I used to have an iguana named Basil. Climbing onto your head is 100% a thing they do. Mine would sit in my hair for hours and I would periodically hand her some collard greens. She was amazing.
I'm glad the show just kind of blew through the basic framework of the determinism debate, since any debate of any length invariably ends at "it's impossible to know, and ultimately irrelevant anyway."
I mean.
"Omigod, the universe is deterministic! What should we do about that?" has kind of a glaring flaw.
Hard disagree. If determinism is true (and it probably is because free will would have to be the only thing in the universe that defies cause and effect) then saying that a person deserves eternal punishment because they did bad things or paradise because they did good things is unjust and akin to saying that people who are born in poverty deserve to stay in poverty and people who are born rich deserve to stay rich. Instead, steps should be taken so that everyone can be equally happy, since good people didn't actually make any choices that were deserving of special rewards because choice isn't real.
For example, instead of sending bad people to the Bad Place because they supposedly deserve it they could be sent to a place designed for making bad people good, just like what Michael and Janet have already done by manipulating events so that Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason can leave the environments that led to them becoming bad. As it is Michael and Janet are showing these four favoritism and not granting every other bad person the same chance.
The only reasons we don't do the same for people in real life is because 1) not everyone thinks determinism is real and that people should reap what they sow, 2) we don't know for sure how to make everyone turn out good because people are so complex and the world is so imperfect, and 3) shaming and punishing people for their bad actions can help prevent them from taking those actions in the future despite the facts that they didn't really choose their prior bad behavior and that it would have been better to have figured out how to prevent their bad behaviors.
To be fair to the show, it does reside in a universe that is 100 million billion percent a deterministic universe.
I'm not mad the show just handwaved away determinism, but I am somewhat disappointed. I had been wondering ever since Michael decided that Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason needed to be put into a new environment to become good if the show was leading into an examination of determinism.
I just think the fact that determinism absolutely punches the biggest hole in the afterlife they have designed and the fact these characters have sought to punch said hole it feels like a missed opportunity
Like back inseason 2 they should’ve presented that argument to the judge and the she could respond if that’s true then it’s also pre determined that I’m sending you to the bad place. Sorry, not sorry.
But it’s a weird concept to bring up and not explore the ramifications of in their universe
Or as veevee states above a fourth wall breaking meta joke could’ve worked there
I'm glad the show just kind of blew through the basic framework of the determinism debate, since any debate of any length invariably ends at "it's impossible to know, and ultimately irrelevant anyway."
I mean.
"Omigod, the universe is deterministic! What should we do about that?" has kind of a glaring flaw.
Hard disagree. If determinism is true (and it probably is because free will would have to be the only thing in the universe that defies cause and effect) then saying that a person deserves eternal punishment because they did bad things or paradise because they did good things is unjust and akin to saying that people who are born in poverty deserve to stay in poverty and people who are born rich deserve to stay rich. Instead, steps should be taken so that everyone can be equally happy, since good people didn't actually make any choices that were deserving of special rewards because choice isn't real.
For example, instead of sending bad people to the Bad Place because they supposedly deserve it they could be sent to a place designed for making bad people good, just like what Michael and Janet have already done by manipulating events so that Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason can leave the environments that led to them becoming bad. As it is Michael and Janet are showing these four favoritism and not granting every other bad person the same chance.
The only reasons we don't do the same for people in real life is because 1) not everyone thinks determinism is real and that people should reap what they sow, 2) we don't know for sure how to make everyone turn out good because people are so complex and the world is so imperfect, and 3) shaming and punishing people for their bad actions can help prevent them from taking those actions in the future despite the facts that they didn't really choose their prior bad behavior and that it would have been better to have figured out how to prevent their bad behaviors.
If determinism is true there is literally nothing you can do about it, by definition. You can't stop shaming people for their actions. Like, you literally can't. It's impossible.
