It is a matter of what you allow as A Priori. Descartes only stripped it back as far as the existence of the individual, and a sentient acting individual at that. Lax, I know. As a Determinist, what do you accept as true without proof?
I'm not a "strict" Determinist (same inputs will give same outputs)... I tend toward the "probabilistic determinism" - i.e. determinism tempered with the probability functions of QM... and the apparent randomness of things such as radioactive decay. Which probably means it isn't really determinism. And I wouldn't say I accept anything as "true" without proof. If any evidence counters what I already have with regard a position I hold, then my position will change. Practically one usually takes a position, but that doesn't mean one has accepted that position as "true" - merely practical.
Well said. All too often (particularly in here...) people take the committance to a position to be synonymous with an assertion that it is 'true'. (Actually, this charge is laid out whimsically here. Let's call this the "Fallacy of Metaphysical Extension" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Strictly speaking, correct. Mind, given the very general descriptions of the two possible camps granted in the OP, one could hardly blame good Sarkus...
There is also another kind of determinism than causal determinism? What is strict "strict" Determinist or "probabilistic determinism" ? Can you give any links in which, without doubt,someone deny determinism due to QM?And just because QM and for no other reason.
As far as I use the terms: A system has "strict determinism" where the same inputs to that system always yield the same singular output. A system has "probabilistic determinism" where the same inputs to that system always yield to the same probability function of outputs. The latter could still be considered a form of determinism due to the output always being the same - albeit a probability function P(x) - rather than a single output such as "X". But BOTH are forms of causal determinism, though... in that both begin from the understanding that each even is the result of a preceeding event - i.e. that cause and effect holds. Where I'm on the vague edges of determinism, however, is with regard the nature of random things such as radioactive decay... and whether these are truly uncaused or whether they are caused but we just can't tell (yet?) what causes them. And as for the links you ask - just google Quantum Mechanics and Determinism, and especially Quantum Indeterminacy. There should be plenty of material for you, on both / all sides of the debate.
I asked because I have misunderstood you. I thought you are deterministic,even hard deterministic. But now I understand that you are not. I have not found under the conditions that I mentioned. I found nondeterministic opinions for which QM was one of the arguments against determinism.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your distinction there. Quantum indeterminism seems to rule out causal determinism.
I'm sorry, but that is a counter-factual statement. Quantum mechanics says so, and it's one of most accurately experimentally verified theories in history.
Determinism as a philosophical position is hard to counter. If we didn't have an overwhelming internal sense of making choices, I don't think anyone would argue against it. So much of our life is conformed by habit, conditioning, state of health etc, that even I, taking a non Determinist position, accept that 90% of what we do is not in our conscious control. Different Point. I think there is a problem for Determinism when we shape the world in a way which isn't Utilitarian. So, houses might be explained by Determinism, and offices etc, but the existence of the Taj Mahal, a monument to human grief, is harder to explain. In fact, the whole of art is a problem for Determinism, isn't it? If the mind does not control the body, then how could people make things that can only be understood by referring them to that mind? I'll put it another way. Why are there things in the world which indicate the existence of a human mind if that mind can have no influence in making them?
You're naive if you think someone convinced of determinism, would deny theory of causation because of QM theory.
Do you thank consciousness is biological... or a seperate entity from the body... or somptin else.???
What about you glaucon... do you thank humans have "free-will" (make choises which are not a part of a causal chane of events).???
Mind is certainly Biological, it is a function of the Brain. Many experiments show that. So it should be determined, unless our understanding of the physical world is wrong. Which I doubt. To believe in free will creates a contradiction, which I don't know how to resolve. Consciousness does seem to relate to choice. When you are learning to drive, for example , you are conscious of making choices, and conscious of mistakes made by making those choices. When you are able to drive, you do it without thinking about it.
