Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

One problem with that being that higher logic isn't really at all that useful when your faced with the issues inherent with the life in the wilds. Just about every other apex animal happily ignore quantitative conservation, something that is incredibly basic to us human (adult) minds. And in the event that there would be a natural use in distinguishing the exact conservation of quantity before and after the separation of one group in two (which there isn't, every animal again would be happy at simply distinguishing intuitively the size of the two new groups), that's still evidence of a mechanism that needs contact to the empirical world before taking effect. In average circumstances, the cognitive development of humans continue up until their 50s and early 60s. If it was all the result of evolutionary biology, why take so much time to emerge?

In nature, there's almost no need for anything further than a sort of intuition of causality, like when the cat trips out because he just pushed an object off the table and saw that it fell on the ground. The baby dear has an intuitive knowledge of the importance of keeping away from the Kodiak's teeth, and that's enough for dears to have survived and thrived in nature.

Humans have transcended that state, apparently in part because of the biological predisposition we have at learning logic. But beyond those biological events of comprehension of the logic of the world, we have also pushed logic into what is almost an art form. No simple biological process can explain the model of quantum logic, we need to grasp an enormous amount of purely ideal material to understand it.

Members of the crow family have displayed reasoning and problem solving, by creating tools. Logic as in I need something to happen, what steps can I take to make the thing I need happen happen is prevalent around the animal kingdom, see the likes of eagles dropping tortoises from great heights for example. I don't know whether this would be classed as reasoning or logic but both are brain function.

That's exactly what I meant by 'intuitive causation'. And yes, there are some cool examples of animals also developing certain logical modules, like the crow. Supposedly, they have a very good quantitative perception, and when the see a source of food, they will communicate not only the location, but the size, and only the crows in a area determined by the quantity of available food will then go to it. That's an example of pretty good logic applied to a very basic problem : sustainment. That's still the best they will ever do, while in humans minds you could see this behavior arising pretty early, and at a later age, we would develop additional means to optimize it.

It's this optimization that isn't explained by biology, in my opinion, or at least not by the conception of a natural selection.

@ Dael and Kovnik: Exactly my point, Kovnik. While we as animals can, by evolution, develop the brain power necessary to use logic, this isn't an evolution of logic that results in it being passed on genetically. We simply gain the brain power to understand it.

Would you say that just because humans have evolved the brainpower to understand complicated mathematics that they have evolved/invented maths? No, maths is based upon an objective truth (yes an axiom, but you cannot reject axioms without being reduced to solipsism and nihilism, which are really stupid, undesirable states.) as is logic: just because humans evolve the brain power to interpret that truth doesn't mean that they evolved or created that truth. Logic is not the result of evolution.


@Kovnik: Regarding quantum theory - I think I see what you're getting at: are you saying that because quantum physics has not been fully explained, and still needs more work put into it, it is still entirely possible that it can be reconciled with general logic and theories such at determinism? In lamens terms.

@Vulcan:
FIRSTLY: "From my point of view, there is free will. Sure, there are many things that influence free will, but if there is no free will then there is no responsability. Those slimebags who claim they 'had to' rape and kill that girl are correct... and I just can't believe it. I can't bring myself to beleive it."

See, I would argue that if the human mind functions under the same laws as the rest of the universe (if you believe in dualism this argument fails, but I don't) then its operations must have a direct cause, not just influences: there is nothing in our world that is simply 'partially influenced', logic and physics dictate that everything has a direct cause. As such, it seems this is the case with the human mind. Furthermore, I don't actually see this determinism as a reason to abandon morals ect.
Put it this way:
If a man does a very evil act (such as rape), does the fact that the act was pre-determined make the act any less evil? No! As such, it should be condemned in the same way! Furthermore, and I cannot stress this enough, DETERMINISM AND THE MAJORITY OF PHILOSOPHY IS SIMPLY METAPHYSICAL and should not be applied to every day life. Just because in a roundabout way, actions may be predetermined, this doesn't mean we should live our lives as if they were: it is impossible to trace the chain of causation so as to predict our determined actions, there are simply too many variables, and as such life appears undetermined. In everyday life, it makes sense to think of ourselves as having free will. As such, I am a mitigated-determinist: while I believe it is true, I put it aside after I'm finished with it, tuck it away in its own little drawer, and live my life as if it didn't exist.

it can be looked at in the same way as if the human mind's choices were simply influenced rather than caused: just because these slime balls were influenced by the fact that they had a bad childhood, this does make them less guilty of the crime, and it doesn't make their choices less evil (if good and evil is objective. Either way, in our society we have defined such things, and it doesn't change their status in regard to our definition). As such, i wouldn't view it as a problem.

