Determinism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:52 pm

Dan~ wrote:iambiguous probably sees the potential for disagreement, and applies that to the idea that things can't be known.
Facts were abstracted to the point of no return.
It's like jumping down a wide hole,
instead of just looking down the hole at a safe distance.


Well, let's just say that with any luck, you were never able to not post this and I was never able to not read it.

Otherwise, I might actually possess the freedom to make sense of it.

You know, given a particular context. :wink:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36084
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Dan~ » Sat Jun 20, 2020 8:09 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Dan~ wrote:iambiguous probably sees the potential for disagreement, and applies that to the idea that things can't be known.
Facts were abstracted to the point of no return.
It's like jumping down a wide hole,
instead of just looking down the hole at a safe distance.


Well, let's just say that with any luck, you were never able to not post this and I was never able to not read it.

Otherwise, I might actually possess the freedom to make sense of it.

You know, given a particular context. :wink:


So, you are willing to talk to me?

I wrote in my own writings, that good birth is based on luck. We don't control who we are born as. We don't say : "I want to be human."
Also i agree with muslim explanation of divine destiny.
If you are rich, don't get egotistical about it and loose humility. It didn't happen because of you.
if you are poor, try not to feel dispare, you didn't do something wrong and are not being punished.
I was lucky in some ways.
The next step after luck, is realizing nobility.
Lucky beings should share their excess. They will have an excess.
They share it to invest in the world.
Nobility is the step needed before human augmentation will end well.
Without nobility, technology destroys itself.

So, first luck, then nobility, then transcendence.

Also we should not hate sinners, for they are unlucky.
And being ill is a kind of punishment/hell on its own.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
Be ware dumbasses that think they are intellectuals.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10177
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 20, 2020 8:23 pm

Dan~ wrote:
So, you are willing to talk to me?


More to the point [on this thread]: do I really have a choice?

And, if I do, then, in regard to this...

Dan~ wrote:
I wrote in my own writings, that good birth is based on luck. We don't control who we are born as. We don't say : "I want to be human."
Also i agree with muslim explanation of divine destiny.
If you are rich, don't get egotistical about it and loose humility. It didn't happen because of you.
if you are poor, try not to feel dispare, you didn't do something wrong and are not being punished.
I was lucky in some ways.
The next step after luck, is realizing nobility.
Lucky beings should share their excess. They will have an excess.
They share it to invest in the world.
Nobility is the step needed before human augmentation will end well.
Without nobility, technology destroys itself.

So, first luck, then nobility, then transcendence.

Also we should not hate sinners, for they are unlucky.
And being ill is a kind of punishment/hell on its own.


...I would ask you to demonstrate why/how all rational men and women are obligated to think the same.

Then in regard to a particular context --- the Trump campaign rally noted above? --- I would ask you to explore the extent to which our individual reactions are rooted in dasein or in the most optimal assessment that serious philosophers are able to provide.

How, in your autonomous view, is luck, nobility and transcendence applicable to the Trump rally?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36084
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Dan~ » Sat Jun 20, 2020 8:46 pm

iambiguous wrote:...I would ask you to demonstrate why/how all rational men and women are obligated to think the same.


They are not obligated to think the same.
However, the truth is always true. And some truths are very obvious, too.
So in that way, a large percent of a group can potentially agree on certain things.

How, in your autonomous view, is luck, nobility and transcendence applicable to the Trump rally?

Trump is a part of a failing system.
He was lucky enough to get rich, but then he skipped in part the nobility part, so he doesn't want to improve the basis of humanity : future genetic engineering.
It only works when it is in the right hands.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
Be ware dumbasses that think they are intellectuals.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10177
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jun 20, 2020 8:52 pm

His hands are pretty well tied, he has only been hired for comic effect, to the hope less chagrin of most everybody else.

So compatibility has never connected the dots.

But in retrospect everything changes and comatibality can reverse the truth-in truth, by simply exchanging the necessary into the contingent possibility: thereby reversing the naturalistic fallacy
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6683
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Berkley Babes » Sat Jun 20, 2020 11:50 pm

When I think about free will, I can only see cause and effect. If I don't think about free will, I can only see choices to be made.

Everything changes under the microscope, when examined.

