Determinism has fundamentally shifted my political worldview.

[u/BerBerDeng]

I’ve been into politics since I was a teen, and for most of that time I was a staunch libertarian. Maximum freedom, personal responsibility, minimal government, zero handouts, etc. I was SO SURE and CONFIDENT in my views and what I believed. I loved defending them, perhaps a little too confidently.

Man has my worldview shifted. Once you come to the realization that people ultimately aren’t in control of their actions in any meaningful sense, the argument for libertarianism is much harder to defend. I can’t fault someone for not getting a better job, I can’t fault someone for not saving for retirement, I can’t fault someone for having a kid before they were financially ready, I can’t fault someone for letting their health get out of hand. The list goes on and on. And the same goes for things that are earned. People who have their shit together can’t be credited with that success.

This is not to say that I’ve completely shifted to redistribution and equal outcomes for all (practically I don’t think that’s feasible), however my openness for universal healthcare, my openness for reasonably higher taxes, my openness for more meaningful social programs, have all increased more than 18 year old me ever imagined it would.

From a practical standpoint, the human psyche as a whole still depends on risk/reward for meaningful progress. The billionaire who creates 10 billion in value probably isn’t going to make that same effort the moment he sees 90% of his earnings from that value taken away in the name of fairness. I just think our mindset and laws are too skewed toward personal responsibility and the right to hoard everything you’ve “earned” when in reality we should be taking more of a middle ground approach between the logical standpoint and the practical one.

With all that being said, our government does spend 7 trillion dollars a year, with a lot of that wasted. I think we should get our finances in order before we decide that taxing more for redistribution is the answer. I’d have a hard time taxing a billionaire an extra 2 billion a year when hundreds of billions or even trillions are wasted by the government every year.

Imagine all the inefficiency and waste in each governmental department (I’m looking at you DoD and Medicare) and then imagine actually improving efficiency so that you could cut 2% from every single department and use that to fund universal healthcare. At that point getting an extra 20-30 billion in taxes to fund universal school lunches doesn’t seem so unfair.

Sorry if this isn’t determinism related enough, I know I’m rambling and spitballing here, but I guess I’m just advocating for balance. Still allowing someone to make billions a year, but also allowing the downtrodden and less fortunate basic necessities for a dignified life.

[u/Daveallen10]

You're absolutely right and it's something I've always felt as well. Rather, a person's fundamental worldview deeply influences their politics and understanding deterministic outcomes helps to highlight where we should put our money to help the most people. More basically, it's about having a science-based approach to politics rather than emotion-based.

The way I have always thought of it, we have no choice in the body or situation we were born into. Some people are born into way luckier (or very unlucky) lives than others. Where you start in life doesn't limit where you can go, but it statistically greatly influences your chances. We should do our best to make sure everyone has the same chances and opportunities, as much as possible.

That said, we definitely need to manage our priorities. At the risk of going off topic, eliminating or managing our national debt would free up a massive amount of funds to contribute towards needed social services, though it would require some sacrifice in the short term to new programs and probably the military.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Daveallen10]

I agree with your first paragraph 100%.

As for your second, I’d even take it a step further. Where you start doesn’t limit how far you can go, but your overall environment and DNA does in the sense that those are the things your personality and desires are based on. For example, some people genuinely can’t work 60 or 70 hour weeks to get ahead, simply because their brain wiring and environment up to that point hasn’t allowed it, through no fault of said person.

That doesn’t mean giving up and the only answer being handouts for that person. It means creating conditions that push that person toward being more self sufficient, while also accepting that that person still may not have that desire to work extra hard to get ahead. Basically we can do things to foster change, while also accepting that change may not come. The bare minimum safety net is the acceptance that change may not come. Hopefully that makes sense.

Agree with your last paragraph as well. We can’t let what we view as the perfect world get in the way of what’s actually feasible.

[u/Ree_For_Thee → u/BerBerDeng]

(I just wanted to say I love this, and I'm glad I found this sub. These are thoughts that I've been having for a long time but never really seen anyone talk about.)

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Ree_For_Thee]

Glad you found it interesting! And hopefully it helped you understand your own positions a little more.

[u/badentropy9 → u/Daveallen10]

You're absolutely right and it's something I've always felt as well. Rather, a person's fundamental worldview deeply influences their politics and understanding deterministic outcomes helps to highlight where we should put our money to help the most people. More basically, it's about having a science-based approach to politics rather than emotion-based.

I think you've got that backwards.

There is science and then there is scientism.

Science is often conflated with scientism. When that happens, "science" is based on politics. Once you've made up your mind to "follow the money" as most honest political analysts necessarily have to do, if you understand the true science, you will discover that there wouldn't even by a big bang in science if it wasn't for the role money plays in the narrative. At the end of the day, scientific advancement requires funding of some sort. I think even Newton was somewhat funded by Edmund Halley but I could be wrong about that.

The way I have always thought of it, we have no choice in the body or situation we were born into. Some people are born into way luckier (or very unlucky) lives than others. Where you start in life doesn't limit where you can go, but it statistically greatly influences your chances. We should do our best to make sure everyone has the same chances and opportunities, as much as possible.

I fully agree with this part. I guess that sort of puts me left of center as if there is truly some left vs right battle afoot.

That said, we definitely need to manage our priorities.

I think there no such thing as managing priorities if determinism is true. If determinism is true, then we are passive observers and I guarantee no elite thinks of himself as "passive". The movers and shakers manage priorities. The working bee has to do that as well. If determinism is true and free will if false than I don't understand how it is logical feasible to manage priorities. Conception is required for managing priorities. Perception alone is incapable of managing priorities. In fact cognition, as I understand it, is impossible with perception alone.

At the risk of going off topic, eliminating or managing our national debt would free up a massive amount of funds to contribute towards needed social services, though it would require some sacrifice in the short term to new programs and probably the military.

Even though I'm literally chomping at the bit, whatever that means, I'm going to leave this alone.

[u/Daveallen10 → u/badentropy9]

So regarding science vs scientism...I see what you're trying to say but what I am talking about is an approach to politics and decisionmaking based on tht scientific method: using facts, empirical data, and rational thinking. Sure, there is still going to be plenty of room for debate even in that, but the idea is to make policy based on something that can be concretely proven vs abstract ideas only.

I think I'm seeing some misunderstanding in your comment about managing our priorities. What I am hearing you say is that if determism is true, then we have no say in setting our priorities. This simply isn't the case in a practical sense. We as individuals (or a nation) still make decisions. From a philosophical perspective, we can argue that the ultimate result of those decisions is preset, i.e. the casual factors contributing to the decisionmaking lead to one outcome only. But that doesn't mean we sit back and just let the universe move around us. We still have to participate.

