On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> On 11/10/2010 4:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote: >> >> Once you give up free choice, you're left with skepticism. >> >> Bryan Caplan had an interesting comment on this: >> >> "Now it is a fact that people disagree on many questions; this leads >> us to wonder if on any given issue we are correct. How is the >> determinist to come to grips with this? If the content of my mind is >> determined entirely on the level of micro-particles, how would I ever >> double-check my views? I would be determined to believe them; and if >> arguments convinced me, then they would be determined to convince me. >> The crucial point is that my views -- correct and incorrect alike -- >> would be the result of inexorable causal forces. And these forces >> determine people to error just as inexorably as they determine them to >> truth. Of course, I might be correct by coincidence. But knowledge >> is _justified_ true belief; and when we are pre-determined to believe >> whatever we happen to believe no matter what, it is hard to see what >> the justification of our beliefs is. >> > > I don't know what "pre-determined" adds to this and "no matter what" is > inconsistent.
By pre-determined I just take him to mean that our beliefs are determined by the state of things at some previous point in time. The state of the universe at time t0 (plus the causal laws that govern the state changes) determines our beliefs at time t1. Given the state at t0, the outcome at t1 is...pre-determined. So the "pre" just emphasizes the impact of the past on the present. I don't think it adds much to use "pre-determined", but I don't see that it is really cause for complaint either...? As for "no matter what" being inconsistent...well...I suppose so. It does imply fatalism instead of strict determinism. In other words: "no matter what happens between time t0 and t1, the outcome will still be the same." But I'm pretty sure that he meant: "The only events that can occur between time t0 and t1 are the specific events neccessitated by the state of the universe at t0 and the universe's causal laws, and thus the outcome is not in doubt". He did *not* mean to imply that additional events are possible, but will not alter the outcome. > If you are a determinist then all beliefs are causally > connected to facts (facts about your brain, perception, the world...). If > the facts and the belief are congruent and they are causally connected then > they are justified_true_beliefs. If the facts and the beliefs are congruent, then the beliefs are true. I agree. However, just because Belief X is causally connected to Fact Y doesn't meant that Belief X is justified. The question of justification is how do you *know* that Belief X is causally connected to Fact Y? It may be a fact (Fact Z) that Belief X is causally connected to Fact Y, but how do you justify your belief in Fact Z? And then, how do you justify your belief in your belief that Belief X is causally connected to Fact Y? And then, how do you justify your belief in your belief in your belief that Belief X is causally connected to Fact Y? And so on. The problem is that the only facts that we have direct access to are facts about our current beliefs. It is a fact that I believe this. BUT, I can't say for sure that it's *true* that we only have direct access to facts about our current beliefs. It's just what I believe at this moment. Though, I can't even say for certain that I believed it an hour ago. I believe I did, but I can't justify that belief. >From our current beliefs we infer the existence of other facts, but why should we believe that our current beliefs are true or that our process of inference is correct? Skepticism doesn't say that there are no true beliefs. It just says that we can never justify them. >> Put succinctly, if we have knowledge we must accept beliefs only >> because we understand them to be true; but if determinism is correct, >> then we automatically accept whatever beliefs that our constituent >> micro-particles impose on us. It might be the case that those >> micro-particles coincidentally make me believe true things, but the >> truth would not be the ultimate causal agent acting upon me. >> > > Whatever truth is, it isn't a causal agent. Right. And neither is logic or rationality. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
