Re: A defence of determinism


Lance wrote:

If your decision was predectable by a Laplacian intelligence from the
time of the big-bang in what sense did you weigh the options and
actually make a choice?

The goal of much psychological research in fact is to make people more
free. How can we get people to see past the illusory options and make
better choices?

Think of your own discussion of nuclear power in Britain. If the
outcome is foreordained and completely determined why should you worry?
But you do worry, and you seek better information and you try to make
the best decision believing that it will make a difference.

Unlike you, I can't think of any theory more discouraging of human
action (and science is a kind of human action) than the theory that we
are just living a charade in which all the options have already been
decided - we just have to live out the fake choices as though we were
really making them.

You seem to me to be arguing for what you want to believe. You don't
like what you take to be the implications of determinism and are
looking for an alternative. However, as far as I can see, you
haven't explained why adding a degree of indeterminism provides a
preferable option. Neither have you explained what you mean by being
free. For me, it just involves being able to act according to my own
values, thoughts and feelings.

I don't think determinism, if true, is as depressing as you claim. As
far as I know, there is no puppet-master behind the scenes who is
pulling the strings and planning everything.. We are a tiny part of an
unfolding process, temporary systems within a much larger system, but
with a role to play. Yes, we are effects, but we are causes tool.

.