just mean what derives from the fact that you don't know what is predetermined. The illusion isn't something that can be truly gone because we will never be able to see our futures.

All of the bad and evil and pain that I argue is worth it for that human experience is a lie because there is no human experience

Maybe it's because I'm tired too but I don't follow—we still love, hurt, etc., those are parts of the human experience and they're not gonna go away if you're a determinist and are able to knowledge their inevitability.

Anyway I feel the waters got muddied along the way here because I'm still not sure if we're arguing about whether determinism is true or whether it'll feel good to believe in. I'm a proponent of the former—the latter, well, I honestly don't know if there's an objective answer to that one so I'd be okay with granting that.

 

[derpyderpins]

My point is that I don't understand why you wouldn't try in life if the predetermined thing that follows from you trying could be a good thing for you. You'd be doing yourself a disservice. When I refer to the illusion of free will I mostly just mean what derives from the fact that you don't know what is predetermined. The illusion isn't something that can be truly gone because we will never be able to see our futures.


Maybe it's because I'm tired too but I don't follow—we still love, hurt, etc., those are parts of the human experience and they're not gonna go away if you're a determinist and are able to knowledge their inevitability.

Anyway I feel the waters got muddied along the way here because I'm still not sure if we're arguing about whether determinism is true or whether it'll feel good to believe in. I'm a proponent of the former—the latter, well, I honestly don't know if there's an objective answer to that one so I'd be okay with granting that.

I don't know that we're arguing at all, but I suppose both if it is true and if it is then good. Sorry if I'm being testy I'm cranky today.

If (1) determinism is 100% controlling, and (2) we are aware of it, then I'd argue we don't love. In that case, we're no different than extra complex ai chatbots. People talk about how they don't want a world with AI companions and ai movies and music, etc, but if determinism is right we're already there. How can you love someone in that case? It's like loving an object. A very complex special object, maybe, but still an object.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

My point is that I don't understand why you wouldn't try in life if the predetermined thing that follows from you trying could be a good thing for you. You'd be doing yourself a disservice. When I refer to the illusion of free will I mostly just mean what derives from the fact that you don't know what is predetermined. The illusion isn't something that can be truly gone because we will never be able to know our futures.

I can see why it would hard to be happy even if the predetermined outcome was a "good" thing. If someone you loved who died was somehow perfectly replicated (via whatever hypothetical scientific or supernatural phenomenon) would you really feel the same about them knowing it wasn't really them? I think that's broadly the same kind of principle. It doesn't mesh with what derpy values. That's why he has so much anguish over feeling interchangeable.

Of course people would probably still be generally inclined to try despite full knowledge of everything being determined just like they are generally inclined to try in real life no matter what horrible situations they are in.

 

[derpyderpins]

Of course people would probably still be generally inclined to try despite full knowledge of everything being determined just like they are generally inclined to try in real life no matter what horrible situations they are in.

Well there is no trying or not trying in that world. Whether you "try" is already determined.

But when I say try I also mean generally. If determinism 100% controls, I have no argument against the "pro death." To me if I have to operate under that assumption all roads lead to the logic that normies are mindless sheep too stupid to know they should be miserable. Obviously I don't believe that but it holds up. Almost (and I use that word only because I'm too lazy and don't want to think of exceptions) every person's stated purpose in life is built on lies/false premises in that case. No reason not to nuke everything to stop the suffering.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Well there is no trying or not trying in that world. Whether you "try" is already determined.

But when I say try I also mean generally. If determinism 100% controls, I have no argument against the "pro death." To me if I have to operate under that assumption all roads lead to the logic that normies are mindless sheep too stupid to know they should be miserable. Obviously I don't believe that but it holds up. Almost (and I use that word only because I'm too lazy and don't want to think of exceptions) every person's stated purpose in life is built on lies/false premises in that case. No reason not to nuke everything to stop the suffering.

Depends on the level of determinism. Like if things like your profession and mate were chosen.

Aergia's point was that there was still merit to trying even if everything was already set IF you didnt know what the outcome was going to be.

If everything was set and people knew what it would be then I doubt anyone would feel motivated to try (and the idea that people's trying or not is a set thing is the point at which this whole scenario collapses in reality).