SECONDLY:
"If they are right... then what possible justification is there for a benevolent, omnipotent God? Obviously he's not so benevolent if he made things like that happened"
The type of determinism I am talking about (where the human mind is subject to physics and hence free will is erased) and the existence of a Christian(ish) god are mutually exclusive events: If a christian(ish) God exists, then humans have a soul, and as such our minds are dualistic, and hence not entirely subject to the laws of cause and effect: as such if god exists, the universe is not deterministic in this way: as such determinism doesn't really function as an argument against God, since if God exists, determinism doesn't (at least not this kind).

"Obviously he's not so benevolent if he made things like that happen"
Because of the above note, God wouldn't cause this kind of determinism, and hence this point is really moot. I would note however that if an omniscient God were to exist, it is implied that he knows everything that will happen in the world before he creates it, hence his omniscience would cause a different type of determinism: divine determinism rather than causal determinism. This again is re-iterating this point:

"(Note that an omnisienct God who allows free choice, knowing full well the slimebag is going to rape and kill the girl and yet fails to act to stop it isn't much better. Thus my belief that there is no benevolent God in control of the universe. This is not to say that there isn't a God in control... just that I don't beleive in his benevolence."
Oh and by the way, that religious view is called Deism. believing in an impersonal god that isn't one of those from religion. I'm a deist, and I struggled to find the correct word for ages. Hope that helps you in some way

Of course I would rather not go into the whole problem of evil here, as it really would take us down a totally different tangent. Should we start a separate thread for it?

THIRDLY:
"The problem with Determinism is that there is no way to test for it."
theres no way to empirically test for it, no, but thats not the only way of gaining knowledge: in fact its not used that much in philosophy. You can gain just as much knowledge through (good) inductive reasoning as you can through empirical observation. In fact, empirical observation relies heavily on inductive reasoning (assuming things will remain the same as they are during test conditions. that physics won't suddenly break). You don't need to test EVERYTHING to conclude that things are correct.

"Can someone override their environment and make a different choice? We see examples all the time - the kid from the projects whose parents are druggies/prostitutes/whatever and yet the kid keeps out of trouble, gets good grades, goes to college, and makes a sucess of him/herself. What external force drove this particular kid to succeed, when hundreds - if not thousands - of other kids around him fail? "

Just because you don't see the causes doesn't mean they don't exist. I would argue that events will have transpired in the persons childhood which didn't occur to the others, which made him feel like he didn't belong in the dead end. He felt like he needed to escape.

That is the only explanation for it if determinism holds true. And unless you can overturn my deductive argument, it kind of does. I'd love to see you manage it, I've tried myself and can never seem to.

Would add more, but i need to go sleep

Ok, I would like to add my 2 cents. As just an FYI, I am a CompSci major that has an ABet Accredited degree, so I have taken several Physics and Mathematics courses and Theory of Computing (helps with looking at deterministic/non-determinstic behavior).

This is my take on the universe and it's deterministic/non-deterministic actions:

If everything in the universe started with the Big Bang, then everything deterministicly happened as it should, at least at the macro-level. Sense we have no unifying theory of Electromagnetism and Quantem Physics, then the current laws of Physics today tell us things happen in a deterministic way. Chance is a human construct for events we can not determine yet due to understanding, at least at the macro-level. Take dice for example, when you roll them, if you knew the exact variables ranging from the weight of the dice to air resistance of that day to the angle and speed it left your hand, you can calculate exactly what side it will land on. A good way to look at this is if we can determine the location of where the Moon was several years ago, then why can we not apply the same behavior and Mathematics/Physics to determine the position of the Earth? Sure, we might not have all the variables yet but there is nothing random about the location of Earth in the universe.

Now, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. As far as we can tell, this still only applies to the very small and does not directly affect the larger universe. But, our bodies do interact with chemicals in the small scale, thus could be affected by principles of Quantum Mechanics. Thus, I think our own thought processes could easily work on the Quantum level and thus be non-determinstic.