So, for me, it's both. When I ask myself how this could be, my only answer is God. God handles how.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: Everywheres In The Atmosfear

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:48 pm

Dan~ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:...I would ask you to demonstrate why/how all rational men and women are obligated to think the same.


They are not obligated to think the same.
However, the truth is always true. And some truths are very obvious, too.
So in that way, a large percent of a group can potentially agree on certain things.


So, in a world where human autonomy is presumed to exist, all you have to do is to insist that what you note above is true. Why? Because it is "the truth". Obviously?

That demonstrating Trump held a rally in Tulsa last night is interchangeable with demonstrating that the points raised in the speech are just another example of the truth always being true?

How, in your autonomous view, is luck, nobility and transcendence applicable to the Trump rally?


Dan~ wrote: Trump is a part of a failing system.
He was lucky enough to get rich, but then he skipped in part the nobility part, so he doesn't want to improve the basis of humanity : future genetic engineering.
It only works when it is in the right hands.


Again, assuming human autonomy, who gets to decide what success and failure are with regard to human social, political and economic interactions? Who gets decide when the truth is always true when those interactions result in fierce conflicts regarding good and bad behavior? How are such things as "nobility" and being in "the right hands" not basically just political prejudices rooted in dasein?

Then we move on to demonstrating that all of this unfolds in a unverse in which free will is compatible with determinism.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36084
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:51 pm

Berkley Babes wrote:When I think about free will, I can only see cause and effect. If I don't think about free will, I can only see choices to be made.

Everything changes under the microscope, when examined.

So, for me, it's both. When I ask myself how this could be, my only answer is God. God handles how.


That's original.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36084
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 21, 2020 7:55 pm

Berkley Babes wrote:When I think about free will, I can only see cause and effect. If I don't think about free will, I can only see choices to be made.

Everything changes under the microscope, when examined.

So, for me, it's both. When I ask myself how this could be, my only answer is God. God handles how.



Exactly: that scintilla of evidence nowadays they call miracles.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6683
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Dan~ » Mon Jun 22, 2020 7:58 am

iambiguous wrote:Again, assuming human autonomy, who gets to decide what success and failure are with regard to human social, political and economic interactions? Who gets decide when the truth is always true when those interactions result in fierce conflicts regarding good and bad behavior? How are such things as "nobility" and being in "the right hands" not basically just political prejudices rooted in dasein?

Then we move on to demonstrating that all of this unfolds in a unverse in which free will is compatible with determinism.


Some things are obvious.
Success and failure are usually obvious things.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
Be ware dumbasses that think they are intellectuals.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10177
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:47 pm

Dan~ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Again, assuming human autonomy, who gets to decide what success and failure are with regard to human social, political and economic interactions? Who gets decide when the truth is always true when those interactions result in fierce conflicts regarding good and bad behavior? How are such things as "nobility" and being in "the right hands" not basically just political prejudices rooted in dasein?

Then we move on to demonstrating that all of this unfolds in a unverse in which free will is compatible with determinism.


Some things are obvious.
Success and failure are usually obvious things.


Well, they are obvious either because we can freely think ourselves into believing this or because this discussion itself is merely a necessary manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

Same with success or failure.

But, given human autonomy, one person's material success can be seen by others as a moral failure.

Then what? Then what is "obvious", right?

For example, to you.

That then seen by me to be the embodiment of dasein.

Though by no means obviously. Let alone necessarily.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36084
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Dan~ » Mon Jun 22, 2020 10:52 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Dan~ wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Again, assuming human autonomy, who gets to decide what success and failure are with regard to human social, political and economic interactions? Who gets decide when the truth is always true when those interactions result in fierce conflicts regarding good and bad behavior? How are such things as "nobility" and being in "the right hands" not basically just political prejudices rooted in dasein?

Then we move on to demonstrating that all of this unfolds in a unverse in which free will is compatible with determinism.


Some things are obvious.
Success and failure are usually obvious things.


Well, they are obvious either because we can freely think ourselves into believing this or because this discussion itself is merely a necessary manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

Same with success or failure.

But, given human autonomy, one person's material success can be seen by others as a moral failure.

Then what? Then what is "obvious", right?