 

[nogods4me]

Is agency just the illusion of free will? Either way determinism wins if we are guided by reason alone. I don't think there are self-made people either. Must be nice to have the luxury of being lucky and being able to claim it isn't luck.

 

[Aergia]

It doesn't mesh with what derpy values

I think this is the crux of it tbh. Different values. I just don't see why knowing that everything is predetermined would result in such despair.

I don't think the AI clone is an analogous situation. I once read something somewhere that went like, if we know that love is just atoms (i.e. a cocktail of brain chemicals) that shouldn't change the way we feel about love, it should change the way we feel about atoms. Experiences don't have to mean less just because they were out of your control. I'm sure a lot of couples would agree that some of the factors leading to their meeting were just serendipitous—out of their control. Still, the relationship has meaning. I think you could extend it to full determinism and that would still hold.

To me if I have to operate under that assumption all roads lead to the logic that normies are mindless sheep too stupid to know they should be miserable. Obviously I don't believe that but it holds up.

I guess I have a hard time seeing how these conclusions follow from the premise. We shouldn't be miserable because of determinism, and no one is stupid because they don't believe in it. Free will is the most intuitive thing.

I didn't mean argue in any sense that would imply hostility btw, maybe debate would've been a better word.

In that case, we're no different than extra complex ai chatbots.

I don't think having complete control over our actions is what makes us human. I think that's the psyche or the soul or our capacity for empathy or our consciences. That's why people don't want AI art imo, because there is no consciousness behind it, or no feeling.

But yeah, to reiterate—this is ultimately a conversation about the merits of believing in determinism. And I do think it is just a case of differing values like LVER said because while I don't think you'd be alone in having such reactions to determinism ("we're no different from AI", "the pro-death crowd is right", "everyone's purpose is built on lies") to me they just don't follow.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

I think this is the crux of it tbh. Different values. I just don't see why knowing that everything is predetermined would result in such despair.

I don't think the AI clone is an analogous situation. I once read something somewhere that went like, if we know that love is just atoms (i.e. a cocktail of brain chemicals) that shouldn't change the way we feel about love, it should change the way we feel about atoms. Experiences don't have to mean less just because they were out of your control. I'm sure a lot of couples would agree that some of the factors leading to their meeting were just serendipitous—out of their control. Still, the relationship has meaning. I think you could extend it to full determinism and that would still hold.


I guess I have a hard time seeing how these conclusions follow from the premise. We shouldn't be miserable because of determinism, and no one is stupid because they don't believe in it. Free will is the most intuitive thing.

I didn't mean argue in any sense that would imply hostility btw, maybe debate would've been a better word.


I don't think having complete control over our actions is what makes us human. I think that's the psyche or the soul or our capacity for empathy or our consciences. That's why people don't want AI art imo, because there is no consciousness behind it, or no feeling.

But yeah, to reiterate—this is ultimately a conversation about the merits of believing in determinism. And I do think it is just a case of differing values like LVER said because while I don't think you'd be alone in having such reactions to determinism ("we're no different from AI", "the pro-death crowd is right", "everyone's purpose is built on lies") to me they just don't follow.

Could the disempowerment you've been subjected to as a major life theme play a role in your differing reaction to the ideas presented in this thread?

I guess it doesn't matter because pure determinism isn't real any more than pure solipsism is real.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Maybe not completely. I agree that a person has to have something going for them. A talent in something admired, a good support system- emotional and/ or financial. I suspect being determined is a huge gift to have. They certainly need something or other which- in truth, they may not have aquired- they may well have been born with it.

There certainly are rags to riches stories though. The very talented singer, songwriter and composer, Elton John had a very difficult start in life. He did seem fortunate to be supremely talented and have a handful of people recognise it enough to encourage him. But- how many people would have actually 'made it' under those circumstances?

It's actually pretty difficult to tell. Some people seemingly have a lot of luck in life and it all seems to go wrong still. Would you say they'd squandered all their opportunities or, would you be understanding towards them also? They maybe fell in with the wrong crowd etc.

