Determinism

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jul 05, 2019 8:19 pm

surreptitious75 wrote: Human beings dont always think logically - sometimes they think emotionally - and that is when there will be differences of opinion


Emotions however would be but another inherent manifestation of the human brain wholly in sync with the laws of nature. They merely make the mystery of "mind" all that much more profound.

In other words, we feel no less wholly in tandem with nature than we think.

And minds think only what they are compelled to think. So, everything that they think must be logical in the sense that no one can think other than the manner in which nature compels them to.

So, it's not a question of whether it is logical for me to insist you assert something to be true, but that in a determined universe I could not not have asserted that myself.

surreptitious75 wrote: Even when something can be objectively demonstrated it doesnt automatically follow that everyone will accept it without question


True. But it is one thing to note in this exchange that "what happens within reality has no bearing on the actual existence of reality", and another thing altogether for you to demonstrate the meaning of this as it pertain to something that you choose to do "in reality" such that it then has no bearing on the actual existence of reality. What on earth does that mean?

surreptitious75 wrote: And free will / determinism isnt even something that can be demonstrated with sufficient rigour so opinions are therefore inevitable


I agree. In fact, that's my point. What makes most folks uncomfortable is that when they do get down to seriously grappling with the stuff that philosophers and scientists say about free will and determinism, they begin recognize that they may well go to the grave never actually being certain that "I" is [at least in part] autonomous.

Sure, some take their own existential leaps to one or another argument, to one or another conclusion. But those on the "other side" have their own sets of conflicting assumptions right?

My point is that while there may well be an optimal argument that pins it down definitively going all the way back to, in turn, a definitive explanation for existence itself, I have not myself come across it.

Or, sure, perhaps I have [here for example] but I was not capable of grasping it. That's apllicable to all of us.

But, really, if there was a conclusion reached by philosophers and scientists that did pin down once and for all whether "I" is free or not, wouldn't it be blasting out of every media orifice?

surreptitious75 wrote: Any genuine free will choice that anyone has to make will be entirely subjective based upon their own individual assessment of the particular situation

Even though human beings can think alike each one ultimately comes to decisions by themselves as they are the final arbiter of what choices they make


Yeah, except that, given some measure of human autonomy, there are countless human interactions that are clearly embedded in an either/or world in which we are able to clearly demonstrate that some things and some relationships are in fact true objectively for all of us.

Barring sim world or dream world or matrix realities. Or the role any actual existing God might play in it all.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:46 am

surreptitious75 wrote:Reality has precisely zero interest because at its most fundamental level it is physical not biological
Physical systems pre date biolgical life forms by ten billion years so its not even a matter of opinion


Yet more examples of things you assert to be true that in my view are not connected in any substantive manner to particular contexts in which behaviors that we choose might be examined given whatever it is that you mean by "[r]eality...at its most fundamental level...is physical not biological".

How is that related existentially [out in the world of human interactions] to the conflicting assessments of human autonomy?

iambiguous wrote:
how is this ...

"What happens within reality has no bearing on the actual existence of reality"

... not an assertion


surreptitious75 wrote:Because it is an ever changing system in a constant state of motion but is still reality regardless of anything else


I'm presuming that, in terms of the behaviors that you choose from day to day, this has a meaning for you.

But damned if I can imagine how you connect the dots here.

On the other hand, if one does believe that the laws of matter are entirely applicable to the human brain, then the ever changing system [including human interactions], might be construed as the one and only reality there could ever be.

surreptitious75 wrote:It isnt an assertion as nothing in existence can consistently remain perfectly still because that isnt a viable state


But that is just another assertion about reality. This because of that. But the relationship between the two is encompassed only in a world of words.

You don't provide us with examples of experiments or experiences or predictions that can be made and then tested in examining the actual choices that we make.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:07 pm

More from our tireless wordmeister...

The idea of free-will is and will always be unresolved, because whatever argument is presented the other side will claim that it was preordained - Christians will claim it was god, and that without god there is no 'truth' and no 'reason'.


The idea of free will. And that's always his point. Ideas are ever and always a bundle of words that define and defend other words.

And here he uses words to "prove" that the determinists [religious or secular] are wrong to claim that human interactions are preordained by the laws of matter. All they really do is trick us into believing it is by insisting it's determinism all the way down.