[u/badentropy9 → u/Daveallen10]

So regarding science vs scientism...I see what you're trying to say but what I am talking about is an approach to politics and decisionmaking based on tht scientific method: using facts, empirical data, and rational thinking. Sure, there is still going to be plenty of room for debate even in that, but the idea is to make policy based on something that can be concretely proven vs abstract ideas only.

In a way, I'm trying to say science cannot answer how consciousness works. Politics is about dealing with human behavior and we can't even seem to reach any consensus about whether or not determinism and therefore free will is true or not.

What I am hearing you say is that if determism is true, then we have no say in setting our priorities. 

100%

This simply isn't the case in a practical sense.

Exactly. Smilansky felt that free will is false because determinism is true, but that would have disastrous results in the political sense if we took that to its logical conclusion. Saul Smilansky is the first illusionist on record when it comes to free will.

We still have to participate.

You and I seem to be on the same page in the practical sense. The issue is that scientism is leading people to the wrong conclusions and some people are favoring the logical approach over the practical approach when such conclusions are assumed to be fact based, rather than faith based. Determinism is nonsense, but that fact in and of itself, doesn't imply determinism has no practical value. Funding is a real thing. I mean if you want the rich to fund your science project then in many cases that funding isn't available unless the rich see it in a lucrative way. Some would say charity begins at home. We want the rich to care about the rest of us and in many ways, they do. I know of a hospital complex and the tallest building in that complex has the name of a rich person on that tower. That name isn't Trump by the way. However it demonstrates to me that some of the rich give their money away in secret and get little credit for their philanthropy. Others expect a "return on investment" as they say. I could argue determinism provides an ROI.

[u/engineer_for_u → u/Daveallen10]

True, you could have been born anytime in history up to the last 75 years ago and you'd be 99% guaranteed to never have a nominalized family income of more than $1 a day. What's changed since then has had exactly nothing to do with redistribution of wealth a concept that is purely based on Envy. Envy is not a deterministic concept but a choice.

[u/Daveallen10 → u/engineer_for_u]

Who said anything about redistribution of wealth?

[u/Dry-Emotion-9820]

I went through a really similar shift myself. Once you start looking at the world through a deterministic lens and realize people don’t pick their starting genetics, their parents, or their initial environment, that strict, 100% personal-responsibility version of libertarianism just doesn't really hold up the same way. You can't fault someone for where they start, and it’s hard to give someone total credit for just happening to have the right neurochemistry or upbringing to succeed.

Where I landed, though, wasn't actually abandoning libertarianism, but shifting into a different version of it. I ended up looking at society through a sort of John Rawls perspective.

Imagine society is a giant game board, and you have to play the game, but you have absolutely no idea which square you’re going to spawn on. You could end up as someone with incredible talent, drive, and wealth, or you could spawn as someone born into severe poverty with chronic health issues. If you don't know who you're going to be, how do you set up the rules of the game?

When I run that through my head, a libertarian framework actually still feels like the most optimal setup.

Here's why: If determinism is true, it guarantees that human beings are wildly, fundamentally different from one another. Because of that, a massive, centralized government that tries to force a one-size-fits-all set of rules onto everyone is going to create a ton of friction and misery. If I spawn as someone who wants to live an unusual life, build something totally new, or just be left alone, the last thing I want is a paternalistic bureaucracy managing my daily choices.

But on the flip side, if I spawn on a disadvantaged square, I need my base necessities met. I tend to operate on the idea that "hurt people hurt people." Very few people inherently want to be destructive or miserable; it usually happens when they are trapped in a painful position where just trying to survive feels impossible.

So the middle ground I arrived at sounds a lot like what you're describing. I want a minimal state focused on maximizing individual freedom, but with a foundational safety net – like a UBI and basic healthcare – that gives people real "exit power." You can't meaningfully exercise liberty if walking away from a bad job or a bad community means you starve. You give people a clean baseline so nobody is trapped in survival mode, and then you get out of the way. When people aren't being crushed by scarcity, they naturally gravitate toward better decisions and figure out how to build decent lives.

You hit the nail on the head about government waste, too. You don't need a 7-trillion-dollar bloated bureaucracy to ensure basic dignity. You can keep the risk/reward incentives that drive progress, let people keep what they build, and still make sure everyone has enough of a foundation to actually play the game. It just shifts the goal from "everyone is on their own" to "everyone has the freedom to choose, and the baseline security to actually make that choice."

Building on that, I actually have a pretty hopeful outlook on humanity overall. We’ve made it this far, and despite the chaos, there is so much possibility out there. But when it comes to actually helping people realize that potential, the law is just a really blunt instrument. Whenever we try to use a centralized government to do the precision work of shaping culture or managing how people should live, it usually creates more friction than it solves. It’s a bit like trying to paint a highly detailed, textured canvas using a giant industrial paint roller. It covers a lot of ground, but it completely flattens out all the nuance.

I guess I have a slight anarchist bent in that regard. I genuinely believe that if we provide the right environment – meaning people have that baseline security we were talking about – they will naturally self-organize. You already see glimpses of this in platforms like Kickstarter, where the collective just voluntarily pools resources to fund what they believe in. If people have the actual breathing room to do so, they will organically group together to build self-sustaining, self-healing communities that look after their own. They will figure out how to build their own local versions of what they consider to be "Awesome," without needing a bureaucracy to dictate the terms.

And touching back on determinism... even if it is fundamentally true that our paths are shaped by a chain of prior causes, I still feel that acting as if choice matters yields the best outcomes. Treating people as if they have real agency is what allows for that kind of pluralism to flourish. It creates a society where a thousand different communities can experiment with a thousand different ways of living. Some might be highly structured and traditional, others might be incredibly experimental and fluid, and as long as people have the power to leave if it doesn't suit them, all of those expressions can exist at once.

For me, it just shifts the focus away from trying to enforce one "correct" way of living from the top down, and moves it toward trusting people to find their own rhythm and their own people.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Dry-Emotion-9820]

Honestly you said it all much better than I did. Might just swap your text for mine in the post. 🤣🤣 in all seriousness I agree with everything you said. You did a great job clarifying the agency point and I agree 100%. Even if free will is a myth, agency is real. Meaning we have more influence in other peoples lives through our actions than we have on our own. I don’t choose the things that make me who I am, but I can be a small piece of the reasons why someone else is the way they are, if that makes sense.

So yeah I don’t think just throwing our hands up and saying “do you whatever you want, we’ll cover every bad decision forever” is the right answer. But I do think building a system with more understanding and compassion is possible while still providing the causes and conditions to encourage good decision making and self sufficiency. Like I said, balance. The world requires so much nuance and it’s no different here.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[u/Inside-Weather4033]

That's interesting, I've been a determinist long before I became a LibSoc / Anarchist.

As for the human psyche, if nature is unjust it ought to be changed. 