Also, how does it account for the people who are worse off than us, yet still do better? I remember feeling put to shame finding out the history of someone doing very well in the industry I wanted to get into. He'd been orphaned and had an extremely tough childhood. He saw work as his way out of all that. I felt a mixture of admiration and envy towards him. Did he truly have something I didn't or, did he just work harder to get where he wanted?

Obviously, there can be major disparancies in talent, skill levels- learnt or innate, wealth, education etc. Still, I suppose the question we all have to ask ourselves and, answer honestly is: 'Have I done all I possibly could to improve my circumstances and, achieve what I wanted?'

If it's a career we want, how many jobs have we applied to? Have we tried to gain as much education and experience in our field of interest? If it's a relationship or friendships we want- are we making the effort to meet people? I think we do sometimes have a habit of claiming we want these things and yet, doing nothing practical to get them!

If we are held back by things then, that's tricky. Especially if it's illness. Again though, there have been pretty incredible documentaries made on people who have incredibly debilitating circumstances, who still manage to create friendships and positively influence lives:



I think in some part- if there's still things we actually want in life, we do actually need to question whether we are doing all we can to achieve them. It may be true that it's a terribly uneven playing field but ultimately, just accepting that your circumstances have hobbled you absolutely will keep you stuck where you are.

I also think there might be certain things that we find so challenging and unpleasant that, it frightens us off trying. For me, social anxiety and a crippling lack of confidence around others has been a massive stumbling block in life. I did try to confront my fears and improve for years but, given the choice, I'd much rather isolate. Seeing as I took that 'easier' option for many years now, it's made the prospect of having to work with others monumentally terrifying now. To the extent that it would put me off jobs that meant career development.

Maybe it wasn't exactly my fault for developing social anxiety but, it is my fault that I haven't properly tackled it and now, I don't feel strong enough to. I think it's important to also realise and take responsibility for the times we screwed up. Plus, if we're not willing to put the effort in to change- for whatever reason, we kind of have to accept that we've immobilized ourselves.

I guess it's that difference between blaming and hating ourselves for all our faults or, blaming the world. I don't think either are useful. I expect most of the time, it's a bit of a mixture of both. Regardless though- feelings of hate and resentment I feel, just make things worse. They certainly don't motivate us to try and that's one thing I absolutely believe. Everything in this life takes effort. Of course, you can put the effort in and still fail but, if no effort is put in, things very likely won't improve at all.

So- I suppose it's a matter of us all asking ourselves: 'What do we want? What's holding us back? What have we done so far to get what we want? What more can we do? Why aren't we doing that? Have people with similar or worse backgrounds than us succeeded where we failed? Why?'

 

[derpyderpins]

Depends on the level of determinism. Like if things like your profession and mate were chosen.

Aergia's point was that there was still merit to trying even if everything was already set IF you didnt know what the outcome was going to be.

If everything was set and people knew what it would be then I doubt anyone would feel motivated to try (and the idea that people's trying or not is a set thing is the point at which this whole scenario collapses in reality).

I get that we're not talking about fate. Of course the future isn't set. But the level of determinism we're suggesting is that how I will act in any situation is 100% determined. I have no control. I'm a free-rider to my biology. An observer trapped in this body, forced to feel all the feelings with no ability to affect what those feelings will be.

I think this is the crux of it tbh. Different values. I just don't see why knowing that everything is predetermined would result in such despair.

I don't think the AI clone is an analogous situation. I once read something somewhere that went like, if we know that love is just atoms (i.e. a cocktail of brain chemicals) that shouldn't change the way we feel about love, it should change the way we feel about atoms. Experiences don't have to mean less just because they were out of your control. I'm sure a lot of couples would agree that some of the factors leading to their meeting were just serendipitous—out of their control. Still, the relationship has meaning. I think you could extend it to full determinism and that would still hold.

I guess I have a hard time seeing how these conclusions follow from the premise. We shouldn't be miserable because of determinism, and no one is stupid because they don't believe in it. Free will is the most intuitive thing.

I don't think having complete control over our actions is what makes us human. I think that's the psyche or the soul or our capacity for empathy or our consciences. That's why people don't want AI art imo, because there is no consciousness behind it, or no feeling.