Instead, his own autonomous brain is presumed to be in possession of the ultimate "will to power". He is able to grasp nature itself. His own rendition of genes and memes trumps any and all renditions from others.

How does he demonstrate this?

Well, up in the clouds of abstraction. He invariably wallows in the sort of "general description" arguments and assessments that make his ilk so utterly irrelevant regarding how all of this scholastic, academic stuff plays out in the world that we actually live in.

So, how does accomplish that? Of course: he merely "argues" it to be true.

I place myself outside the either/or spectrum of absolutism, in agreement with my principle that the absolute is absent and only a human construct, i.e, an abstraction, an idea, an ideal, existing in a vague obscure theoretical form in the human brain.
There is, and there will never be, an immutable, indivisible, singularity, except as a human idea/ideal.
Therefore, freedom is not absolute, nor is will a reference to an absolute.


I challenge anyone here to reconfigure this particularly godawful intellectual contraption into an argument that bares at least some resemblance to the actual choices that flesh and blood human beings make in to course of interacting with others from day to day.

On this thread, however, it's not a question of whether freedom is absolute, but whether it can finally be demonstrated once and for all that the human brain allows for actual freedom at all.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:52 pm

I place myself outside the either/or spectrum of absolutism, in agreement with my principle that the absolute is absent and only a human construct, i.e, an abstraction, an idea, an ideal, existing in a vague obscure theoretical form in the human brain. There is, and there will never be, an immutable, indivisible, singularity, except as a human idea/ideal. Therefore, freedom is not absolute, nor is will a reference to an absolute.


^ a great example of one of the many ways philosophers use the word 'absolute' in abstract statements which can demonstrate nothing, and certainly don't disqualify the meaning of 'absolute' in the many ways we use the word unphilosophically.

ever read the wiki article on: the philosophical meaning of the word 'absolute'? these knuckleheads can't even agree with each other... neither the philosophers arguing for, or against it. so if there is clearly a problem with what this word means, why can't they agree on what that problem is? maybe because there is no problem?

"Philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes, and they are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer questions in the way science does. This tendency is the real source of metaphysics, and leads the philosopher into complete darkness." - wittgenstein

okay, let's take for granted what's said in that quote above. would i be wrong to say it is absolutely the case that things are changeable, divisible, and pluralistic? such a use of the word 'absolute' would not be nonsensical, and nothing has changed about its meaning... only the things that are meant with its use. the question then is not 'is the concept of 'absolute' meaningless', but rather 'where can the word be used meaningfully as a matter of fact, and without any conceptual difficulty.'

'this cake is absolutely delicious!'

philosopher: 'stop! not only is that cake changing as you chew it, but the ionized potassium particles that cause the dendrites to fire, creating the sensation of 'good taste', are also undergoing entropic change, so the resulting qualia of 'good taste' isn't the same as it was a moment ago. in fact, the cake is now not absolutely delicious, and you're an insufferable liar! and that's not to mention the fact that because it's logically possible for the cake to taste better than it does, it can't ever be absolutely delicious, you imbecile!'

'but i... i was just enjoying the cake, man. jesus christ.'

"The essential thing about metaphysics is that it blurs the distinction between factual and conceptual investigations." - wittgenstein

and yet if you approach a philosopher with this insight, he'll charge you with playing word-games. lol! unbeknownst to him, he is so completely submerged in a word-game that he is unable to recognize anything but word-games.
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:34 pm

A Compatibilism / Incompatibilism Transformation
By Trick Slattery
From the "Breaking the Free Will Illusion" web site

Greedy reductionism, identified by Daniel Dennett, in his 1995 book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, is a kind of erroneous reductionism. Whereas “good” reductionism means explaining a thing in terms of what it reduces to (for example, its parts and their interactions), greedy reductionism occurs when “in their eagerness for a bargain, in their zeal to explain too much too fast, scientists and philosophers … underestimate the complexities, trying to skip whole layers or levels of theory in their rush to fasten everything securely and neatly to the foundation.”


This is just an example of how far down these discussions can go in introducing complex elements into the debate that can only really be understood to the extent that everyone is in sync regarding what the words themselves mean.