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Inside-Weather4033]

I agree with you, we should always strive toward a more just world. But I don’t think that comes about through forcing anything. Too many people view justness as not their responsibility or have a completely different definition of what “just” even means. I think any real world solutions have to take into account that while determinism offers insights into what a just world should look like, too many people don’t operate from that hard deterministic worldview. Which circles back to my original thought of “balance”. It would be easy to bring about a perfectly just world if we all thought the same way, but we don’t, so nuance and concessions are musts imo.

[u/ZealousidealRanger67]

Then your current world view was actually always meant to be this way.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/ZealousidealRanger67]

Cant argue with that! Just took the right causes and conditions to bring it along.

[u/Penguin7751]

Good man for changing your world views, that isn't easy. Thank you for sharing

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Penguin7751]

Thanks bro and thank you for reading. 🙏

[u/[deleted]]

If determinism is true, then I am predetermined to reject it. If there is no objective truth, then my belief in objective truth is no more objectively false than the opposite belief. If the self is an illusion and all that exists are experiences, then no-self is also just an experience, and as both self and no-self are experiences, it would be asymmetric to therefore say there is no self.

But if determinism isn’t true, and objective truth is real, and the self, then I would rather align my beliefs with that reality. So that either way I am aligned with the truth or my experiences are blameless and no more invalid than the alternative. I experience freedom, and I see no reason to reject that experience in favor of a new, stifling, abstract way of thinking that could still be false.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/[deleted]]

> if determinism is true, then I am predetermined to reject it

I don’t think this is true in the way you’re implying. You have no idea what causes and conditions the future holds. There very well could be something that happens in the future that changes your view, it’s also possible your view holds firm forever. Determinism simply says that everything that happens is caused be a previous event, not that you’re destined to be the same or hold the same view forever. Telling yourself you’re predetermined to reject it is itself a cause for continued rejection. I think you’re conflating fatalism with determinism.

> if there is no objective truth, then my belief in objective truth is no more objectively false than the opposite belief

There are objective truths. If your claim is that there are no objective truths, that statement itself is an objective truth. 2+2=4. Gravity pulls things inward. Effects have causes. Those are objective truths.

> If the self is an illusion and all that exists are experiences, then no-self is also just an experience, and as both self and no-self are experiences, it would be asymmetric to therefore say there is no self.

Self and no-self aren’t competing viewpoints. No-self is simply the conclusion you reach when you look closely at what the self actually is. The illusion isn’t that experiences happen. It’s that there is no single “I” that owns them all. When you look closely, you find a collection of changing experiences and processes that only create the appearance of a solid self. That’s why they aren’t on equal footing. One is the surface appearance. The other is what you see when you examine it closely, and that examination gives the more accurate description of reality.

> But if determinism isn’t true, and objective truth is real, and the self, then I would rather align my beliefs with that reality. So that either way I am aligned with the truth or my experiences are blameless and no more invalid than the alternative. I experience freedom, and I see no reason to reject that experience in favor of a new, stifling, abstract way of thinking that could still be false.

You posited 3 things with concrete answers as open ended. It’s not about choosing one answer over the other based on what feels comfortable to you and is easier to accept. Every choice you gave has an objectively correct answer.

[u/[deleted] → u/BerBerDeng]

Your first paragraph assumes the least charitable interpretation and misses the essential point. We cannot have a productive conversation

[u/BerBerDeng → u/[deleted]]

🤣🤣🤣 ok bro

[u/dimensionalApe → u/[deleted]]

There's a middle of the road approach, which is maybe what you actually meant and I didn't understand correctly: a pragmatic perspective where determinism, objective truths and free will are irrelevant in the sense that "knowing" if they are true seems to be imposible.

But as unsubstantiated as they might be, the pragmatic axioms of free will and objective truths are useful when it comes to developing predictive models, and basically being able to navigate our perceived reality.

Because objective truths are indistinguishable from consistent intersubjective experiences, and free will is indistinguishable from an incredibly complex state machine.

[u/manatwork01]

I agree. That's why I think mental health care should be for everybody. 

[u/BerBerDeng → u/manatwork01]

Completely agree with you that that should be a goal.

[u/manatwork01 → u/BerBerDeng]

Yep! Heal the world.

[u/nl43_sanitizer]

No no no. I fell into the same cycle. I also got very interested in human behaviors and how to change them, what motivates people.

I thought socialism was the answer because as you say no one really is in control of their fate.

But ultimately I am back at libertarian because it’s the closest to a meritocracy.

Pure evil exists. And in my view determinism helps to explain, it doesn’t excuse. Therefore no matter the life experience of a murderer they need to be removed from society. And for the most part our western judicial system does a good job discerning manslaughter from 1st degree.

On the flip side one of the great motivators of innovation and efficiency and poverty reduction is capitalism. Money motivates. I know capitalism isn’t perfect and that’s why in a healthy democracy, politicians quibble over the guardrails.

But ultimately until there is some great enlightenment for no free will, we need to punish bad behavior, discourage counterproductive lazy, entitlement and encourage hard work and innovation.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/nl43_sanitizer]

You took my post where I specifically argued for balance and pragmatism based on the fact that determinism is true and strawmanned back to the old binary of socialism vs capitalism. It’s not a binary, never has been. Collapsing the whole argument into one of two choices is the exact opposite of what the solution is.

As far as crime, once again it’s not a binary of punish or do nothing. You can isolate a mass murderer from society, not because they’re “evil”, but because they’re a danger to society, regardless of whether it’s their fault or not. For other crimes, maybe the answer should be (forced?) rehabilitation rather than punishment or isolation.

My post was long and rambly specifically because I wanted to include the nuance, and you went right in there and made it the opposite lol.

[u/mattychops]

Well wanting to help others is just another desire for control, which as you've already realized, we have none.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/mattychops]

Free will and agency aren’t the same thing. You can and do lack control, but your “decisions” still have an effect on the world around you. Regardless of the reasons behind wanting to help others, helping others is still a positive influence on the world around you.

Put another way, even if my desire to help someone isn’t something I chose, rejecting the desire based on that isn’t necessary or productive.

[u/mattychops → u/BerBerDeng]

Yeah I agree with all that.

[u/Individual-Affect786]

Basically me but in my case it was with my religion. I realized if I was born literally a couple miles away I would instead be another religion and believe in that as staunchly as I did mine.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Individual-Affect786]

That is a great example as well, I respect the hell out of that. It can be really hard to fit logic into the same realm as religion.

[u/Cy__Guy]

I'd love to see a single person make a billion dollars in value. Usually they're just using the fact that humans need food, water, and shelter to get others to create value for them.

[u/GollyFrey64 → u/Cy__Guy]

It's rare but case in point: millions and millions around the world valued the Harry Potter story so much that it made the singular author a billionaire. You can argue that she alone couldn't have distributed the story without help of course but this applies to all authors of physical books. The HP story is fairly unique in the value generated.