Unless we're supposing that determinism governs the humans but not the angels and demons?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
If determinism is true there is literally nothing you can do about it, by definition. You can't stop shaming people for their actions. Like, you literally can't. It's impossible.
What? Why couldn't you stop shaming or punishing people for their actions? Determinism just means the human mind follows cause and effect, has certain internal rules and is affected by the environment it is within.
People really just want to all feel good all the time and sometimes think they have to do bad things to feel good. Figure out the best way to make everybody feel good and nobody will be doing bad things.
I'm glad the show just kind of blew through the basic framework of the determinism debate, since any debate of any length invariably ends at "it's impossible to know, and ultimately irrelevant anyway."
I mean.
"Omigod, the universe is deterministic! What should we do about that?" has kind of a glaring flaw.
Hard disagree. If determinism is true (and it probably is because free will would have to be the only thing in the universe that defies cause and effect) then saying that a person deserves eternal punishment because they did bad things or paradise because they did good things is unjust and akin to saying that people who are born in poverty deserve to stay in poverty and people who are born rich deserve to stay rich. Instead, steps should be taken so that everyone can be equally happy, since good people didn't actually make any choices that were deserving of special rewards because choice isn't real.
For example, instead of sending bad people to the Bad Place because they supposedly deserve it they could be sent to a place designed for making bad people good, just like what Michael and Janet have already done by manipulating events so that Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason can leave the environments that led to them becoming bad. As it is Michael and Janet are showing these four favoritism and not granting every other bad person the same chance.
The only reasons we don't do the same for people in real life is because 1) not everyone thinks determinism is real and that people should reap what they sow, 2) we don't know for sure how to make everyone turn out good because people are so complex and the world is so imperfect, and 3) shaming and punishing people for their bad actions can help prevent them from taking those actions in the future despite the facts that they didn't really choose their prior bad behavior and that it would have been better to have figured out how to prevent their bad behaviors.
If determinism is true there is literally nothing you can do about it, by definition. You can't stop shaming people for their actions. Like, you literally can't. It's impossible.
Unless we're supposing that determinism governs the humans but not the angels and demons?
I think this is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of what determinism means, or more importantly what other temporal words and concepts mean.
"You can't stop shaming people" isn't true, obviously. People are convinced to stop shaming others all the time. "Stop" doesn't mean "alter the immutable causal chain of events and the predetermined outcome with a supernatural acausal power of will." It means to alter the expected outcome, based on an imperfect knowledge of the future. Imperfect knowledge of the future, and really the very unknowability of the future, is itself a causal force. Introduce new knowledge (e.g. show shaming doesn't work) and behaviour is altered.
So yes, you can "stop" or "'change" or "decide" in our deterministic reality. It's just that language and ideas about potentiality don't mean what we often assume they mean (e.g. "randomness" usually just means "complex enough to make it impossible to trivially determine." A die roll or a card draw are perfectly deterministic, but that doesn't mean they aren't also random.). These concepts are about altering expected outcomes, not about altering the actual future.
Every time this conversation comes up I'm reminded of the chapter in Figments of Reality called: "We wanted to have a chapter on free will, but decided not to, so here it is."
I'm not impressed by the Good Place discussion of free will because I don't think it's well-grounded in contemporary thought. It's not even pop philosophy, just standard network TV humanism. Not a condemnation of the show, and it's more engaged with ethics, but not a good treatment of the material (e.g. compatibilism) or the show's complications (magic souls are real, and also time is all Jeremy Bearimy so causality is a lot more complicated)
For example, there are people who say we shouldn't show any sympathy to drug addicts because they chose to do drugs in the first place and continue to choose to take drugs. This despite evidence showing that drug use alters the brain.
For another example, take someone who has eaten themselves into extreme, mobility-hindering obesity. Should we shame them for continually making the wrong choice, or should we look to see if perhaps some peoples' brains react to food in a way similar to the way a drug addict's brain reacts to their own vice?
For a third example, if a woman in an abusive relationship is afraid to leave her abuser do we shame her and call her a coward because she chose to stay, or do we recognize that emotions heavily influence behavior?