To date no one is able to bring a good reductionist and a greedy reductionist into the lab, perform a set of experiments with/on them, and demonstrate why one rather than the other is closer to the whole truth regarding determinism and free will.

Besides, why can't it simply be argued that whatever you consider yourself to be here in regard to "reductionism", it is only that which nature compelled your brain matter to espouse?

If everything does reduce down to brain matter wholly in sync with the inexorable march of nature into a necessary future nothing noted in discussions like this changes that.

Using the terminology of “cranes” (legitimate, mechanistic explanations) and “skyhooks” (essentially, fake—e.g. supernaturalistic—explanations) built up earlier in the chapter, Dennett recapitulates his initial definition of the term in the chapter summary on p. 83: “Good reductionists suppose that all Design can be explained without skyhooks; greedy reductionists suppose it can all be explained without cranes.”


Thus "cranes" and "skyhooks" were "destined" to become a part of our universe going all the way back to whatever set in motion the laws of matter themselves.

We just [still] have no idea what the hell that could possibly have been.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:28 pm

This is just an example of how far down these discussions can go in introducing complex elements into the debate that can only really be understood to the extent that everyone is in sync regarding what the words themselves mean.


mm-hm. the further you stray from a rudimentary language into philosophy, the greater is the demand that you structure a logically perfect language to avoid this very problem. the analytical philosophers and logical positivists tried this by identifying axiomatic sets of atomic propositions (i have no idea what that means but i kinda do) from which all complex propositions are built. they failed. well wittgenstein failed, revoked his own tractatus, and replaced it with the theory of language games. now check this out. if, and this is a very big IF, language cannot be reducible to, and founded on, a set of stable and unconditional rules, philosophy cannot produce a body of doctrine, and can only be an activity.

'i distrust all systematizers. the will to a system is a lack of integrity (to integrate)' - N

in addition to this rather inconvenient fact for patrons of the sesquipedalian arts, they've got derrida's concept of 'deferral' to contend with now, too. not to mention the metaphorical origins of the logocentric concepts in the philosophical discourse (i have no idea what that means, either).

needless to say philosophy is in a bad way today, hombre. it's been on its last leg for like a hundred years now, and still the last two generations kept pumping out philosophers like there was anything left to be said. nothing new has been said though... and worse, what was said badly by philosopher of old was said even worse by philosophers of new. yeah i know. it doesn't sound possible, but it happened, and is still happening at a forum near you.

there's only one kind of sage who has remained steadfast in this swirling maelstrom of nonsense, biggs, and that's the epistemological nihilist. *fist bump*
promethean75
Thinker
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:12 pm

separate morality from free will
by Phil Goetz
at the lesswrong website

For morality to be about oughtness, so that we are able to reason about values, we need to divorce it completely from free will. Free will is still an interesting and possibly important problem. But we shouldn't mix it in together with the already-difficult-enough problem of what actions and values are moral.


This sort of thinking continues to baffle me. In order to confront "the already-difficult-enough problem of what actions and values are moral", we would first have to determine if the confrontation itself is embedded in at least some measure of autonomy. Otherwise we will never really know if that which we do "choose" to confront is not only that which we were never able not to choose to confront.

So, I might suggest here that we can only take a subjective leap to autonomy. But: never really knowing if I was never able not to suggest that. Why? Because what I think is subjective here is but another necessary component of the objective reality embedded ever and always in matter unfolding only as it ever can and must and does.

First and foremost, I need a way to determine if "I" have any capacity to choose freely. Otherwise, I have no way in which to be certain that this very post is not but another inherent component of the very fabric of reality itself.

Kant's argument is worse, as it takes a nonsensical detour from morality, through rationality, back to free will.


But only to the extent that it can be determined definitively that, of his own volition, Kant might have come to a different conclusion can we determine if Goetz in turn might have opted freely to argue the opposite.

This is the preferred theory under, um, Goetz's Cognitive Razor: Prefer the explanation for someone's behavior that supposes the least internal complexity of them.


Again, as though even our reaction to this may not be the only reaction that nature accords us.