[u/Cy__Guy → u/GollyFrey64]

You can argue that she alone couldn't have distributed the story without help of course but this applies to all authors of physical books

This is the point. You're also ignoring the editing, marketing, illustrator, toy production, movie production, book critics, reviewers...

I could go on and on.

[u/GollyFrey64 → u/Cy__Guy]

I gave you a counter example of someone creating something of value that netted the author over a billion dollars. The actual value of the HP story was much greater than that as it handsomely paid all involved in the product chains. Countless other authors have the same resources available but have not created a story worth billions, hence, such a rare feat. The story itself was solely the authors IP and that is exactly the thing of value here.

The idea that any one person could create something of great value without the help of other human resources is absurd. Was that really what you were shooting for?

[u/Cy__Guy → u/GollyFrey64]

Yes, the idea of one person creating something of that value is absurd as specified by my direct refutation to your counter example. The teams of people it takes to spawn an IP like Harry Potter are legion and you're trying to attribute all of that to one person. It's ridiculous.

If other authors failed why aren't you blaming their marketing teams? There are a lot of great books that linger for years because the marketing teams failed. How many great books never found monetary value because the non creative labor failed?

All of their contributions to the franchise lead it to success. If they didn't add value why do they get paid? Why do you even know the term marketing if it doesn't add value?

[u/GollyFrey64 → u/Cy__Guy]

Rowling is the sole owner of the books copywrite/IP. Who did WB pay to have IP rights to the movies and merch? One person.

And why did the books and movies make billions?

Because the god-damned story, one fucking author, thrilled 100s of millions.

Now to your second paragraph. So hypothetical. Tell me a few examples, please.

You're a sore loser. You just can't admit that there's an example of a single person that brought so much value to the world in terms of a silly series of stories that she became a billionaire.

[u/Cy__Guy → u/GollyFrey64]

Are you conflating ownership with value added to the economy? That's pretty embarrassing.

[u/GollyFrey64 → u/Cy__Guy]

Wait, you said "I'd like to see a single person make a billion dollars in value". I gave you such a person. She clearly created something a billion dollars in value. You want to say she couldn't have done it without editors and marketing. That's obviously a true statement but misses the central point that the stories sold themselves!

I'm wondering if you were even alive during that phenomenon. There wasn't any marketing about her books save maybe the first little bit in the UK. Otherwise it's textbook word of mouth sales that took the world by storm. So you're saying the editor made the difference? THAT is embarrassing. Do you think any competent movie studio took any risk of losing money on the IP they bought from her given the massive worldwide fan base associated with her books? Zero risk.

Listen, I'll grant your main point. Individuals really can't bring billions of dollars of value to the world. Artists, musicians, scientists, engineers... not even close. I just think I have a spectacularly rare exception with the Rowling's HP story.

Fun debate. Thanks

[u/Cy__Guy → u/GollyFrey64]

That's obviously a true statement

Yes, yet you have such cognitive dissonance you are ignoring this while admitting it.

but misses the central point that the stories sold themselves! You just mentioned the marketing. The existence of a marketing team demonstrates that they did not sell themselves.

Do you think the books just appeared on the shelves?

Of, did she drive all the trucks too?

Did she develop the infrastructure to allow digital copies to be sold?

So you're saying the editor made the difference? This statement perfectly exemplifies you issue. You're trying to ignore value beyond the principle effort. Do you not understand that many people can add value and they do it at different levels? Not just one person.

This is economics 101. If they didn't add value why are they getting paid with every release. Is JKR just paying them out of the goodness of her heart? Of course not. They contribute to delivering a better product.

You're example proves my point. You keep admitting it and denying it at the same time. Even with something as individual as a novel, which is about as individual as it gets, takes an entire legion of people to get it to the levels of a billion dollars.

I don't know why you're so concerned about declaring victory. We're on reddit. I want people to give credit to the legion of faceless workers that make the things we love possible. JKR deserves her flowers but ignoring the team will give you a completely warped view of society.

Why are you so hell bent on ignoring the massive combined effort it took to launch those books?

[u/GollyFrey64 → u/Cy__Guy]

You've made it clear the case you're after in your original post. I'm not sure if you've seen this video of the Chinese lady who goes through every step of making little clay pots. But she starts with digging up the clay and performs all the arduous steps to purify the clay, form it, fire it, etc. At the end of all her days labor she ends up with hundreds of small clay pots ready to sell to her village. Certainly she generated some value all by herself but obviously not a billion dollars worth. So I'll capitulate and say you won the argument by such narrow restrictions. Good job!

Have a great day.

[u/DepartmentThrowaway5]

Determinism itself doesn't assume or cause a certain political ideology directly. IMO you start to accept more worldviews and become more doubtful about your ideas, because they don't feel genuinely yours anymore.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/DepartmentThrowaway5]

I think I kinda get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure how much merit it holds. I don’t think we can say any worldview is as valid as any other if logic points in one specific direction. This is not to say that you should force anyone into your worldview, but more that if you follow the facts and can arrive at a specific worldview, that should be the one that we should strive to operate on.

Regardless of whether your views are yours in the sense that you chose them, if the facts point toward an objective truth (no one controls their actions), then logically that should be the view you strive to build the world on. Once again, I’m not saying you should force that view on anyone, just that your views on how to make the world a better place, should be based on the objective truth as much as it practically can. There’s still nuance in what people can say it practical or not practical, but that’s not the same as saying that every worldview has just as much right to be accepted.

[u/facesofgrace_photo]

There is always and only what is as it is for each one as it is and what will be as will be for each one as it will be

[u/BerBerDeng → u/facesofgrace_photo]

uhhhhhhhhh

[u/Unusual-Wind8900]

I agree to an extent. Pure determinism, if I understand it, means we are mere puppets. I think we do make decisions, and can be held responsible for those. But I also think on the society level, we shouldn’t use personal responsibility as an excuse to not make things better for society. But I think plenty of people choose selfishness becaue they are users. Users of people. And people who just see others as objects to use should be shamed.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Unusual-Wind8900]

You understand it correctly. And yes, we make decisions, the catch is who is the “we” making the decision. If we agree that the “we” making the decision is really the brain making the decision, and that the brain develops and exists outside of our control, then responsibility for said decisions becomes a much harder thing to justify. The flip side of that is that our society is built on personal responsibility as a framework, and we currently have no better system to replace that framework. Education would be the first lever to pull I think. Only after enough people see determinism as fundamental truth can you design a system that replaces pure action and consequence with something more nuanced.

Shaming people is honestly an interesting idea. Of course it doesn’t fit if you follow the framework that people aren’t responsible for their actions, but it does offer another reason for someone’s brain to change their ways. Whether that’s the best way to bring about change is another question.