To me, free will is a convenient excuse for people to shame others for their behavior without having to look into why people act the way they do, because it's easier to condemn people than understand them. Even people who do bad things have reasons why they do them rather than just plain being evil, and it would be best to figure out how to keep people from getting to that point rather than judging them after the fact.
I'm glad the show just kind of blew through the basic framework of the determinism debate, since any debate of any length invariably ends at "it's impossible to know, and ultimately irrelevant anyway."
I mean.
"Omigod, the universe is deterministic! What should we do about that?" has kind of a glaring flaw.
Hard disagree. If determinism is true (and it probably is because free will would have to be the only thing in the universe that defies cause and effect) then saying that a person deserves eternal punishment because they did bad things or paradise because they did good things is unjust and akin to saying that people who are born in poverty deserve to stay in poverty and people who are born rich deserve to stay rich. Instead, steps should be taken so that everyone can be equally happy, since good people didn't actually make any choices that were deserving of special rewards because choice isn't real.
For example, instead of sending bad people to the Bad Place because they supposedly deserve it they could be sent to a place designed for making bad people good, just like what Michael and Janet have already done by manipulating events so that Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason can leave the environments that led to them becoming bad. As it is Michael and Janet are showing these four favoritism and not granting every other bad person the same chance.
The only reasons we don't do the same for people in real life is because 1) not everyone thinks determinism is real and that people should reap what they sow, 2) we don't know for sure how to make everyone turn out good because people are so complex and the world is so imperfect, and 3) shaming and punishing people for their bad actions can help prevent them from taking those actions in the future despite the facts that they didn't really choose their prior bad behavior and that it would have been better to have figured out how to prevent their bad behaviors.
If determinism is true there is literally nothing you can do about it, by definition. You can't stop shaming people for their actions. Like, you literally can't. It's impossible.
Unless we're supposing that determinism governs the humans but not the angels and demons?
I think this is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of what determinism means, or more importantly what other temporal words and concepts mean.
"You can't stop shaming people" isn't true, obviously. People are convinced to stop shaming others all the time. "Stop" doesn't mean "alter the immutable causal chain of events and the predetermined outcome with a supernatural acausal power of will." It means to alter the expected outcome, based on an imperfect knowledge of the future. Imperfect knowledge of the future, and really the very unknowability of the future, is itself a causal force. Introduce new knowledge (e.g. show shaming doesn't work) and behaviour is altered.
So yes, you can "stop" or "'change" or "decide" in our deterministic reality. It's just that language and ideas about potentiality don't mean what we often assume they mean (e.g. "randomness" usually just means "complex enough to make it impossible to trivially determine." A die roll or a card draw are perfectly deterministic, but that doesn't mean they aren't also random.). These concepts are about altering expected outcomes, not about altering the actual future.
My understanding is that there are different levels of determinism, ranging from "biology and cause and effect impact human actions" to "a perfect knowledge of the current state of things allows you to unerringly predict the future." Basically a spectrum running from "you have perfect control over your actions" to "you have zero control over your actions."
In the context of The Good Place, i'm pretty sure they were talking about determinism of the "you have zero control over your actions" variety, since Michael was trying to convince Eleanor that determinism didn't hold by just finding one example of a time when she ever exerted free will. Since that's the flavor of determinism I assume they were discussing, that is the flavor I was talking about.
I'm not a determinist, and I of course don't believe in shaming people for having human failings. But if you remove free will from the equation, it cuts both ways.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
edited November 2018
I've always been partial to the argument that if determinism is true, then it's at such a nuanced, base level, dictated by so many incalculably complex factors that it's indistinguishable from free will in any meaningful way, so it doesn't matter.
minor incident on
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
Determinism is like pointing to a computer capable of plotting chess flawlessly and then describing the game as broken.
No one can actually do that, no one can know all the factors that could possibly render life deterministic and therefore ascribing behavior to it is an exercise in futility.