Then it's just going around and around in circles depending on which set of assumptions you either were or were not free to choose.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:06 pm

"Defending Free Will & The Self"
Frank S. Robinson in Philosophy Now magazine

As the title Freedom Evolves suggests, Dennett maintains that a conscious self with free will/moral agency evolved. He says that for nearly all animals that have ever existed, as long as the right behavior was forthcoming, there was no need for this behaviour “to be experienced by any thing or anybody.” However, as the environment and behavioral challenges grow more complex, an extra layer of cognition, especially the ability to consider alternative actions, becomes very advantageous. So the capacity for conscious deliberation evolved in humans, and to a lesser degree in a few other animals.


So, the human brain evolves to be in sync with what matter had already evolved into before. But how to explain this "extra layer of cognition" going all the way back to the time when the universe is described by the folks at CERN by noting that...

"It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas."

So, in a determined universe, we go from matter that is just electrons trapped in orbits around nuclei, to atoms, to mostly hydrogen and helium, to clouds of gas, to stars, to super novas exploding and producing all of the heavier elements that managed to become living matter that has evolved on planet earth into a species compelled to have this extra layer of cognition.

And this extra layer now includes a human psychology that, in having the capacity to choose among alternatives, is also able to delude itself into thinking that it can do this of its own free will.

What's wrong with this picture? Or, more to the point, how do we demonstrate what's right with it? Other than in the manner in which over time nature compels us to. If nature doesn't compel us to destroy ourselves first. Or if nature doesn't compel one or another aggregation of mindless matter to commence the next "extinction event" here on earth. One that this time includes us.

Freedom evolves. That's a good way to put it. We just don't know if it was ever able not to evolve as it did. Or to evolve as it did because we had an actual say in in choosing the direction.

A big brain is actually a mixed blessing, with a lot of disadvantages. One is the difficulty of birthing large-headed babies. We compensated with a shortened gestation time, but that resulted in human infants being more fragile and helpless than nature’s norm. Also, a big brain sucks up a lot of energy – a real nutritional challenge. Our invention of cooking to help meet that challenge was a crucial step forward for humanity. Furthermore, our kind of mind is hard to create. We ourselves haven’t (yet) been able to reverse-engineer it. So it was not so inevitable that the ‘blind watchmaker’ evolutionary processes would stumble upon deliberation.


But: Sans God there would be no advantages or disadvantages in the evolution of matter. That would imply some manifestation of teleology. Matter evolving one way rather than another in order to achieve some purpose or a goal.

From my frame of mind, it seems that compatibilism was compelled by nature [re human psychology] because this extra layer of cognition allows "I" to make that crucial peacegirlian distinction between participating in the evolution of matter in a way that mindless matters [like dominoes] cannot. Even though nothing at all could or would ever be other than what it must be.

After all, it's not like Mother Nature actually does exist as an entity pondering the advantages and disadvantages of a big brain and then freely opting herself to choose the one we've got.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:40 pm

The uncertainty of any divisive ness implies that quantum time considers events as signals rather than measurable sign posts.

The subjective manifestation of this cam not enter into a cosmological certainty, as, discussed above while Peacegirl was still involved in the discussion of the present moment.
Any positivist addirmatio negating this ultimate constructed object therefore, does not predicate an intentional pre-created objective, without compatibility with the transcended reality which has been subscribed by philosophers of all ages.

That is to say, a big brain does prove little, since huge elephantine brains cam not evolve by virtue of their size.
Rather the schematic points to miniaturization toward more and more inclusive content in less and less space, sans the time it takes.

The necessity to jump out of this loop is only a pleasant to those who believe an exclusive quantitative substance.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4940
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:03 pm

iambiguous wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Reality has precisely zero interest because at its most fundamental level it is physical not biological
Physical systems pre date biolgical life forms by ten billion years so its not even a matter of opinion

Yet more examples of things you assert to be true that in my view are not connected in any substantive manner to particular contexts in which
behaviors that we choose might be examined given whatever it is that you mean by reality ... at its most fundamental level ... is physical not biological

How is that related existentially [ out in the world of human interactions ] to the conflicting assessments of human autonomy ? ... not an assertion

At the smallest level known to exist - the quantum - there are zero minds and the world of human interaction simply does not exist in any shape or form
But without the quantum world the world you and I and everyone else experiences could not exist as everything is ultimately dependant upon that world
You may not be at all interested in that world when contemplating the nature of human interaction but you cannot deny the causal link between the two
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:28 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:At the smallest level known to exist - the quantum - there are zero minds and the world of human interaction simply does not exist in any shape or form
But without the quantum world the world you and I and everyone else experiences could not exist as everything is ultimately dependant upon that world
You may not be at all interested in that world when contemplating the nature of human interaction but you cannot deny the causal link between the two


Why would anyone deny it? I must be missing your point.