For example, to you.

That then seen by me to be the embodiment of dasein.

Though by no means obviously. Let alone necessarily.


Let's apply this to the world as we know it, then.

Would humanity be better off if everyone shared your style of thinking?

Well, they are obvious either because we can freely think ourselves into believing this or because this discussion itself is merely a necessary manifestation of a wholly determined universe.


Obvious as in : easy to sense. Like the sun. It is easy to sense.

But there are people who are senseless, too.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
Be ware dumbasses that think they are intellectuals.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10177
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 23, 2020 5:59 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Well, they are obvious either because we can freely think ourselves into believing this or because this discussion itself is merely a necessary manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

Same with success or failure.

But, given human autonomy, one person's material success can be seen by others as a moral failure.

Then what? Then what is "obvious", right?

For example, to you.

That then seen by me to be the embodiment of dasein.

Though by no means obviously. Let alone necessarily.


Dan~ wrote: Let's apply this to the world as we know it, then.

Would humanity be better off if everyone shared your style of thinking?


Here we clearly approach philosophy differently. My own understanding of the serious philosopher is of someone intent on understanding human interactions not in terms of what makes them "better off" but the extent to which the arguments they pose in grappling with the human condition reflect a more or less reasonable assessment.

My own assessment revolves around the points I raise in my signature threads --- given some measure of human volition. They are either more or less reasonable than the assessments of those who do in fact feel better off in believing what they do.

All we can then do is to explore each other's assumptions by examining them in particular contexts. And, given the nature of this thread, by assuming that the assessments are derived autonomously, of our own free will.

Well, they are obvious either because we can freely think ourselves into believing this or because this discussion itself is merely a necessary manifestation of a wholly determined universe.


Dan~ wrote: Obvious as in : easy to sense. Like the sun. It is easy to sense.

But there are people who are senseless, too.


What on earth does this have to do with the point I raise about compatibilism above? Let's get back to that.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36084
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 01, 2020 5:37 pm

"An Argument For Compatibilism"
Jason Streitfeld
from the Specter of Reason website

First, we need a working definition of "free will."


On the contrary, what makes this discussion and debate particularly tricky is that we must first start out with the assumption that any working definition we arrive at is one in which we were free to have chosen another one instead. Right from the beginning we are stuck. So, compelled or not, here we go.

For example:

One philosophically respectable way of defining it is as the ability of a rational agent to choose from among a variety of options in such a way as to satisfy the requirements for moral responsibility. In other words, the extent that a person has free will is the extent to which they are morally responsible for their actions, where moral responsibility is predicated on their ability to make choices. This is not the only possible definition, but it seems flexible enough to fit with everyday intuitions about free will. For that reason, I will adopt it for now. If it needs to be altered, so be it.


What if this philosophically respectable way of defining it is the only possible way that one ever could have defined it? And then around and around we -- everyone -- goes.

Then the part that peacegirl seemed to focus in on: "...the extent that a person has free will is the extent to which they are morally responsible for their actions, where moral responsibility is predicated on their ability to make choices."

The fact that, unlike rocks and other mindless matter, we actually do choose. And, thus, moral responsibility rests entirely on that. Like, say, intuitions themselves are something that rocks don't have and so the matter comprising minds/brains that produce them is qualitatively different from all other matter.

And it surely is that. But if all the consequences/effects that our minds/brains precipitate is also wholly in sync with -- caused by -- the laws of matter that govern rocks, how is responsibility itself not just another manifestation of the only possible reality?

I'm always willing to acknowledge that I'm not thinking this through correctly, if the compatibilists are willing to acknowledge that they were only ever able to think it through as they do.

Then what?

The compatibilist position, therefore, is this: A deterministic universe can contain rational agents which are capable of making choices among a variety of options and therefore carry a burden of moral responsibility. The incompatibilist position is that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.


I'm sorry, but given the manner in which I construe a wholly determined universe, human "rationality" produces a man or a woman that like the rock unfolds into the only possible future. Here only the existence of a God, the God allows me to imagine an entity able to create material objects -- us -- in possession of whatever "free will" actually is. And even here there's the problem [for me] of those who insist that their own God is omniscient. How is that squared with human autonomy?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36084
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users