Unless you know the future, every single decision you ever make was set in stone before you were even born. Everything was always going to play out one way because unless you know the outcome in advance you can't deliberately deviate from it.
Also determinism only came up because Eleanor was trying to blame something else for her actual experience. Not that she actually believed in determinism.
On what I feel is an equally important note, what Canadian are they going to visit?
Calling it now with no reason other than I want it to be true, but Nathan Fillion.
Do you, in fact, have any builds in this shop at all?
On what I feel is an equally important note, what Canadian are they going to visit?
Calling it now with no reason other than I want it to be true, but Nathan Fillion.
It's probably Doug; the dude who got 72% (?) of the way there as far as figuring out the rating system.
On what I feel is an equally important note, what Canadian are they going to visit?
Calling it now with no reason other than I want it to be true, but Nathan Fillion.
It's probably Doug; the dude who got 72% (?) of the way there as far as figuring out the rating system.
92% of it correct, according to Michael in the pilot ep
On what I feel is an equally important note, what Canadian are they going to visit?
Calling it now with no reason other than I want it to be true, but Nathan Fillion.
It's probably Doug; the dude who got 72% (?) of the way there as far as figuring out the rating system.
92% of it correct, according to Michael in the pilot ep
But yeah, Doug Fawcett is my bet too.
I don't think so; they address the guy behind Fawcett's picture in the podcast pretty early on, and if I remember correctly, I think he is a writer friend of Mike Schur? Like, he's not actually an actor, he just looks like a Canadian stoner.
Edit: The wiki has the info! The character's name is Doug Forcett, who is portrayed by Noah Garfinkel, who is a friend of Joe Mande, a writer on the show. It's also in the first episode of the podcast (the podcast is real good).
On what I feel is an equally important note, what Canadian are they going to visit?
Calling it now with no reason other than I want it to be true, but Nathan Fillion.
Constable Benton Fraser.
+9
Options
SnicketysnickThe Greatest Hype Man inWesterosRegistered Userregular
The portrait in Michael's office was of the guy from back in the 70s, so they just have to cast some 60-something actor to be a current-day version of Doug Forcett.
IMO, just as all of the French automatically go to the bad place, all Canadians should automatically go to the Good Place. Even the Quebecois, which would be the most obvious evidence that the system is broken.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
The portrait in Michael's office was of the guy from back in the 70s, so they just have to cast some 60-something actor to be a current-day version of Doug Forcett.
I know he's only 57, but I have to think the best casting choice for a modern day Doug Forcett, in both the internal character of the show, the external qualities to portray the character of someone who was like that about that time, a reasonable enough physical resemblance, and arguably the most meta choice possible, would be...
Woody Harrelson.
And if he's running a basement bar in Boston, that'd be cake.
Hello everyone. Resident philosophy expert stopping in to say some stuff about determinism. Like @Evil Multifarious I was a little disappointed with the show's treatment of free will in this episode. Part of my disappointment is that it didn't do a very accurate or helpful job explaining the topic. Another part is that the show is almost always very excellent with the philosophy. The third part is that most people don't understand it but they think they do, and the show is reinforcing that misunderstanding, which means that in this case it's actually harming people rather than teaching them.
The basic issue is that, in philosophy, the issue isn't determinism vs. no determinism. The issue is whether determinism is true, and whether determinism is incompatible with free will.
Most philosophers think determinism is either true or close enough to true when it comes to humans that we don't need to bother with that question. The real question is whether determinism rules out free will.
Contrary to the impression you might get from the show, and certainly contrary to what people think before studying the topic, the answer is not "obviously yes determinism rules out free will." Perhaps surprisingly, a pretty healthy majority of philosophers think determinism does not rule out free will.
There are various arguments in support of this position, but broadly they take two forms. The first is that you can take most important aspects of free will and realize that they still exist even in the face of determinism. The second is that you can take some features of free will that aren't compatible with determinism and realize that actually they don't matter for free will.