So, in the end, I think free will does exist but the universe at the grand scale is determinstic while the very small is non-determinstic. And while there is no unifying theory, then these two never clash with each other and are seperate systems. Of course, I could see humanity (or any other civilization, if they exist) having a non-determinstic action on the grand scale, thus changing everything.

Also, this might help: Determinism vs. Non-determinism

First lets define logic:
Logic is the philosophical study of valid reasoning (wikipedia)
What everyone is referring to here is reasoning, not logic, logic is the study of reasoning, without reasoning there is no logic, but even if there is no logic. Logic is subjective by this definition as what one individual believes to be valid, may not be shared by another, pre-disposition to logic would also be able to be passed on to successive traits as those who know the difference between 'stupid' and 'slightly less stupid' are more likely to survive and have offspring.

Now maybe that definition will give us all something to go on.

Now @walker90234
Your opinion on axioms is rather confusing, in one post you completely disregard them and in another you seem to praise them, perhaps you are confused about what an axiom is?
An axiom is merely a premise or starting point of reasoning, they don't lead us to soliphistic and nihilistic conclusions. All reasoning requires the use of axioms, mathematics, science, skepticism, even your seemingly beloved determinism. It is without the use of axioms (or more specificly, choosing to disregard certain ones) that leads to interesting results.

Take Non-Euclidean geometry for example, it was gained specifically by ignore Euclid's 5th postulate with regards to geometry, allowing us to have interesting results, such as an elipse have two sides that are parallel to each other.

@Zyllos Thank you for your input as someone with an education in such matters, I have great interest in theoretical physics but little knowledge of the maths underpinning it. It would make sense if we think in electricity that it would be quantum. We can trace the universe back to a singularity with the big bang, but if the universe were truly deterministic then surely, even with entropy, we would just as easily be able to trace it forward, and yet there have been many theories, the big crunch, the big rip, and the currently held heat death of the universe. Now surley if everything was set in stone in that first nanosecond we would have established what would happen pretty soon after establishing what had. Or am I being too simplistic, I mean with eons of entropy providing googles of variables I'm sure it wouldn't be easy but I can't imagine extrapolating the big bang was either.

We all have free will, nothing is pre-determined.

Sometimes choices have no cause.

I sometimes will go for a drive, and end up somewhere because of choices i have made that I had no cause for making.

Unless you count whimsy as a cause.

Zyllos wrote:Sense we have no unifying theory of Electromagnetism and Quantem Physics

You mean Relativity and Quantum Mechanics right? Electromagnetism is well explained by Quantum Mechanics, there is no issue with it.

@krellnus: Ah, I think I probably wasn't clear in my second post on axioms. I wasn't saying that axioms lead to solopsism, but that abandoning them would (we generally see it as axiomatic that the external wrold exists, since it is impossible to prove that it does) as I remember joey arguing that philosophy, because it was based on axioms, was as he called it 'bunk'. I was just supporting the view that axioms are necessary in every aspect of life.

Furthermore, I believe in this particular debate we were using logic synonymously with philosophical reasoning. In that manner yes, the wiki definition of logic is subjective, but what we were talking about isn't. So we should probably agree that in all our previous posts we were simply talking of philisophical reasoning (i know I was). Furthermore, while many peoples views on this reasoning may be subjectve, as you have said, deductive/inducitve arguments and analytic truths (and all the a priori stuff) is in no way subjective in and of itself: how and why we choose to employ it may be subjective, but this doeesnt make logic itself subjective.

@Dael: I dont think you can determie the future through determinism, there are simply too many variables for us to really process.
We would have to take into account every particle in existence, a feat I simply dont believe us capable of.

@DeathReaper: yes, whimsy is a cause, as there must be A cause to everything. Unless you subscribe to dualism (just say if you do) then you have to accept that your mind functions under the laws of causation, and therefore with determinism.

Random chance kind of messes with the "We do not have free will" thought.

We all make choices, and some choices, made on a whim, could never be pre-determined, as they are as unknown to the individual as they are to everyone else.

walker90234 wrote:
@Dael: I dont think you can determie the future through determinism, there are simply too many variables for us to really process.
We would have to take into account every particle in existence, a feat I simply dont believe us capable of.

