What are the consequences of a deterministic world anyways

What are the consequences of a deterministic world anyways

Why is it such a contested position

>Why is it such a contested position

Autism. Its why its only talked about in the analytic (the reddit) tradition

I was going to reply, but I always put a lot of thought into my replies and never get responses. It makes me feel being here is such a huge waste of time: yet I keep posting. So I'm here to say I'll break out this loop, and I'm never posting in this board again, for as long as you people stay as blindly insensitive, stupid and indifferent as you've been. Think about it.

The mechanistic/deterministic picture of the world has no room for agents, it makes agency in its true sense an incoherent concept

We subjectively feel like agents, this is constitutive of our consciousness and of all "choices" we make. The fundamental logic of our understanding of the world is based on subjective wills being free, beginning with our own.

No matter how much we try to remind ourselves or instill in ourselves this mechanistic, unfree conception of "myself" or "other human agent," it can only be artificial, can only end in antinomy. The only being that could fully grok its own unfreeness would presumably be some kind of machine capable of modifying the constitutive conditions of its own knowledge, and then it would (I guess?) just go "oh, I guess I don't even exist, lol!" and stop moving, abort its subjective experience (if it didn't arrive at the same antinomy as us, of "what then is this 'experience' of freedom?"), or just outright destroy itself.

This is Kant's basic problem. He tried the compatibilist route, he tried the incompatibilist route, and then he realised all of these proposed solutions end in antinomies and paradoxes because they are fundamental clashes in the way our mind structures reality. We NEED to believe in both iron laws of contingency AND fundamental freedom of will in order for our minds to function the way they do. These do not reconcile and neither is "correct."

Kant's solution was to say that if there is freedom of the will that can exist in a world with causal contingency, which he surmised there was, it simply cannot be represented for us. It must exist in the world "as it really is," i.e., the world prior to our mind's construction of it for-us. Kant was religious. Other solutions have been similar religious or mystical positions, or idealism edging into the mystical, or a few (probably misguided) attempts at founding free will in something that defies mechanistic contingency but still somehow meaningfully gives US, at the anthropic level, "will." The latter have mostly been theories about quantum mechanics.

Mainstream secular views either admit hard mechanistic determinism and simply shrug at the conclusions of that, or they try to find a modus vivendi within the same old compatibilisms Kant and others found dissatisfying. These are the dozens of Dennetts and Sam Harrises and shit like that, people who build gigantic elaborate systems describing massively complex inter-variable forms of deterministic thinking and willing that still boil down to fundamental epiphenomenal mechanism, and then call it "compatibilism" for some reason.

>Kant's solution was to say that if there is freedom of the will that can exist in a world with causal contingency, which he surmised there was,

I meant to say, to Kant causation itself was just our way of structuring reality. Whatever reality is, it can presumably encompass what APPEARS to us to be both contingent and free, whatever it "actually is" outside of that appearance.

The world is determined, humans are not absolutely determined.

The consequences of humans believing they are absolutely determined, is first and foremost, the fact of such humans believing a false idea to be true.

But you already know all this.

One consequence of humans believing humans are absolutely determined is:

I didnt rape and murder that family, I am an absolutely determined automaton, there is no 'me', the "I" that does not exist is a perfectly programmed machine that has no room to sway from its determined programming, "that which s now writing" is not conscious, is not aware, cannot think, what I am only does exactly what it must do, God made me do it, youre not going to arrest God are you user, that would make you seem crazy.

Provide an example, ask me to make out of multiple potentials, a choice, and then we will describe why potentially you and others, do not think it was possible for me to have chosen what I chose (or, "chosen" anything other than what I chose)

It'd mean the Jews were right all along, basically.

>What are the consequences of a deterministic world anyways
The fact that a consciousness (and a freedom of action etc.) is an emergent phenomenon and can be though of as a program running on a biological computer called mind. Many people find this thought hard to accept, so they deny it.

>The world is determined, humans are not absolutely determined.
derrrrrrrrrrrrrp