Hello all. I'm looking for some people to read an insight of mine on determinism that I wrote. I would like some people to read and share and follow up with their thoughts. I am not coming into this trying to impose correctness with my thoughts, I am just trying to give my thoughts and reasoning a chance in the arena in the public square for debate.
Then, we have the debate of pure determinism. The systematic concept that everything we do is out of our control, and everything in our will is subjugated to a sequence of prior events in our lives, and the control over our choices is based, also, on the precise (and so-called entirely predictable) movements of every atom in our body. Not everything in our anatomy is predictable though. Some functions in our nervous system are still considered indeterminable. However, life is considered to be pre-determined by factors out of our control, we are slaves to our own fate which is controlled by various laws in nature and various equations upholding those laws. Any action, emotion, and decision we make are merely biochemically induced, and we have no will to exercise free will. There is no morality, because our choices are out of our control, therefore none of us can be held accountable for what we do, and the categories of good and evil are eradicated. I think there is a difference between pure, and partial determinism. The ability to recall memories is easily understood as deterministic, because we can only recall memories that we have had prior occurrences with, and our functionality, in this aspect of recalling memories, is limited within those constraints. However, I don’t feel we are bound to only one possible choice in which we can make based on those prior events. We can re-organize our prior occurrences in our lives to create reason, and give it a chance to let us rise above ourselves and make meaningful choices. I feel, our choices are not all predetermined; we are given the ability to reason and weigh out everything that we have experienced, and come to our own conclusions. This is just a thought I had about partial determinism: Determinism is a notebook, and we are a pen, we are bound to the fate of determinism as far as that we no other choice but to write on a notebook, we cannot escape that fate, however, it is up to us what we write. If everything is determined biochemically, then, what about that very notion? To uphold this argument there is no other choice to admit that the notion: “Everything is biochemically pre-determined”, is also biochemically pre-determined. How is debate possible here? I believe there is marginal determinism, in which we have constraints, only within limits, and in those constraints we can exercise free will of choice.
Then, we have the debate of pure determinism. The systematic concept that everything we do is out of our control, and everything in our will is subjugated to a sequence of prior events in our lives, and the control over our choices is based, also, on the precise (and so-called entirely predictable) movements of every atom in our body. Not everything in our anatomy is predictable though. Some functions in our nervous system are still considered indeterminable. However, life is considered to be pre-determined by factors out of our control, we are slaves to our own fate which is controlled by various laws in nature and various equations upholding those laws. Any action, emotion, and decision we make are merely biochemically induced, and we have no will to exercise free will. There is no morality, because our choices are out of our control, therefore none of us can be held accountable for what we do, and the categories of good and evil are eradicated. I think there is a difference between pure, and partial determinism. The ability to recall memories is easily understood as deterministic, because we can only recall memories that we have had prior occurrences with, and our functionality, in this aspect of recalling memories, is limited within those constraints. However, I don’t feel we are bound to only one possible choice in which we can make based on those prior events. We can re-organize our prior occurrences in our lives to create reason, and give it a chance to let us rise above ourselves and make meaningful choices. I feel, our choices are not all predetermined; we are given the ability to reason and weigh out everything that we have experienced, and come to our own conclusions. This is just a thought I had about partial determinism: Determinism is a notebook, and we are a pen, we are bound to the fate of determinism as far as that we no other choice but to write on a notebook, we cannot escape that fate, however, it is up to us what we write. If everything is determined biochemically, then, what about that very notion? To uphold this argument there is no other choice to admit that the notion: “Everything is biochemically pre-determined”, is also biochemically pre-determined. How is debate possible here? I believe there is marginal determinism, in which we have constraints, only within limits, and in those constraints we can exercise free will of choice.