Us perhaps not, however we stand on the threshold of a singularity of AI, and once we have created a computer smarter than ourselves, it will create a computer smarter than itself, then repeat indefinitely. Would these minds, which would be near infinite in their wisdom, if fed every piece of information, be able to predict the rest of time without a single mistake?

@DeathReaper: it doesnt matter whether or not we are aware of the reasons why we make a choice, but there are variables involved that will determine what happens. (I think you may be confusing 'pre-meditated' and 'predetermined'. One refers to concious choice of which action to take, whereas the other simply refrences an action being bound to happen due to causation.) If youd've read the whole thread you would have noticed my post which removes 'random chance' in a determinisic universe:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
"If the universe is deterministic, and there is only one set path, then why does random chance exist?"

I replied
"Yeah, I had this problem too, but I will do my best to explain it to you.
I assume by random chance you mean events such as rolling dice? If you roll a dice, it seems as if the number chosen is completely random. However this is not actually the case, as you will readily admit that the number which comes up is a direct result of such variables as the dices velocity across the table, the texture of the table, the weight of the dice, ect.
Since I'm on Dakka, I can illustrate this quite well: we've all heard of practiced rolling. If I hold a dice in my hand with a 6 facing up, and roll it in a particular back hand flick (I can actually do this 50% of the time btw, though I choose not to) it will come up with a 6. The number that has come up has been determined by a number of variables, which I have determined consciously.
Now, when we roll a dice normally, these variable still exist (although my rolling motion and the way the dice faces has been selected subconsciously, just on whim (the dice is lying with the 6 facing up, I pick it up so that the 6 is facing down just by the fact that it was facing up and my thoughts at the time ect.) and my motions are unintended, and just occur by unknown causes) and as such, the way the dice rolls is determined by its surroundings, all of which themselves have causes. For example the way the dice is facing in my hand is determined by the way it was facing when it was on the table, which itself was determined by the way in which I poured them onto the table which was determined by...ect.ect (along with loads of other variables, such as my emotions at the time, which might determine th vigour with which I emptied the dice bag, alongwith a shedload of other variables)
Random number algorithms also have causes behind them, although we can't see it. So does the apparant 'random' choice of number in the human brain ect. ect. "

So, an example of a 'random choice' in the brain, which we think is random (as we are unaware of the variables involved) is the choice of a random number.
One of my friends a couple days back showed me a card trick. He asked me to pick a card from the deck, and give him the card. Then he made me close my eyes, and he put the card in a random place in the deck. After that, he asked me to 'choose a random number' and take that many cards from the top of the deck.
Now, you might argue that the choice of a random number is random because I haven't cociously chosen it beforehand. HOWEVER when I chose the nukber 6, and took 6 cards from the deck, the sixth card was the one I had chosen?
How had my friend done this?
Well, according to him, he had been feeding me the number 6 throughout the day, (i think he stole this idea from derren brown) dropping it in as many sentances as he could. Now, because of this I chose the nukber 6, as I had a subconcious pre-disposition towards it. As such, we can see how a seemingly random choice is indeed determined by the external world.

You might say that "oh, this doesnt count as it was determined by your friend", however this isnt the case. No matter whether or not someone had been CONCIOUSLY feeding me random numbers, I would still be recieving them simply through my random interactions with the world around me, along with being effected by a number of other variables. As such, even though my 'random number' seems random, it is in fact predetermined by a plethora of variables which work together to lead me to a decision. I'm sure i could pick apart any 'random choice' in the same way.

I'll also post my deductive argument again:

1) everything in the universe has a cause: every action is the result of another action
2) our choices are part of the universe and therefore must have causes, just like everything else
3) whatever these causes are, (for example our personality) they too must have causes
4) as must these, and so on, traing back either to infinity, or a 'first cause' (doesnt matter which)
5) as finite beings, the chain of causation must at some point have originated outside of us: if the chain is infinite this is the logical conclusion. Even if it isnt and there is a first cause (the big bang/god/quantum physics crap/the flying spaghetti monster) we can agree that this cause origionated at the time of the big bang, and we dont date back that far, only being several years old rather than billions. Since out internal chain of causation cannot stretch bak to the first cause, it must link to an external chain.
6) since all our actions are part of a chain of causation that finds its root in the external world, our actions are cause by the external world.
conclusion) our actions are predetermined.