From the tiniest bit of quantum matter to the reality that encompasses "all there is" in what may well turn out to be a multiverse, there are either causal relationships wholly in sync with the laws of matter or there are not.

And, as well, on top of that profoundly enigmatic relationship is the part where the matter here...

"It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms. These were mainly helium and hydrogen, which are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe. 1.6 million years later, gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas."

...evolved into living matter that, over billions of years, evolved into human minds able to discuss it as/in the embodiment of "I"!

From zero minds to this exchange. And how it all became possible going back to a complete understanding of existence itself. And then going forward to how those of own species thousands of years into the future will clearly be more informed than we are now.

But: informed autonomously?

Will that finally be resolved once and for all?

And what does it mean to resolve anything at all in a wholly determined universe?
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:03 pm

More from our Mr. Abstractionist.
By way [of course] of Mr. Assumptionist.

Choice is what differentiates the living f[ro]m the non-living, and the higher from the lower.
Awareness determines the amount of options a living organism perceives.
Power determines how may of the options perceives the organism can choose.


In other words, in any and all contexts that any and all of us might find ourselves in, this is true because...he says so?

Then let him focus in on one context in particular. Let him describe for us how power unfolds between two conflicted minds that he is, in turn, able to demonstrate are wholly aware of their options as autonomous beings.

Instead of just presuming [in a world of words] that this is the case.

Indeed, how fascinating it might be to follow an exchange between him and peacegirl in regards to how in fact "choice"/choice actually does play out in regard to human interactions.

Therefore, freedom increases in accordance to awareness and power.
Only a higher organism can mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli.


Therefore, if, compelled or not, you concur with the definition and the meaning that he gives to the words he "chooses"/chooses in this particular intellectual contraption, it's all settled.

But, again, we will need an actual context in which to explore what makes one of us a "higher organism" in regard to whatever on earth it means for an entity to "mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli."
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:45 pm

More from, well, you know...

There are two types of determinists, corresponding to nihilism and to realism, as psychological tendencies.


Yet another assertion regarding determinism that refuses to acknowledge the fact that he has yet to demonstrate that this assertion in and of itself is not but a necessary manifestation of "natural law".

In other words, he merely makes the assumption that his own general description assertions here are the product of his free will. A free will predicated in turn on the assumption that it is far, far superior to the free will of all those who refuse to toe his own genes-all-the-way-down line.

And how ironic is that?

It's genes, you see, until it comes to his own particular "I". Then somehow there is some mysterious "phenomenon" unfolding in his own brain that allows him to reconfigure the laws of matter autonomously into an actual entity able to "transcend" them. Willfully as it were.

And in a matter that his own will to power makes him one of the...ubermen?

Just don't ask him to prove this empirically...such that all rational men and women are obligated to share his point of view. Well, other than in the manner in which the laws of nature compel everything that we think, feel, say and do.

You know, if that's true.

In no way, shape or form, however, does he offer us an argument that is able to be tested. An argument able to be confirmed neurologically, chemically, scientifically.

And then going back to that which I doubt he considers at all: the relationship between what he thinks he knows here and now and all that there is to be known [ontolgically, teleologically] about existence itself.

One claims that all is determined in past, but that all future is also predetermined by it, making the present an inevitable process they can only passively observe happening.
The causal chain manifesting as presence making the future an inevitability the present cannot change.


Again, the point isn't what one claims about the past, present and future, but the extent to which one can demonstrate that one's claim is verifiable. And a claim not able to be falsified.

Other than as encompassed in an argument -- an intellectual contraption -- such that verification revolves around the definition and meaning that one gives to the words used in the argument itself. The argument here being a particular understanding of determinism.

And in which falsification revolves around insisting that his argument is wrong because another's definitions and meanings constitute a truer understanding of the matter.