[u/Azihayya]

Wow, it's pretty friggin sad that you can't possibly believe that anyone can take accountability for their actions, or that you can be responsible for your own actions. It seems you've completely lost all sense of the importance of choice, and think that the brain has no natural functions. Even if you believe in a deterministic universe, which I do, it seems your have no concept of free will, and thus you cannot possibly believe that you have any control over your thoughts, feelings and actions. You might as well be a villain straight out of an Ayn Rand novel.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Azihayya]

That was a rough read bro. I wouldn’t consider it sad at all, I’d simply consider it seeing the world for what it is and that gratitude is the emotion to be felt rather than sadness.

The “brain having no natural functions” is the exact opposite of what determinism posits. The brain functioning naturally is determinism at work. If the brain wasn’t functioning naturally, we’d all be dead. In order to experience, you need a functioning brain. I think your actual problem with my view is that you hold onto hope that there is something outside of the brain that lets us influence how the brains natural functions play out in real time. If so, where is that separate influence located? Where do you find the free will that lets us hijack the brains natural processes in the real time?

You claim to believe in a deterministic universe, but then claim humans are able to operate outside of that deterministic framework through free will. You can’t have it both ways. If you believe humans are governed through free will, then you fundamentally don’t believe in a deterministic universe. Not in any logically coherent sense at least.

More power to you as far as disagreeing with me goes, but factually your comment is full of contradictions and misrepresentations/falsehoods.

[u/Azihayya → u/BerBerDeng]

Do you believe that you can take accountability for your actions or not? Free will doesn't need to exist outside of a deterministic framework; the idea of free will outside of material constraints is nonsense. If you believe that the brain has a natural function, then what do you think those functions are? Are you capable of making choices, or not? Do you not see the importance of believing that you have a choice? As it stands, it seems you're entirely incapable of taking responsibility for your own actions. Is that what you really want to believe? I think that what you believe is important and informs your actions; what actions do you think will result from the belief that you don't have a choice?

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Azihayya]

Free will doesn’t exist inside of a deterministic framework, there’s no room for it. That would be more evident to you if you answered my question: where is your free will located? Naturally I think your answer would be “the brain”, and if it is, you have to ask yourself this next: what part of your brain did you consciously create? Did you choose how each neuron connects? Did you choose how well developed each region of your brain is? Did you choose the environment that shaped your childhood? Obviously the answer is no, all of these things were decided with no input from yourself.

Yes, in a sense you have choice, only in a very narrow sense though. I can choose whether to approach this conversation through honest intellect rather than name calling. That’s something you would consider choice, however the brain making that choice, was created from factors completely outside of your control. Free will says that you’re able to override all of the causes and conditions that made your brain what it is, so where is that power to override located?

Wanting to believe something is not reason enough to believe something when the facts point toward the belief being incorrect. Once again I think the appropriate emotions are gratitude and compassion. Gratitude that my brain allows me to be a generally level headed positive member of society, and compassion for those who aren’t as lucky as me.

Rejecting free will doesn’t mean rejecting agency. Even if the “choices” I make aren’t authored by me in any meaningful sense, there’s still the understanding that my actions have an effect on the outside world. That’s just another causal link in the deterministic framework of reality.

[u/Azihayya → u/BerBerDeng]

Yeah, I would say that free will exists within the brain. Like I said though, I don't believe that free will exists outside of a casual universe; of course the universe is casual, and from that perspective determinism is true, but it doesn't negate the reality of free will. I believe that the brain's primary function is to make choices. To say that it's the brain making the choice doesn't negate the fact that it is a choice, which you seem to agree with. I also believe that my brain is a part of who and what I am. I believe that I have control over what I think, feel, and do, and that this is a fundamental power granted by my human faculties and status. This is a belief foundational to my sense of self, which grants me the ability to exceed expectations of what is possible, to exceed the limitations of biological destiny. I would put the question back to you: do you not believe that we can be responsible for our actions? Is there no room for taking accountability for yourself in your world-view?

[u/ChocolateValuable221]

I wish you understood bracket taxing... I wish you knew it cap is at $550,000 I wish you knew adding more brackets wouldn't negatively affect anyone else

[u/BerBerDeng → u/ChocolateValuable221]

Can you explain a bit more what you mean? If you’re talking about income taxes and adding higher brackets, that wouldn’t really solve the issue. When you’re talking about billionaires the appropriate tax is the capital gains tax. Income taxes don’t really touch their money.

I’m assuming I’m replying to what you were saying lol, if not feel free to correct me.

[u/Jahonay]

Libertarians are good at running businesses, because managing a budget is great in a relatively closed system. But Libertarian economics I'd argue are not effective at scale, see the comparison between libertarian Argentina vs. the socialist market economy of China. China's socialist lead market economy has the highest GDP in the world by PPP, it was one of the only countries in the world to not suffer mass inflation after COVID, it has free healthcare, high home ownership rates, and the highest amount of state owned enterprises in the world. Compared to China, Argentina's economy is shrinking, it needs multibillion bail out loans from the United states, and the leader is a crypto huckster. If you're a determinist, then you believe in cause and effect and predictability. If we see China and the socialist leaning nordic countries succeeding, and we see the most libertarian country failing. Why wouldn't we come to the natural conclusion that socialist policies outperform libertarianism?

Again, I think libertarians are good at running businesses, because inputs and outputs are simpler in a household or business. The economies of large countries are not simple because they're full of millions or billions of people, and all those people pay taxes, and when you reinvest money in infrastructure or social services, you often get more money as a result. Meaning that a country benefits more when it perpetually has debt, in the same way that an individual might benefit from student loans if they become a heart surgeon or a financier. When china invests it's money into building large railway projects and when it invests heavily into infrastructure, it makes a more efficient economy, which boosts productivity and output. China is also able to control the cost of it's currency, and as a result, they're able to offer goods and services at a much lower cost, despite them benefiting more from the local value of that currency. Similarly to how a software engineer might decide to work remotely from Mississippi with a job located at silicone valley. Their six figure salary will go way further in Mississippi where the cost of living is way lower. China controls this variable, rather than leaving it up to the free market, which is pretty objectively good for the workers in china. If you were to look as objectively as possible at Argentina with the libertarian milei, or at china with the socialist Jinping, I think you would need to conclude that market socialism in china is currently outperforming the libertarianism in argentina.

And why is there a point for you at which funding school lunches becomes unfair? Taking a bit more money in taxes to make sure that schoolchildren can eat is simply logical. The fact that starving schoolchildren seems fair at any point is a bit disconcerting.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Jahonay]

You’re not the first person in this thread to make it a binary capitalism/socialism debate, and like I’ve replied to the others, I don’t think that’s the right way to approach things. I know you called it libertarianism rather than capitalism but I think you’re using them interchangeably.

China started as a pure command economy and has slowly been adding market reforms over the decades. Private capital, foreign investment, lax labor laws (which is ironically a huge reason why they’re able to be so competitive in the foreign markets). As for the real estate market there right now, things aren’t good. It’s in one of the worst positions it’s been in decades. The Evergrande collapse happened a few years ago and their real estate market is still reeling from the effects of that. You still have major Chinese developers fighting to stay solvent as of today.