As such, there is no apparent 'random action' which can not be predetermined, unless you subscribe to dualism (the view that our minds are transcendent to this universe, ie: not a part of it)
any retort?

@Dael: seems pretty convincing, and I was about to agree, apart from when looking back at posts I remembered mentiono of the uncertainty principle: Zyloss, would this destroy the computers ability?

I haven't decided if I am going to post in this thread or not.

Ahtman wrote:I haven't decided if I am going to post in this thread or not.

As if you have a choice

OH, BURRRRRN!!!

walker90234 wrote:@Dael: seems pretty convincing, and I was about to agree, apart from when looking back at posts I remembered mentiono of the uncertainty principle: Zyloss, would this destroy the computers ability?

Only in the sense that it will preven them from making measurements that are 100% accurate on the either the quantum or macro scale.

okay, and given the size of the data involved, this may screw it up a bit?

walker90234 wrote:okay, and given the size of the data involved, this may screw it up a bit?

Well considering said AI would be for all intents and purposes God-like, I can't imagine that too much data would be a problem. Collecting the data in the first place wouldn't be easy, but computational power shouldn't.

walker90234 wrote:okay, and given the size of the data involved, this may screw it up a bit?

I am referring to the ability of these AI to take accurate measurements, not their computing power.

dæl wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I haven't decided if I am going to post in this thread or not.

As if you have a choice

Choice is an action for one when option is decided upon over others. It is a technical word.

walker90234 wrote:@DeathReaper: it doesnt matter whether or not we are aware of the reasons why we make a choice, but there are variables involved that will determine what happens.

Prove it.

No, watch this:

Kovnik Obama wrote:That's exactly what I meant by 'intuitive causation'. And yes, there are some cool examples of animals also developing certain logical modules, like the crow. Supposedly, they have a very good quantitative perception, and when the see a source of food, they will communicate not only the location, but the size, and only the crows in a area determined by the quantity of available food will then go to it. That's an example of pretty good logic applied to a very basic problem : sustainment. That's still the best they will ever do, while in humans minds you could see this behavior arising pretty early, and at a later age, we would develop additional means to optimize it.

It's this optimization that isn't explained by biology, in my opinion, or at least not by the conception of a natural selection.

Well, I guess we got better and better at using logic for sustenance, until it advanced to the point where we could use logic for other things as well. First to make tools, then maybe to find better ways to communicate. As our minds got more advanced, then perhaps we started to question our origin?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:

walker90234 wrote:@DeathReaper: it doesnt matter whether or not we are aware of the reasons why we make a choice, but there are variables involved that will determine what happens.

Prove it.

Seriously, why ponder things that can probably never be solved with science? The time spend uh, "philosohpizing" could better be spent on discovering things and testing things we can actually prove. I think we'll find that everything that exists can be explained by science, even if there are some things we may never have a chance to study in depth and explain.

Joey wrote:

walker90234 wrote:care to expand on that?

Yes.
People have logic because logic proved to be evolutionary advantageous.
Using logic to examine itself is therefore impossible. Would you use a torch to see light?

You can use a torch to examine another torch, so wouldn't that mean you could use logic to examine another person's logic? It only seems logical. While you cannot see light, you can perceive light and compare it to dark.

Entropy is the stuff of the universe, chaos and chance. Humans like to bring order and classification to things, as Joey said its all due to evolution. In order to classify we developed language, symbols, etc and eventually mathematics. Now as far as determinism goes, you can guess the outcome of a person but there is a large multitude of factors that cause a person to be what they are. Genetics are responsible in a lot of cases, but then you have cases where a person's brain development was affected in utero due to the mother being exposed to different environmental factors. So even though the genetic coding says the brain should develop one way, environmental factors may prevent it from actually developing it that way. Now the coding only predisposes individuals to these conditions and thought processes in most cases, for example a neurologist did a study to determine if there was a specific pattern of brain activity in inmates and he saw that there was indeed a pattern, however he compared it to his own results and they also matched his. So brain functioning does not always mean a person will act one way, but we can make a pretty good guess that it may be a cause of a way of thinking or pathological mental state.