The other claims that all is determined in past - interaction of order chaos - and that this past is manifested as presence, but the future is not predetermined but is in the process of being determined in the present by those who are aware of their presence.


And who could that possibly be other than God Himself? Awareness here being embodied in omniscience. But what of mere mortals? What can they be aware of regarding the future? And how is it to be determined that their awareness of being aware of anything at all is not as necessary in their waking hours as it clearly seems to be in their dreams?

The brain as matter embodied in the laws of nature creates our dreamscapes. But: does it stop there?

I'm at least willing to acknowledge that "I" have no capacity to know this for sure.

But then I'm not an objectivist.

The will is not a passive agency, watching existence occur, but a dynamic participant, contributing, in the present, to what has yet to be determined, in the future.

A conscious organism is a participant, in the present, as presence, in what is being determined - a participating and contributing agency - a presence - not a passive observer (victim).


See how it works? This is merely asserted to be the case. Where is the substantive evidence to actually back it up?

In fact, one suspects that his only recourse here [as with mine and probably yours] is to Google those folks who are in fact exploring this experimentally, scientifically, phenomenologically etc., and extracting the arguments most in sync with his own particular subjective prejudice.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:39 pm

Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

Choice is what differentiates the living f[ro]m the non-living, and the higher from the lower.
Awareness determines the amount of options a living organism perceives.
Power determines how may of the options perceives the organism can choose.
Seems clearly true.
Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

Therefore, freedom increases in accordance to awareness and power.
Only a higher organism can mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli.
Sure. There would be greater freedom to act.

Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

One claims that all is determined in past, but that all future is also predetermined by it, making the present an inevitable process they can only passively observe happening.
The causal chain manifesting as presence making the future an inevitability the present cannot change.
Some people definitely see it that way.
Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

The other claims that all is determined in past - interaction of order chaos - and that this past is manifested as presence, but the future is not predetermined but is in the process of being determined in the present by those who are aware of their presence.
Yes. It makes sense to distinguish past, present and future. It's more useful than seeing then as essentially the same. Past actions are fixed and unchangeable but nothing is yet fixed about the future.
Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

The will is not a passive agency, watching existence occur, but a dynamic participant, contributing, in the present, to what has yet to be determined, in the future.

A conscious organism is a participant, in the present, as presence, in what is being determined - a participating and contributing agency - a presence - not a passive observer (victim).
Yes. That's the difference between a person and a rock.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11187
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:28 pm

phyllo wrote:
Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

Choice is what differentiates the living f[ro]m the non-living, and the higher from the lower.
Awareness determines the amount of options a living organism perceives.
Power determines how may of the options perceives the organism can choose.
Seems clearly true.


Yes, but what of my own reaction to that:

In other words, in any and all contexts that any and all of us might find ourselves in, this is true because...he says so?

Then let him focus in on one context in particular. Let him describe for us how power unfolds between two conflicted minds that he is, in turn, able to demonstrate are wholly aware of their options as autonomous beings.

Instead of just presuming [in a world of words] that this is the case.


Or are we to presume that because you presume that you possess the autonomy to profess that his point seems clearly to be true that makes it so.

Because you say so?

Why don't you provide us with a context in which to explore these general descriptions.

Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

Therefore, freedom increases in accordance to awareness and power.
Only a higher organism can mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli.


phyllo wrote: Sure. There would be greater freedom to act.


Yes, presuming that you are able to provide us with a definitive argument that establishes beyond all doubt that this freedom to act is not in fact merely a manifestation of the psychological illusion of autonomy built into human consciousness built into the human brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Also, as I noted above:

Therefore, if, compelled or not, you concur with the definition and the meaning that he gives to the words he "chooses"/chooses in this particular intellectual contraption, it's all settled.

But, again, we will need an actual context in which to explore what makes one of us a "higher organism" in regard to whatever on earth it means for an entity to "mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli."


Why don't you take a stab at what this might mean out in the world of actual human interactions.

Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

One claims that all is determined in past, but that all future is also predetermined by it, making the present an inevitable process they can only passively observe happening.
The causal chain manifesting as presence making the future an inevitability the present cannot change.


phyllo wrote: Some people definitely see it that way.


Yes, but as I noted above:

Again, the point isn't what one claims about the past, present and future, but the extent to which one can demonstrate that one's claim is verifiable. And a claim not able to be falsified.