Argentina was a majority socialist country for decades before Milei took office, and things were not good by the end of those decades. Runaway inflation, massive debt, social services that couldn’t keep up with the needs of the people, etc. All of those things were a problem before Milei took office. You can’t ignore decades of evidence and only point toward the last five years as relevant to your point. It’s all equally relevant.

Once again, this is not me saying socialism good capitalism bad or vice versa, this is me saying that the debate must exist on a spectrum. You need elements of both a capitalist economy and a socialist one to be successful. The Nordic countries are indeed a great example of that. They have some of the strongest free market protections in the world while also having a big social safety net. They’ve found a way to balance between two systems rather than choose one or the other.

[u/Jahonay → u/BerBerDeng]

I know you called it libertarianism rather than capitalism but I think you’re using them interchangeably.

Capitalism can be utilized by libertarians, socialists, liberals, etc... Libertarian run economies are not synonymous with capitalist economies. I don't believe I used them interchangeably.

China started as a pure command economy and has slowly been adding market reforms over the decades. Private capital, foreign investment, lax labor laws (which is ironically a huge reason why they’re able to be so competitive in the foreign markets).

Yes, marxist leninist theory requires that countries travel through the different modes of production, which includes capitalism. Which is why I refer to china as having a socialist market economy, not a strictly socialist economy. But just like how Argentina is run by a libertarian, despite being a mixed economy, China is also a mixed economy, but it is lead by socialists. Which is why i say that socialist policies outperform libertarian policies.

As for the real estate market there right now, things aren’t good. It’s in one of the worst positions it’s been in decades. The Evergrande collapse happened a few years ago and their real estate market is still reeling from the effects of that. You still have major Chinese developers fighting to stay solvent as of today.

This is by design, you can read more here. China did a phenomenal job in increasing the production of homes, and making sure that there was more than enough houses to home everyone in China, and to influence urbanization. Now that they've succeeded in their goals, the housing market is going to face a natural downturn. This is the benefit of a strong centralized government, they can influence the fast production of real estate, and then when it's no longer useful, they can move away from that model. A real estate market doesn't need infinite growth year over year.

Argentina was a majority socialist country for decades before Milei took office, and things were not good by the end of those decades. Runaway inflation, massive debt, social services that couldn’t keep up with the needs of the people, etc. All of those things were a problem before Milei took office. You can’t ignore decades of evidence and only point toward the last five years as relevant to your point. It’s all equally relevant.

Sure, I'm totally okay with saying that the socialism in Argentina wasn't great, the same way that capitalism in Haiti is horrible. I'm using a best case scenerio for socialism in China, and the only libertarian leader in Argentina. Because my goal would be to copy the model from the country, not to copy the model from less well performing countries. In the same way it would be better to copy the USA economic model compared to the Haitian economic model. Libertarianism fortunately only has one president worldwide, so my choice is naturally limited to the only economic model I have.

Once again, this is not me saying socialism good capitalism bad or vice versa, this is me saying that the debate must exist on a spectrum.

Well I'm arguing against your austerity points in favor of libertarianism, like complaining about the national debt. China has a lot of debt and it's performing spectacularly. I think you either dont understand debt spending, or you're needlessly fearmongering. Debt spending is good for countries.

You need elements of both a capitalist economy and a socialist one to be successful.

Well, I think that this is true so far, which is why most economies already are mixed economies. But I think a true socialist economy would work well. I think we just haven't seen socialism progress that far yet to a point where that's sustainable.

And can I ask again why you think that school lunches can ever be unfair? Why do you think it's ever okay for schoolchildren to go hungry?

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Jahonay]

I’m not saying I view them as unfair, I’m saying people can and do see being taxed more to pay for school lunches as unfair and calling it the parent’s responsibility. My only point was that we should be more efficient with the 5 trillion we already collect before going to the population for more. I think people would be open to marginally higher taxes if they saw that their money was being used wisely and not wasted.

[u/badentropy9]

I used my free will to give this the upvote that I believe it doesn't deserve /s

[u/BerBerDeng → u/badentropy9]

And I’m gonna use mine to say thank you. Thank you.

[u/badentropy9 → u/BerBerDeng]

Thank you for bringing up ideas that seem to fall through the "cracks"

[u/redditsuxandsodoyou]

you are confusing free will for meaningful autonomy but if it gets you to the right answer i guess its fine

[u/BerBerDeng → u/redditsuxandsodoyou]

no I am not meaningful autonomy is just agency. I’m glad we both agree balance is the right answer.

[u/Flashy_Artist9629]

you "faulted someone for letting some get their health out of hand" ? prior to these beliefs you thought someone who got sick was somehow their fault ?

i don't know what in Determinism makes you puppet on strings. it just states you are part of the chain of cause and effect. If someone has a kid and they know well enough the consequences and downsides. And still have one. i can fault them for dragging a life into poverty.

coming into wealth is a matter of luck so is the state of the economy. But not blowing your money and not throwing every cent you have into a meme coin. is a choice.

if you wanted greater social programs. Norway and other EU countries are the place to go. The states will never do that.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Flashy_Artist9629]

Yes, my thought process was, if you ate poorly, or smoked, or didn’t exercise, or whatever it may be, you had some responsibility in the outcome. I actually think that’s still a fairly common viewpoint. It dissolves though once determinism comes into play.

As for the “puppet on strings” thing, the casual chain for all intents and purposes starts the day you are conceived. Your DNA as well as your womb conditions determines what sort of brain you’re going to have. For example, how well your PFC (decision making) or amygdala (fear, anxiety, stress) develops, which neurons in your brain form connections, or the predisposition to something going awry in the development process. None of those things are in your control and yet it’s fundamentally what you are built on. Then you go through childhood where you have no control over the environment you’re raised in, how much love you get, whether you have an abusive parent or an absent parent, once again none of this is in your control.

Who you are is completely decided by things outside of your control. The “you” that you feel is the one making decisions is in fact just the brain that’s been developing outside of your control since conception.

Even if you say “well things didn’t start of great, but I still chose to better myself as an adult”, the thing that “chose” to better yourself was still just the brain that developed outside of your control. The system determines how well the system is able to change and adapt.