I can take two individuals with the same brain, same age, same gender, etc and then present them with a difficult situation such as a person being brutally beaten in front of them. I can look at their history and make a guess as to how they will react but I can't give a 100% sure answer because there is only a chance that they will react in the way they were "programmed" to react. Twin studies are incredibly indicative of this, a high correlation of a genetic cause may come from only 30% of monozygotic twins developing the same disorder. Now these are monozygotic twins, same in utero environment, same external factors, and identical genetics yet they can still turn out different.

Well, I guess we got better and better at using logic for sustenance, until it advanced to the point where we could use logic for other things as well. First to make tools, then maybe to find better ways to communicate. As our minds got more advanced, then perhaps we started to question our origin?

Logic (at first, but then also for quite a while) is way simpler than making tools, it's realizing that the moon doesn't 'move' behind you because your moving. Or that events can go on without you having them in conscience. I actually remember when I first realized that events could be parallel : I was 5-6, and was surprised when I realized that the tv show didn't start back on the same image as I had left it. These 'logical realization' events are pretty much programmed in every human, as long as they have enough contact with other humans.

On that other post ; you assume both that philosophy doesn't regard facts (that's okay, many people do, but it should be supported when advanced) and that science will never be able to provide an explicative model of the mind. We've done pretty awesome strides in that regard in the last 80 years or so. For example, we don't know yet how the structure that support intelligence is effectively run, but we know how fast it runs. 4.4 quadrillions cycles. A cat's brain is clocked at 72 billions. I'm reading William James, a philosopher/psychologist from the 19th ; he comments on how fast our brain must be, that we don't actually feel ourselves giving fiat to actions, and how the mind must surely 'slow itself' when it starts to 'mentally enunciate'.

150 years later, we know exactly how fast our minds go. Frakking fast. Give us 100 more years, we'll have put minds in machines.

Lol, I didn't say science will never be able to provide an explicative model of the mind. I highly encourage research like that, because it is definitley something we don't know much about, and I myself would like to know more on that subject. But it's still science, and we are still explaining it with facts.

The philosphers pretty much just came up with brilliant hypotheses but didn't test them. Many of their hypotheses were proven right years later, when people decided to test them. Many were found totally wrong too, like Ptolemy and his model of the universe, though that was a bit farther in the past than the one you mentioned.

I remember back in the day when we were taught that everything was made from water. Then some whippersnapper decided to say that water puts out fire which means that fire wasn't made out of water. Completely set me behind in my academics.

Yeah, because the presocratic natural philosopher are the most representative members of philosophy. Logic, epistemology, psychology, political science, anthropology, economy... The list of sciences that have started out as purely speculative ventures, then developed alongside the evolution of philosophy, and vice-versa, is pretty huge...

We differentiate knowledge now based on methodical conventions we have established. For some reason, it has given rise in the latest centuries, to a form of stupid contest over who has the right knowledge ; philosophers or scientist. Unless there's a strong bias for one already (for example, in France at the beginning of the century, psychology was completely descriptive ; the 'specialists' were philosophers, and anything done in labs was considered pointless, because you couldn't ''observe the subject as an object'' (as if sentences like these have such a meaning anyway). That's an example of a situation in which science must oppose philosophy. Doesn't mean you can deride philosophy as a whole because the first speculators didn't have much material to work with.

I kind of get annoyed at this view of scientists that philosophy is bunk, and so too at the views of certain philosophers that view philosophy as more important.
Surely both methods of thought can work hand in hand? In fact, the support each other to a great degree, as they deal with things that the other can rarely prove (science cannot deal with epistemology, or speculations about realism, whereas philosophy cannot be used to discover the nature of DNA) and often build off one another: In trying to support representative realism (by discrediting Direct realism) philosophers can often take into account scientific theories of smell so as to back up their arguments. Also the entirety of scientific theory is based upon a foundation of direct realism.
I dont understand why people see it as an either/or distinction.

Now to posts:
@galactic defender:
"The philosphers pretty much just came up with brilliant hypotheses but didn't test them"
You do realise that the majority of philosophical theories are based on deductive or inductive arguments (epistemology, realism, the ontological argument) rather than testing, and can find very little proof by empirical testing?