Other than as encompassed in an argument -- an intellectual contraption -- such that verification revolves around the definition and meaning that one gives to the words used in the argument itself. The argument here being a particular understanding of determinism.

And in which falsification revolves around insisting that his argument is wrong because another's definitions and meanings constitute a truer understanding of the matter.


All I can come back to here is this: Why don't you and I bring this down to earth?

Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

The other claims that all is determined in past - interaction of order chaos - and that this past is manifested as presence, but the future is not predetermined but is in the process of being determined in the present by those who are aware of their presence.


phyllo wrote: Yes. It makes sense to distinguish past, present and future. It's more useful than seeing then as essentially the same. Past actions are fixed and unchangeable but nothing is yet fixed about the future.


Okay, now react to the point I made above in regard to this:

And who could that possibly be other than God Himself? Awareness here being embodied in omniscience. But what of mere mortals? What can they be aware of regarding the future? And how is it to be determined that their awareness of being aware of anything at all is not as necessary in their waking hours as it clearly seems to be in their dreams?

The brain as matter embodied in the laws of nature creates our dreamscapes. But: does it stop there?

I'm at least willing to acknowledge that "I" have no capacity to know this for sure.

But then I'm not an objectivist.


Of course, his frame of mind here is embeded in a No God world. A world where the ubermen become the closest thing to God. Naturally as it were.

Perceptive Gentleman wrote :

The will is not a passive agency, watching existence occur, but a dynamic participant, contributing, in the present, to what has yet to be determined, in the future.

A conscious organism is a participant, in the present, as presence, in what is being determined - a participating and contributing agency - a presence - not a passive observer (victim).


phyllo wrote: Yes. That's the difference between a person and a rock.


Not only that but rocks don't dream. And neither do dominoes, right? They don't even get to "choose". Then we are back to the manner in which you and peacegirl and our perceptive gentleman are either able to or not able to demonstrate that in fact we do get to choose. Freely, as an autonomous "I".

And when I suggest instead that...

This is merely asserted to be the case. Where is the substantive evidence to actually back it up?

In fact, one suspects that his only recourse here [as with mine and probably yours] is to Google those folks who are in fact exploring this experimentally, scientifically, phenomenologically etc., and extracting the arguments most in sync with his own particular subjective prejudice.


You bluntly assert that this is not the case. Why? Because, indisputably, of your own volition, you say so.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:16 pm

The Perceptive Gentleman made what appear to be correct statements about the nature of freedom and choice.

I don't require "a definitive argument that establishes beyond all doubt that this freedom ..." to agree with his ideas about what is considered freedom. Let doubts and uncertainty remain. Let revisions take place at a later date.

Perhaps rocks and dominoes do dream. I don't know. But I do know that rocks and dominoes are unable choose to act on those dreams as humans and animals are able to act. A rock on a hill moves where gravity pulls it. But even an ant can choose to move in a direction other than where gravity pulls it - it can choose to go up or to the side of a hill. Is there something more that needs to be demonstrated?

My autonomy or lack of autonomy don't enter into any of this.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11187
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:43 pm

phyllo wrote:The Perceptive Gentleman made what appear to be correct statements about the nature of freedom and choice.

I don't require "a definitive argument that establishes beyond all doubt that this freedom ..." to agree with his ideas about what is considered freedom. Let doubts and uncertainty remain. Let revisions take place at a later date.

Perhaps rocks and dominoes do dream. I don't know. But I do know that rocks and dominoes are unable choose to act on those dreams as humans and animals are able to act. A rock on a hill moves where gravity pulls it. But even an ant can choose to move in a direction other than where gravity pulls it - it can choose to go up or to the side of a hill. Is there something more that needs to be demonstrated?

My autonomy or lack of autonomy don't enter into any of this.


You address none of the points that I rasied. Either my points to him or my points to you.

For all practical purposes we are -- compelled or not -- in two very, very different discussions.

Assuming some level of autonomy then, why waste each other's time?
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:50 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:The Perceptive Gentleman made what appear to be correct statements about the nature of freedom and choice.

I don't require "a definitive argument that establishes beyond all doubt that this freedom ..." to agree with his ideas about what is considered freedom. Let doubts and uncertainty remain. Let revisions take place at a later date.