The ai clone is 100% analogous. With determinism, "the psyche or the soul or our capacity for empathy or our consciousness" are none any different than a programmed reaction. Like I said, we're just currently more complex than ai models, but with determinism it's just a matter of time before they are programmed to "empathize" and so on.

I don't believe in soulmates, so I think everything about meeting my wife was out of our control other than the choice to go on a date and the choices we made following that date. With determinism, the choices mean nothing. There is no "oh thank you babe it's so sweet of you to do that" because anything we do is just the programming of our flesh prison. There's no sweetness, no overcoming propensities, no sacrifice. There's no need to thank the machine, but we do it because we are also machines programmed to do that. We aren't two companions on life's journey who put faith in each other, we're two observers who happen to be next to each other as our vessels do whatever they will.

With artists, filmmakers, musicians, determinism says that if you put the artist in the room at a certain time with a brush, he will paint exactly according to his code, even if the code runs through "empathy" and "consciousness" modules, they are facades. He's the same as ai following a prompt.

And if determinism is right, then yes most people are stupid for not seeing it. You could say misguided or ignorant or something less mean but the point remains. If you build your entire being around a premise (free will) that is logically flawed and untrue ... I can't say you're smart lol.

But yeah, to reiterate—this is ultimately a conversation about the merits of believing in determinism. And I do think it is just a case of differing values like LVER said because while I don't think you'd be alone in having such reactions to determinism ("we're no different from AI", "the pro-death crowd is right", "everyone's purpose is built on lies") to me they just don't follow.

So, what are the purposes that people have? When someone asks here or on any forum, "what's the point of life?" You get a nice sample of answers. Number one will almost always be something like "life has no purpose except what you give it." That is entirely destroyed by determinism, as it implies that you have a say in the matter and purpose is tied to that control. So, for everyone who adopts that purpose, it is built on a lie. For now, don't make me go through the other common answers, I'm just explaining how I get to the conclusions.

If the purpose is built on a lie, then there is no purpose. But, people still derive happiness from the mistaken belief that the purpose is real. When I have the regular debate with the pro death, there's always a pattern to it, and one of the key points is that "we may be struggling on this site, but most people report that they are happy and fulfilled, so in most cases life is worthwhile and we should let people choose to keep bringing life into the world." But if most people are only happy because of a mistaken belief in free will, I could no longer make that statement in good faith. You're bringing children into the world and telling them free will is real like Santa clause which is where their happiness comes from. If determinism is right, and we know it, then teaching people a worldview based on freewill is as much a lie as telling them about a loving God who will bring them eternal happiness if they follow the rules on earth. Sure, it might provoke an emotional response of happiness, but it's in a dystopian, brave new world type of way.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I agree with you because I support determinism due to there being no free will. Sure, we have a will but it isn't "free" as it's controlled by these crude forces such as our biology and our psychology which we have no say in. There are so many variables at play here which dictate what we would do and how we navigate through life which is basically what your post is saying and I concede with that

 

[Aergia]

@derpyderpins I guess we can just agree to disagree. For instance it's not clear to me how sacrificing something for your wife is worth any less just because you were fated to do it—because you still feel the pain of the sacrifice, and she still feels the sensation of being loved (things AI incidentally cannot feel). I think the paragraph I linked the clip in (and the clip itself) are the best explanations of why I think determinism is true—whether the clip/determinism itself is unpleasant feels like a matter of taste (or values, etc.). I don't think I'd be able to change your mind on that, or you mine. I'll still respond to the rest of your post if you'd like me to, just maybe not right now (and ftr, I'm sorry if I did come across as hostile at any point).

 

[derpyderpins]

@derpyderpins I guess we can just agree to disagree. I think the paragraph I linked the clip in (and the clip itself) are the best explanations of why I think determinism is true—whether the clip/determinism itself is unpleasant feels like a matter of taste (or values, etc.). I don't think I'd be able to change your mind on that, or you mine. I'll still respond to your post if you'd like me to, just maybe not right now.

It's fine. Don't respond just to humor me. If that clip is the pitch I can pray on it more.

We can call it agree to disagree, but in terms of determinism being true or not there is a right answer, and I think it has massive consequences. I get that we've hit an impasse in the discussion I just think it's important to make that clear.

