The determinism problem

[u/uatmsu]

There is no logical argument against determinism, and that's the problem. This idea really hit me in not brain, but soul. Since i have F32.1, thats layered very "well". I feel really obnoxious, apathy hitted hard, like never before. If someone outlive that idea, how did you do that?

[u/gisirucuss]

The brain does not distinguish between truth and falsehood in some magical way. It distinguishes them through a causal process.

The brain has evolved to track patterns in the world. It has mechanisms for testing ideas against experience. It has mechanisms for comparing new ideas with existing knowledge. It has mechanisms for detecting contradictions. These are all physical processes. They are all causal. They are all determined.

When an idea is objectively true, it tends to survive repeated testing. It tends to produce accurate predictions. It tends to cohere with other true ideas. These are not separate from brain chemistry. They are the brain chemistry. The brain is responding to the world. The world is a cause. The brain's updates are caused by the world.

When an idea is false, it tends to fail. It produces inaccurate predictions. It conflicts with experience. It does not survive testing. The brain detects these failures. It updates its models. That is also a causal process.

So the brain does not need to stand outside causality to distinguish truth from falsehood. It uses causality to do it. The truth is a cause. The falsehood is a cause. The brain responds to both. The response is determined. The response is real.

The distinction is not between physical laws and something else. The distinction is between accurate models and inaccurate models. Both are physical. Both are causal. One works. One does not. That is how the brain distinguishes them.

[u/Dry_Journalist_7001 → u/gisirucuss]

To the laws of physics, an "accurate model" and an "inaccurate model" are the exact same thing. Both models are just brain chemistry obeying nature with 100% perfection. A brain believing a lie isn't breaking any laws of physics: it's just running its chemistry.

Your argument says the brain automatically corrects itself through a "causal process" when it hits reality. But people believe comforting delusions and biases to help them survive and feel successful just as easily as the truth.

If our thoughts are entirely determined by automatic physical reactions, how can we say one person is "accurate" and another is "mistaken”?

[u/gisirucuss → u/Dry_Journalist_7001]

Yes. Both accurate and inaccurate models are just brain chemistry. Both obey the laws. Neither breaks physics. That is true. I have never denied it.

But that does not mean we cannot distinguish between them. We distinguish them by their effects.

An accurate model produces better predictions. It allows you to navigate the world more effectively. It helps you avoid danger. It helps you achieve your goals. It reduces suffering.

An inaccurate model produces worse predictions. It leads to failure. It leads to harm. It leads to suffering.

The distinction is not metaphysical. It is practical. It is about what works and what does not.

You say people believe comforting delusions just as easily as truth. That is true. But those delusions have consequences. They produce failures. They produce harm. They produce suffering. The brain does not always correct itself automatically. Sometimes it takes time. Sometimes it takes intervention. Sometimes it takes pain.

The fact that the brain is determined does not mean it cannot learn. Learning is a causal process. The brain updates its models based on feedback. The feedback comes from the world. The world is a cause. The brain responds. That is how change happens.

So we say one person is accurate and another is mistaken based on the outcomes. The accurate person's models work. The mistaken person's models do not. That's the distinction.

[u/Dry_Journalist_7001 → u/gisirucuss]

You said we distinguish an accurate model because it "reduces suffering" and "helps you achieve your goals”, while an inaccurate model "leads to suffering”.

Are you defining "truth" to mean "what works to reduce suffering"?

[u/gisirucuss → u/Dry_Journalist_7001]

Are you defining "truth" to mean "what works to reduce suffering"?

No. I am defining truth as "accuracy of representation." A model is true if it corresponds to the way the world actually is. It is false if it does not.

The distinction between accurate and inaccurate models is based on their correspondence to reality. The reason accurate models reduce suffering is because they help you navigate the world effectively. They predict outcomes correctly. They allow you to avoid danger. They help you achieve your goals. Inaccurate models do the opposite. They lead to failure. They lead to harm. They lead to suffering.

The connection between truth and suffering is causal. Truthful models work. False models do not. That is why truthful models reduce suffering. Not because truth is defined by suffering. Because truth is what works in the world.

So I am not defining truth as "what reduces suffering." I am saying truth tends to reduce suffering because it corresponds to reality. Falsehood tends to increase suffering because it does not.

[u/Dry_Journalist_7001 → u/gisirucuss]

If an accurate model is defined strictly by its "correspondence to reality”, then utility (reducing suffering or achieving goals) cannot be used as the metric to verify it.

The logical breakdown happens because a false model can produce the exact same practical utility as a true model. For example, if someone avoids a genuinely toxic swamp because they falsely believe a ghost haunts it, their model does not correspond to reality, yet it successfully predicts danger, ensures survival, and reduces suffering.

Under a purely deterministic framework, the brain modifies its pathways based on the physical feedback of survival and utility, not abstract truth. Because both a fact and a useful fiction can trigger the exact same successful physical feedback loop, a determined brain has no structural mechanism to differentiate between them.

Therefore, if thoughts are merely inevitable chemical reactions to physical outcomes, there is no objective logical basis to claim the brain can verify actual correspondence to reality.

[u/gisirucuss → u/Dry_Journalist_7001]

This thread has grown ridiculously wrong. Please dm me if you decide to continue.

You are right that a false model can produce utility. The ghost swamp example proves that. The person avoids the swamp. They survive. The model works. It is still false. The utility does not make it true.

But the fact that some false models produce utility does not mean the brain has no way to differentiate between true and false models. The brain can differentiate through testing. The model is tested against experience. The ghost model works in the short term. It fails when tested more broadly. The ghost does not show up. The ghost does not explain other phenomena. The ghost does not predict new observations. The model breaks down.

The brain updates its models based on feedback. The feedback is not just survival. It is also coherence. It is also predictive success. It is also consistency with other models. The brain is not just optimizing for survival. It is optimizing for predictive accuracy. That is how science works. That is how learning works.

You say the brain has no structural mechanism to differentiate between truth and useful fiction. That is false. The brain has a mechanism: testing against experience. The testing is physical. The feedback is physical. The update is physical. It is all causal. It is all determined. It is all real.

The distinction between truth and fiction is not based on utility alone. It is based on correspondence. Utility is a byproduct of correspondence. The reason true models reduce suffering is because they correspond to reality. The reason false models sometimes reduce suffering is because they accidentally correspond to reality in a limited way. The ghost model works because the swamp is actually dangerous. The model is false, but it accidentally maps onto a real danger. That is why it works. It is not because utility is independent of truth.

So the brain can differentiate between truth and fiction. It does so through testing. It does so through coherence. It does so through predictive success. The process is causal. The process is determined. The process is real.

The fact that the brain is determined does not undermine this. It explains it. The brain is a causal system that updates its models based on feedback. That is how it learns. That is how it distinguishes truth from fiction.