"Seriously, why ponder things that can probably never be solved with science? The time spend uh, "philosohpizing" could better be spent on discovering things and testing things we can actually prove. I think we'll find that everything that exists can be explained by science, even if there are some things we may never have a chance to study in depth and explain."
Philosophy is one of the humanities, like history. Humanities are subjects which cannot be deciphered by purely scientific means, and as such you have failed to recognise altogether that science is not the only way of establishing truth. Furthermore, look at the last sentence of your post: don't you find that inherently contradictory? Philosophy is there to support those things which science cannot explain. Furthermore, you might argue that philosophy can never truly 'prove' anything in the way science can. however, science itself can never really 'prove' anything, as it too rests upon axioms on which philosophy does: neither subject can lead to absolute proof, so arguing that a single one doesn't is entirely useless: your simply stating half of the facts.

"But it's still science, and we are still explaining it with facts."
Again, there are things science cannot explain which philosophy can (and vis versa), they are totally different areas of knowledge (although there is some overlap) and so we can really never choose one over the other.

FINALLY: I don't understand this preoccupation in this thread over arguing the importance/use of philosophy! This is an argument about DETERMINISM, a particular field of philosophy, and as such is a debate that already assumes the validity of philosophy. Its kind of going OT talking about philosophy in general rather than determinism specifically.

@halonachos: "I can take two individuals with the same brain, same age, same gender, etc and then present them with a difficult situation such as a person being brutally beaten in front of them. I can look at their history and make a guess as to how they will react but I can't give a 100% sure answer because there is only a chance that they will react in the way they were "programmed" to react."
I would really argue you have reached a wrong conclusion here: instead of assuming that you know EXACTLY how they were programmed to react, and that there is a chance they will go against this programming (this is impossible unless you overturn my deductive argument) why not turn to the more logical conclusion that, because you have not seen everything a certain individual has experienced, you cannot predict at all how they were programmed?
Your example takes a very general piece of data: it lacks precision. If you take two people with similar upbringings, you miss out all the precise details of their upbringing. This will affect your prediction in the same way as imprecision would in science, by giving you a different answer. If we miss out a decimal place in a calculation, for example, we get a slightly different answer.
Yet the imprecision in such an example is far greater than a simple decimal place, as you literally know nothing but generalities of that persons life. Its like rounding to the nearest billion within a mathematical sum(not rounding the answers but the multipliers): the answer will be not only imprecise but totally inaccurate!
So really you have reached a false conclusion.
FURTHERMORE IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE AGAINST DETERMINISM YOU HAVE TO OVERTURN MY DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT.

(thats the other thing I should mention to GalacticDefender: You argue that philosophy can never 'prove' anything, however deductive reasoning provides a more reliable proof than empirical evidence, as if you accept the premises, you HAVE to accept the conclusion, whereas conclusions made by science are not so absolute.)

@DeathReaper:
Um, I kind of HAVE proved it? Again, see my deductive argument. I'll past it AGAIN.

"1) everything in the universe has a cause: every action is the result of another action
2) our choices are part of the universe and therefore must have causes, just like everything else
3) whatever these causes are, (for example our personality) they too must have causes
4) as must these, and so on, traing back either to infinity, or a 'first cause' (doesnt matter which)
5) as finite beings, the chain of causation must at some point have originated outside of us: if the chain is infinite this is the logical conclusion. Even if it isnt and there is a first cause (the big bang/god/quantum physics crap/the flying spaghetti monster) we can agree that this cause origionated at the time of the big bang, and we dont date back that far, only being several years old rather than billions. Since out internal chain of causation cannot stretch bak to the first cause, it must link to an external chain.
6) since all our actions are part of a chain of causation that finds its root in the external world, our actions are cause by the external world.
conclusion) our actions are predetermined. "

Unless you can overturn this argument DeathReaper, you kind of have to accept that "it doesnt matter whether or not we are aware of the reasons why we make a choice, but there are variables involved that will determine what happens."
Furthermore, since it is a deductive argument, if you accept points 1-6, you HAVE to accept my conclusion, as it's 'logically watertight'.

SO REALLY, UNLESS YOU CAN OVERTURN ONE OF POINTS 1-6, YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST DETERMINISM WILL FAIL, AS THE DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT, IF MY PREMISES STAND, PROVES DETERMINSIM.

(I would actually really like you to have a stab at one of points 1-6 to be honest, no one has so far, and I really want someone to)