I have a post over on reddit that explains the basics of free will and determinism if you want more detail. It gives a couple short examples of arguments to suggest that free will and determinism are perfectly compatible.
Even aside from the huge shit it took on philosophy, this episode was amazing. I love animals so the iguana crawling all over Eleanor was fucking aces. Not only did Jason get a penguin - he named it Blake! Presumably after Blake Bortles. I'm very excited that we're going to get to see what the demons get up to on Earth.
I wish Michael would have pointed out that her actions were no less determined in the living orld than in hell so why consider her actions while alive as somehow being her true self?
The poor refutation/inconsistency of Eleanor's arguments initially bugged me too, but once she admitted it was a defence mechanism rather than an actual argument in favour of determinism I was fine with the writing. She was putting up a front, rather than assembling a consistent world view.
Finally caught up on the thread, and I don't think this got posted yet -- there were some interesting names in the credits during the australian episodes:
Posts
Hard disagree. If determinism is true (and it probably is because free will would have to be the only thing in the universe that defies cause and effect) then saying that a person deserves eternal punishment because they did bad things or paradise because they did good things is unjust and akin to saying that people who are born in poverty deserve to stay in poverty and people who are born rich deserve to stay rich. Instead, steps should be taken so that everyone can be equally happy, since good people didn't actually make any choices that were deserving of special rewards because choice isn't real.
For example, instead of sending bad people to the Bad Place because they supposedly deserve it they could be sent to a place designed for making bad people good, just like what Michael and Janet have already done by manipulating events so that Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason can leave the environments that led to them becoming bad. As it is Michael and Janet are showing these four favoritism and not granting every other bad person the same chance.
The only reasons we don't do the same for people in real life is because 1) not everyone thinks determinism is real and that people should reap what they sow, 2) we don't know for sure how to make everyone turn out good because people are so complex and the world is so imperfect, and 3) shaming and punishing people for their bad actions can help prevent them from taking those actions in the future despite the facts that they didn't really choose their prior bad behavior and that it would have been better to have figured out how to prevent their bad behaviors.
I'm not mad the show just handwaved away determinism, but I am somewhat disappointed. I had been wondering ever since Michael decided that Eleanor, Chidi, Tahani, and Jason needed to be put into a new environment to become good if the show was leading into an examination of determinism.
Like back inseason 2 they should’ve presented that argument to the judge and the she could respond if that’s true then it’s also pre determined that I’m sending you to the bad place. Sorry, not sorry.
But it’s a weird concept to bring up and not explore the ramifications of in their universe
Or as veevee states above a fourth wall breaking meta joke could’ve worked there
His name was Blake!
Checkmate, assholes.
If determinism is true there is literally nothing you can do about it, by definition. You can't stop shaming people for their actions. Like, you literally can't. It's impossible.
Unless we're supposing that determinism governs the humans but not the angels and demons?
What? Why couldn't you stop shaming or punishing people for their actions? Determinism just means the human mind follows cause and effect, has certain internal rules and is affected by the environment it is within.
People really just want to all feel good all the time and sometimes think they have to do bad things to feel good. Figure out the best way to make everybody feel good and nobody will be doing bad things.
I think this is a common but fundamental misunderstanding of what determinism means, or more importantly what other temporal words and concepts mean.
"You can't stop shaming people" isn't true, obviously. People are convinced to stop shaming others all the time. "Stop" doesn't mean "alter the immutable causal chain of events and the predetermined outcome with a supernatural acausal power of will." It means to alter the expected outcome, based on an imperfect knowledge of the future. Imperfect knowledge of the future, and really the very unknowability of the future, is itself a causal force. Introduce new knowledge (e.g. show shaming doesn't work) and behaviour is altered.
So yes, you can "stop" or "'change" or "decide" in our deterministic reality. It's just that language and ideas about potentiality don't mean what we often assume they mean (e.g. "randomness" usually just means "complex enough to make it impossible to trivially determine." A die roll or a card draw are perfectly deterministic, but that doesn't mean they aren't also random.). These concepts are about altering expected outcomes, not about altering the actual future.
