Should belief in determinism change our conduct? (and other comments) / Πρέπει η πίστη στον ντετερμινισμό να μεταβάλει την συμπεριφορά μας; (και άλλα σχόλια)

## Should belief in determinism change our conduct? (and other comments)

Strong is synonymous to hard (example: positive/strong/hard atheism) in the text here; also it's more common. / You present things correctly but laypeople (and some academics) act emotionally (they might have a particular view, but they don't necessarily follow its causal extrapolations to the end or at least to the maximum, because they take into account emotional feedback and other things). What I say has more to do with psychology than with philosophy, but it's non-trivial/significant because emotional bias is socially important (for example in relation to how laws are written, etc.).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

We don't define physics and we are part of it but we don't control physics in general and inside us with a magically/unprocedurally/uncausally/illogically preexisting personhood; personhood results from the physical brain (mainly its biochemistry, but not only [if you jump you slightly change the distances of neurons, and that isn't merely biochemically described because it includes motion [of biochemical origin but with an intermediary conversion of energy which causes acceleration]; jumping isn't a trivial change of the state of mind (it depends how strong is the jump, and how many were the jumps; jumping increases heart rate and hormonal levels [we cannot claim that only biochemistry affects the brain; and due to causopermeability we can claim that a high proportion of the mental substantiality of the brain [of what makes the mind from the brain] is biochemical, but that is by no means brain's only mental component; it's highly significant though). The specific brain calculations are physically affected.).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

ethics: ethological biases which are deemed beneficial in relation to something or someone[s] (If you live by yourself [totally alone] it's ethical not to suicide. If you live with others it's ethical not to steal, kill and/or rape them. Each social cohort [family, country, school, workplace, etc.] has different ethics (they usually agree on some basics, but ethics doesn't have a mathematical axiomatics). A band of murderers has the duty to kill, especially the designated people [that's ethical; not following the rules as a gang member is unethical and punishable]). Studying ethics is a separate field of study. Of course its connected with the free will issue, but if we immediately start from there we might not properly define it. We are supposed to fully define things step by step and not overstress notions. For example according to physicalism there is no free will, but a physicalist can promote creating beneficial biases to society (for example good education, including ethical).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

behavoural ethics (for various reasons) vs practical ethics vs ideological ethics: Is someone who doesn't like prisoners, jail beds and jail food and acts ethically genuinely ethical? Does it matter? Are people lazy to commit crimes or people who didn't think on the matter ethical?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Some (few, not all) religious people say: The explicitly personal God and/or the impersonal but implicitly personal/personhood-biased/personocratic/personocentric (about values, ethics and esthetics) Tao have a predetermined or a divinely flowing future, thus people shouldn't bother to change the world order because their actions will be in vain.

Some (few, not all) strong physicalistic determinists say: Everything is predetermined, I should go with the flow and I shouldn't overreact to change things for the better if it's very difficult.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Disentangling religious and physicalist determinism from the ethical irresponsibility bias and other behavioural misinterpretations

Is philosophy an excuse for stupidity? We are supposed to do the best we can. Even if the religious determinism and/or the physicalist determinism are correct, that doesn't mean that we have previous knowledge of future outcomes (we might guess few things). Thus finding an excuse to act stupidly, doesn't make it less stupid. Instead it makes our actions even more unwise.

Thus we should act normally and critically. If our definition of philosophy and ideology makes us act unwisely, we should find better definitions.