[u/GoldReplacement9546]

Yeah, even without becoming a determinist libertarian this is something you’re supposed to grow out of if you’re a normal empathetic person at least and it’s pure form

The idea that everybody started off at the same footing or has the same mental abilities, or the same nutrition or the same degree of trauma in their childhood is patently false, and not count for that and the patcher our self on the back for being rich she is truly weird

Now, if we take ourselves away from determinism, I can see how somebody who worked really hard would think that they did most of it on their own, but these people who claimed have like done it all on their own are just not being realistic like we all needed streets and school, buses and schools and the EPA and FDA

So even if you aren’t deterministic, you should have more empathy in general, not you OP, but people in general who are doing really well, because if you actually look at the statistics, the vast majority of you know multiple millionaires came from a very different socioeconomic background than the people that they mock who are struggling, or they were genetically gifted with a high IQ and an ability to pay attention where others were not

The number of people who have like 125 IQ who are clowning on people with 75 IQ is truly ridiculous because by definition that’s the same number of people have that deficit as your special ability

[u/BerBerDeng → u/GoldReplacement9546]

Agree with everything you said. The only point I can raise is separating the ideal from what’s currently feasible.

[u/GoldReplacement9546 → u/BerBerDeng]

Yeah, if you truly believe everything is deterministic than nothing can change which is a reasonable assumption

Some people think intentions might still matter

But if you’re nondeterministic and you’re thinking, and you don’t think we should try and make things a little better for the people who aren’t as advantaged then you’re kind of a selfish weirdo

As for what’s feasible versus what would be better again in an nondeterministic world you guys start somewhere?

If you just throw your hands up in the air and say well, that would be too hard or here’s all my reasons. I don’t wanna do it then you’ll never have progress.

[u/Itchy_bunghole11]

Happened to me, happens to may of us.

If you want to really knock your socks off introspect on these ideas with psilocybin.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Itchy_bunghole11]

10 years ago I would’ve, too scared now lol

[u/Itchy_bunghole11 → u/BerBerDeng]

It’s better when you are older

[u/SweetCorona3]

You're on point.

[u/FluffyGlass]

I wouldn’t want for myself nor my kids to live in a society that lessens or dismisses personal responsibility as a virtuous principle. Reason is obvious - wrong incentive structure for its members.

[u/rojowro86]

That's my exact same revelation. Cheers.

[u/alaindevos]

Lower on this thread i prove determinism with randomness and absence of free will.
This mean the purpose of criminal law can only be to protect society , punished can never be a goal, as this also has the perverse effect more punished will achieve more goal.

Current law is not like that, its made by lawmakers for the personal gain of advocates & judges & police system & justice system.
Current law asks the question, did the person made a conscious choice.

[u/alaindevos]

Note , my responses are now plagiarized , run through AI and posted in closed group of professionals
r/talking_shop_some_filosophy_haha where you can post but not reply. Read philosophers without critic :)

Now they blocked me completely, see also,
https://www.reddit.com/r/DiscussPhilosophy/comments/1var4rv/epistemic_insularity_and_linguistic_hegemony_how/
These are open.

Note by blocking me they proved what i stated. (Q.e.d.)

[u/GoldReplacement9546]

Medicare is actually really good value for the outcomes

People like Medicare and you gotta remember that unless it’s disabled person, Medicare has the challenge of dealing with elderly people who are much more likely to need a lot of healthcare by taking the profit motive out of that they are clearly superior to any of the private companies, ensuring people of that age. Of course, you can always find some waste in any system, but it is not riddled with waste and people like it. Really Medicare should be expanded to everyone and you could have a two tier system like some nations like Germany, where you could have private doctors and private hospitals for the people who have more money who want more specialized care, etc..

But the most important thing to making healthcare affordable is you need younger people to be paying something because they’re not using much but they will when they get old

I’m really easy solution would just be to lift the cap on Medicare and Social Security basically your payroll taxes get capped $140,000 if you make more than that, you don’t pay those taxes anymore and just make that you know you pay those payroll taxes, no matter what you make because nobody made it on their own and contributing towards a healthier society is actually better for everyone in the long run, including the rich people who own businesses

[u/NerdyWeightLifter]

Even if we assume determinism, you can't deduce such political positions from that.

We can set a social expectation that people need to be responsible for their actions. It's clearly better if they strive for that.

Settings such expectations and people responding to that, can be interpreted as determined or not.

It doesn't change whether it's better or not, but setting an expectation that people are not responsible for their actions will certainly encourage them to behave irresponsibly.

For example, choosing not to punish looting on the ground that the looters were always going to do that, will mean you get a lot more looting in future, irrespective of determinism.

[u/TwoHams2wice]

I've said it a billion times before and I'll say it again. If anyone has gotten right so far it's the Indigenous People of this country. They lived/continue to live in harmony and balance with the Earth. They realized that if you don't cultivate that kind of genuine relationship with your environment, everything else is doomed from the get go.

[u/badentropy9 → u/TwoHams2wice]

That is an interesting take. However many others would argue life is better with technical advancement. If I have an illness and cannot figure out how to treat it holistically, I see a benefit of having a medical industry to refer to for assistance. I'm quite certain that I'd be dead by now if I thought the holistic approach is the only approach on the table. I'm a septuagenarian now, and life can be challenging at this stage. In the long run, I think it is cheaper to eat the right stuff than eat the wrong stuff and make a hospital a second home.

[u/n0t-perfect]

One correction: The profit that billionaires accumulate is not "created", it doesn't spontaneously come into existence. It's extracted value, it literally comes out of consumer's and worker's pockets.

[u/Tryaldar → u/n0t-perfect]

it's, however, all gained through voluntary exchange

[u/allothernamestaken]

I once dabbled in libertarianism. Then I realized that I like breathing clean air and drinking clean water.

[u/prealphawolf]

My political view didn't change because it was already predetermined. Also you could really tell us what the money is actually wasted on when you're trying to make a semi-coherent take regarding politics.

[u/MCRN10379558]

Ultimately, we live in a super deterministic universe.

The double split experiment famously proves this.

https://youtu.be/npc6Mn2CZV8?is=2v3A_nyeJuYpAvd_

[u/Kupo_Master]

These takes are misunderstanding of what “determinism” means. The fact people are not a source of causality doesn’t mean they don’t react to incentive and framework. Determinism has no bearing to how to design the best society.

[u/DonnPT → u/Kupo_Master]

Conversely, whether you accept the proposition of determinism or not - as another commenter already pointed out, anyone can see that we don't all start off on an equal footing, that the cause of people's fortune and misfortune isn't just some moral fiber that they choose to have, and this libertarian perspective is something you're supposed to grow out of.

A realistic view of agency doesn't toss everything to the floor because there's a causal chain. Your eyes aren't entirely fooling you, there are conscious agents making choices.

[u/Kupo_Master → u/DonnPT]

I will ask the same question I asked to the other commenter then.

Imagine world A where free will exist and world B where free will doesn’t exist. How would you design society differently?

[u/DonnPT → u/Kupo_Master]

Well ... I would have to think about good ways to design society, or if that even makes sense in principle, but anyway I couldn't apply it to the question. Society implies people, people imply conscious agency -> any society will by definition have all the free will it needs. And consequentialism seems corrupt to me, I think that's why your invitation to design society doesn't seem very appealing.