For another example, take someone who has eaten themselves into extreme, mobility-hindering obesity. Should we shame them for continually making the wrong choice, or should we look to see if perhaps some peoples' brains react to food in a way similar to the way a drug addict's brain reacts to their own vice?
For a third example, if a woman in an abusive relationship is afraid to leave her abuser do we shame her and call her a coward because she chose to stay, or do we recognize that emotions heavily influence behavior?
To me, free will is a convenient excuse for people to shame others for their behavior without having to look into why people act the way they do, because it's easier to condemn people than understand them. Even people who do bad things have reasons why they do them rather than just plain being evil, and it would be best to figure out how to keep people from getting to that point rather than judging them after the fact.
Oh. Philosophy discussion.
Wait a forking minute! This is the bad place.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Well this is a show partially about philosophy, isn't it?
but how can we be sure
My understanding is that there are different levels of determinism, ranging from "biology and cause and effect impact human actions" to "a perfect knowledge of the current state of things allows you to unerringly predict the future." Basically a spectrum running from "you have perfect control over your actions" to "you have zero control over your actions."
In the context of The Good Place, i'm pretty sure they were talking about determinism of the "you have zero control over your actions" variety, since Michael was trying to convince Eleanor that determinism didn't hold by just finding one example of a time when she ever exerted free will. Since that's the flavor of determinism I assume they were discussing, that is the flavor I was talking about.
I'm not a determinist, and I of course don't believe in shaming people for having human failings. But if you remove free will from the equation, it cuts both ways.
:bigfrown: x1000
No one can actually do that, no one can know all the factors that could possibly render life deterministic and therefore ascribing behavior to it is an exercise in futility.
Calling it now with no reason other than I want it to be true, but Nathan Fillion.
92% of it correct, according to Michael in the pilot ep
But yeah, Doug Fawcett is my bet too.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
I don't think so; they address the guy behind Fawcett's picture in the podcast pretty early on, and if I remember correctly, I think he is a writer friend of Mike Schur? Like, he's not actually an actor, he just looks like a Canadian stoner.
Edit: The wiki has the info! The character's name is Doug Forcett, who is portrayed by Noah Garfinkel, who is a friend of Joe Mande, a writer on the show. It's also in the first episode of the podcast (the podcast is real good).
Constable Benton Fraser.
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
I know he's only 57, but I have to think the best casting choice for a modern day Doug Forcett, in both the internal character of the show, the external qualities to portray the character of someone who was like that about that time, a reasonable enough physical resemblance, and arguably the most meta choice possible, would be...
Woody Harrelson.
And if he's running a basement bar in Boston, that'd be cake.
The basic issue is that, in philosophy, the issue isn't determinism vs. no determinism. The issue is whether determinism is true, and whether determinism is incompatible with free will.
Most philosophers think determinism is either true or close enough to true when it comes to humans that we don't need to bother with that question. The real question is whether determinism rules out free will.
Contrary to the impression you might get from the show, and certainly contrary to what people think before studying the topic, the answer is not "obviously yes determinism rules out free will." Perhaps surprisingly, a pretty healthy majority of philosophers think determinism does not rule out free will.
There are various arguments in support of this position, but broadly they take two forms. The first is that you can take most important aspects of free will and realize that they still exist even in the face of determinism. The second is that you can take some features of free will that aren't compatible with determinism and realize that actually they don't matter for free will.
I have a post over on reddit that explains the basics of free will and determinism if you want more detail. It gives a couple short examples of arguments to suggest that free will and determinism are perfectly compatible.
Even aside from the huge shit it took on philosophy, this episode was amazing. I love animals so the iguana crawling all over Eleanor was fucking aces. Not only did Jason get a penguin - he named it Blake! Presumably after Blake Bortles. I'm very excited that we're going to get to see what the demons get up to on Earth.