As for the consequences, the explanation of it being a matter of "values" doesn't sit right with me when both of you have said it. The logic and framework either holds up or it doesn't. But I also know I'm probably being too sensitive about that. "Values" makes it sound holistic rather than based on rationality. I've written a ton of stuff on here about understanding life and recovery where I've over-analyzed and over-explained my thoughts on life and why it's worth living. Every post could come with the caveat "if determinism is 100% controlling, disregard. I recommend ending your life as swiftly as possible if the good feelings don't outweigh the bad. Cut your losses." I'm not trying to be negative, that's just how it is, because the logical building blocks are knocked out. I have no other answer when faced with the question "why live?" I guess that could just be my values, but I'm open to a different path of thinking. At least I hope I am. I just haven't come across it.

 

[Aergia]

We can call it agree to disagree, but in terms of determinism being true or not there is a right answer, and I think it has massive consequences.

I agree as well. I just think what we've debating most of this time is unrelated to the truth value of determinism and more related to how pleasant it is (because our discussion has basically been you saying "determinism being true has [unpleasant implication]" and me responding with "no, it doesn't", neither of which are of course arguments for or against its truth value).

Again, I agree—the logic and framework either holds up or it doesn't, but we won't get anywhere in that regard by discussing the whether the implications of determinism are unpleasant or not. That's why I backed off—because we haven't been discussing the issue from a rational/truth-oriented perspective (and like I said that earlier paragraph of mine is pretty much the main idea that convinced me of determinism being true rather than it being pleasant).

I recommend ending your life as swiftly as possible if the good feelings don't outweigh the bad. Cut your losses

What's to say good things aren't fated?

even if the code runs through "empathy" and "consciousness" modules, they are facades.

I don't think his code running through it makes it a facade though. It is still a very felt experience. It is the qualia that AI lacks. It is inevitable and beautiful nonethless.

 

[derpyderpins]

I agree as well. I just think what we've debating most of this time is unrelated to the truth value of determinism and more related to how pleasant it is (because our discussion has basically been you saying "determinism being true has [unpleasant implication]" and me responding with "no, it doesn't", neither of which are of course arguments for or against its truth value).

Again, I agree—the logic and framework either holds up or it doesn't, but we won't get anywhere in that regard by discussing the whether the implications of determinism are unpleasant or not. That's why I backed off—because we haven't been discussing the issue from a rational/truth-oriented perspective (and like I said that earlier paragraph of mine is pretty much the main idea that convinced me of determinism being true rather than it being pleasant).

Well maybe I can detail more why I don't agree with the clip you showed me, because I get what you're saying that the issues got conflated.

What's to say good things aren't fated?

Good things are probably fated for everyone. The only calculation in determinism, though, is 'does the cumulative good combine to outweight the cumulative bad?' Every moment in bad that total is being added to. I just told someone in recovery that even though I now want to live, the good still doesn't outweigh the bad. That means that less my motivations for living which rely on my having free will, you'd need to evaluate the good v. bad from when I first gestured at 12. 20 years. So there is good fated for me, but if we're evaluating my choice to get off the ledge at 12, that future good - to justify life - has to be so abundant that even with the future bad it outweighs those 20 years of net bad. Knowing myself, my progress, and likely futures, the rational decision in that paradigm is to end this life asap, and I'd assume it's the same for most others as well.

 

[Aergia]

@derpyderpins I don't see why your motivations for living hinge on free will. I can't help but feel we're misunderstanding each other. What I'm saying is—maybe someone reads your recovery post, takes the advice to heart, and chooses to act on it. That choice was fated. But how does that detract from its power? It still results in change, doesn't it? As with your motivations to live. The bearded guy (iirc) put that one something like this: We do what we choose (!). We just don't *choose* what we choose (in that if we were omnipotent we could track the causal factors that led to your choice to live.) Framing it that way I don't see cause for dismay.

TLDR, We still make choices. Even choosing to lay in bed all day because determinism depresses you is a choice. Determinism just says that your choice wasn't random, it came out of somewhere. It had a chain of causes. And that's essentially what the clip and my paragraph argued for—that everything has a cause, and those causes had their own causes, all the way back to the inception of the universe.