Ok: You mention a disinterested perspective: We can _pretend_ to
have a disinterested perspective, but behaviorally, you're
interested. Also,that's imagination. A great use of imagination,
but imagination just the same. I use that imaginary perspective
a lot to sort out systems and the like, including my place in
them. [especially so] Also, you don't need to have an awareness
of prior philosophers that were deterministic: What you
accept-as-true that led you to determinism can have a whole host
of sources. In the sciences, for example, with the exception of
some aspects of quantum mechanics (limited), they are almost
wholly deterministic. I'm trying to determine where our
distinctions lie. I believe it may turn out to be a very minor
point. I'll continue after sending this as a 'complete thought].
== I tend to believe that there are many systems at play. Cause
and effect cannot always be determined with precision although
much can in simpler systems. One of the reasons why many people
are drawn to logic and dictionary definitions for example, is it
gives them a "stable ground" to work from. Yes, these are my
opinions. All of this. They have an aversion to uncertainty
(emotional) and find solace in dictionaries, congruency,
completion, finished-ness. But I see dictionaries as human
systems. Emotional states like certainty and uncertainty provide
the cognitive push towards TRUE / FALSE, LEFT / RIGHT. People
with damaged amygdalas cannot make decisions "properly". They're
called "living economists" and have to weigh many factors out
lacking the conclusion that an emotional "push" provides. It's
akin to "analysis paralysis". I sometimes suffer from it. It's
annoying as hell so I have some tricks to get out of it when I
notice it coming. I've learned. Now, generally, I "tend towards"
a more overall deterministic structure of the Universe, with
many unknown systems constraining other systems, interacting
with other systems, that makes unraveling all of it a practical
impossibility for humans. Improbability. Not impossibility, but
nearly enough so. This is why I cannot adopt a wholly
deterministic consciousness. Not enough info. Not enough data.
Application of Ocham's Razor too soon. Too quickly. Potentially
cutting off data that might critically change the outcome. This
is why I believe in a free will outlook. Being aware of all of
the constraints that I am aware of, I make decisions. I know why
I make many of these decisions. Many I don't. I can get brain
scanned and philosophically analyzed by thousands of experts and
get an even BROADER view of the deterministic factors weighing
in to my decision-making. But: can they catch all of it? No. No,
they can't. Until we possess the technology and ability to do
so, I remain with a free will stance. At the same time,
determinism is attractive. But the dark side of determinism for
a culture is dreadful. This is the broader picture I'm thinking
of. For an individual to hold it, makes no difference to me. But
a society? We're not ready. We may be someday but certainly not
now. So from a pragmatic point of view, free will is real. Is it
real in a pure sense? No idea. The "no idea" - the unknown
unknowns - is the realm where the free will takes play for me.
For you, it is determinism that plays in the realm of unknown
unknown.