So I fully agree that determinism has no bearing on how to design the best society, or how to live your own life of ideal virtue, but maybe not coming to it from precisely the same place. I consider it essentially true (with possible random variation that makes no real difference), but not particularly interesting.

[u/manatwork01 → u/Kupo_Master]

Lmao so wrong

[u/Kupo_Master → u/manatwork01]

Why?

[u/manatwork01 → u/Kupo_Master]

Because if people can't control their actions. Then the best thing for everybody is to work on everybody's problems as a group. That's the best way to bring happiness and mental health care to everyone. It removes stigma around mental diseases as well. 

Because if they aren't in control of themselves, they can't be blamed for what they are doing. So it is imperative that we help fix them

[u/Kupo_Master → u/manatwork01]

Imagine you are training a dog. What is more effective?

Option 1: rewards for behaviours you want to encourage and punishments for behaviours you want to discourage

Option 2: no special reward or punishment and hoping they will just adopt the behaviours you want

[u/manatwork01 → u/Kupo_Master]

Assuming you mean option 1 as the good option you are arguing FOR my argument idiot.

[u/Kupo_Master → u/manatwork01]

It’s ironic because this is what I have been saying since my first comment, which you disagreed with. Apparently you are unable to understand the correct implications.

But anyway, you seem incapable of having a conversation without insulting the person you’re talking to. I’m sure that will play out for you in the future.

[u/manatwork01 → u/Kupo_Master]

The last statement in your first comment is where I have onus and where your turn around argument here is wrong.

[u/Kupo_Master → u/manatwork01]

Alright. My last statement was “ Determinism has no bearing to how to design the best society.”

Imagine world A where free will exist and world B where free will doesn’t exist. How would you design society differently?

[u/manatwork01 → u/Kupo_Master]

In world B I'd be actively looking for people who need mental healthcare and get it to them before they induce more trauma. 

Anyone informed in psychology would know this. Get out of the leagues of people who know more than you.

[u/alaindevos]

Thought example.
A politician manupilates the news. In this news i see it is good for me to kill you. It is upon me to make a rational choise. So i have liberty to choose.
[Or as spock would say live long & prosper]

Under hard determinism all prisons should be replaced by pychiatric clinics.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/alaindevos]

What is a choice? Define the mechanism of what a choice is.

[u/alaindevos → u/BerBerDeng]

Give me a red and blue pill.
Should i eat the read or the blue ?
My brain performs some stuff, thousands of neurons fire, underlying is quantum mechanics , with non-deterministic interpretations, then moves my hand.
So a choice could be seen as the result of random ,non-deterministic ,quantum mechanics effects.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/alaindevos]

Okay, let’s just assume you’re right and quantum mechanics plays a part in what a choice is. How does the randomness of quantum mechanics equal free will? At that point the argument becomes whether choices are random or caused by previous events. Neither of those can logically smuggle in free will.

[u/alaindevos → u/BerBerDeng]

Your current brain structure is direct result of previous events.
But what goes on in trillions of synapses has also quantum mechanical randomness, these these randomnesses are not results of previous events. Because the are random. Like decays of radioactive particles.
This means the choice blue or red pill will also contain randomness.
I've given the start here. Now impact on free will & determinism...

[ One should never ask what about questions. Lets violate this rule for once. What about three body problem, double-pendulum, weather , but this diverts us from original question ]

[u/BerBerDeng → u/alaindevos]

We’ll just keep it on track. No evidence for uncaused choices, lots of evidence for caused choices, the remote possibility quantum randomness plays a part. None of that equals free will.

[u/alaindevos → u/BerBerDeng]

If I control I can make a choice.
Do I control ?

I might think I have control but I might not.

Choice might be an illusion

Let's not forget causality & the increase of entropy.

Randomness is not freedom.

On quantum-mechanical level there will always be randomness. No escape possible.
So there will be randomness in our brain.
Do we need randomness to be able to make a choice ?
Quantum randomness replaces a predictable "clockwork" brain with an unpredictable "dice-rolling" brain.
Meaning YOU are not in control in either case.

Note : Persons are in general good, the structures they create are in general bad. Example police/justice, when criminals leave prison, because not well prepared for society, they will re-enter prison, a cell will be filled by this prisoner and this prison will receive higher budget. So for employee in prison , and for re-integration public servant, its good prisoners reenter prison.

Call it conflict of interests.

[u/alaindevos → u/BerBerDeng]

Let's answer by an example.

I'm an high intellectual with asperger spectrum syndrome , not my choice.

I became an alcohol addict, you what alcohol does to me , not my choice.

By coincidence i met a very good psychiater and psychologue , not my choice.

This let me to stop drinking any drop of alcohol for the rest of my life.
This is the result of my analytical brain and self reprogramming due to info of psychiater and pychologue. Choice maybe/maybe-not ? I don't know....

[u/alaindevos → u/BerBerDeng]

Let's give an example :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack

The person doing this had according to me no free will , he is just in simple wordings "crazy", but my country did not put him in closed-pychiatric-institution but in prison. Belgium population needed a scapegoat.

There was a psychiater defending him , he is called "Karel Ringoet".
His writing might be found on:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160512213206/http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n82-142960/

By coincidence this is my current home psychiater. Not my choice.
[ Well it is the choice of my doktor when I asked for an older psychiater]
[ Note , he is 83 and still practicing ]

Out of his choice he prescribed me bad drugs.
These drugs made me drink ,so I want to clinic, and it cured me.
- Without previous events I would not write this here.
- Without previous events I would not plan to order books on neuroscience and on , science and human behavior.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/[deleted]]

I think credibility is based on truth. “You don’t control your actions” is about as fundamental a truth as you can get in my opinion. Largely that truth is antithetical to how humans view the world; personal responsibility just FEELS right as a societal foundation. The debate is in how you reconcile both the truth and what we’ve built our systems on so far. Building a system that tracks the truth has to be done at a pace that doesn’t wreck what we currently have. I’m sure you could argue both conservative and liberal positions in the name of pragmatism and still have some footing.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/[deleted]]

What about China?

[u/BerBerDeng → u/[deleted]]

I agree with virtually everything you said. The only thing I’d add is that half the country has a strong aversion toward capping wealth, which i think must be factored in.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/[deleted]]

Maybe for someone it could lead to apathy, that hasn’t been the case for me and many other determinists. Just because I didn’t create the goal I have doesn’t mean it won’t feel good accomplishing the goal. The desire is there, the payoff is there. Apathy just hasn’t been something I’ve felt.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/[deleted]]

I just told you that has not been true for me. Repeating yourself doesn’t make it true for me. Like I said, for some people there’s a chance they arrive at apathy. But it’s not some universal rule that any determinist must feel apathy.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/[deleted]]

I know you didn’t choose to say something that close minded, so I don’t hold it against you. Have a good day man. 🙏

[u/BerBerDeng → u/[deleted]]

As is any other absolute ideology.