Perhaps rocks and dominoes do dream. I don't know. But I do know that rocks and dominoes are unable choose to act on those dreams as humans and animals are able to act. A rock on a hill moves where gravity pulls it. But even an ant can choose to move in a direction other than where gravity pulls it - it can choose to go up or to the side of a hill. Is there something more that needs to be demonstrated?

My autonomy or lack of autonomy don't enter into any of this.


You address none of the points that I rasied. Either my points to him or my points to you.

For all practical purposes we are -- compelled or not -- in two very, very different discussions.

Assuming some level of autonomy then, why waste each other's time?
You posted quotes from someone who is not here and who is not able to defend himself. That's not how you have a discussion.

Your comments were completely inappropriate.

For example :
Perceptive Gentleman wrote :
Choice is what differentiates the living f[ro]m the non-living, and the higher from the lower.
Awareness determines the amount of options a living organism perceives.
Power determines how may of the options perceives the organism can choose.
Iambig comments:


In other words, in any and all contexts that any and all of us might find ourselves in, this is true because...he says so?

Then let him focus in on one context in particular. Let him describe for us how power unfolds between two conflicted minds that he is, in turn, able to demonstrate are wholly aware of their options as autonomous beings.

Instead of just presuming [in a world of words] that this is the case.

Indeed, how fascinating it might be to follow an exchange between him and peacegirl in regards to how in fact "choice"/choice actually does play out in regard to human interactions.

What kind of shrill comment is that?

Obviously he thinks it's true and lots of people will agree as a result of straight observation of human behavior.

You don't provide any examples of where it is not true or any reason to think that it is not true. You don't provide any contradictory contexts.

If there is a conflict, then the more powerful person gets to choose what happens from his available options.



Then this :
Perceptive Gentleman wrote :
Therefore, freedom increases in accordance to awareness and power.
Only a higher organism can mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli.

Iambig comments:

Therefore, if, compelled or not, you concur with the definition and the meaning that he gives to the words he "chooses"/chooses in this particular intellectual contraption, it's all settled.

But, again, we will need an actual context in which to explore what makes one of us a "higher organism" in regard to whatever on earth it means for an entity to "mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli."
The meaning of the words is fairly clear to anyone with an average understanding of English. And there's nothing outlandish about the ideas. A lot of people/philosophers would consider it to be obviously true.

We don't need a context to explore it.


You characterize it all as intellectual contraptions and "worlds of words" without actually showing that any of it is not true or that it's not based on valid observations.

You don't have any counterarguments.

He has content, you have none.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11187
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:55 pm

phyllo wrote: You posted quotes from someone who is not here and who is not able to defend himself. That's not how you have a discussion.

Your comments were completely inappropriate.


Two points:

1] As you might recall, in our early exchanges at KT, he booted me out of the agora, assuring that I would be unable to respond to him
2] He permitted me to post only in the dungeon. And yet I have often suggested to the powers that be here that we create an equivalent at ILP --- thus allowing him to post again here in that forum.

And let's not forget that he is unable to post here because in having utter contempt for those who don't share his own point of view -- the morons, the chimps, the desperate degenerates -- he often violated the posted rules for particapating here.

Again, all of this providing that we do have some measure of autonomy. And I have never argued that we don't. Only that, from my frame of mind here and now, it seems more reasonable that, given the assumption the human brain/mind/consciousness are wholly in sync with the laws of matter in a No God world, "I" possess only the psychological illusion of "choice".

phyllo wrote: For example :
Perceptive Gentleman wrote :
Choice is what differentiates the living f[ro]m the non-living, and the higher from the lower.
Awareness determines the amount of options a living organism perceives.
Power determines how may of the options perceives the organism can choose.
Iambig comments:

In other words, in any and all contexts that any and all of us might find ourselves in, this is true because...he says so?

Then let him focus in on one context in particular. Let him describe for us how power unfolds between two conflicted minds that he is, in turn, able to demonstrate are wholly aware of their options as autonomous beings.

Instead of just presuming [in a world of words] that this is the case.

Indeed, how fascinating it might be to follow an exchange between him and peacegirl in regards to how in fact "choice"/choice actually does play out in regard to human interactions.


What kind of shrill comment is that?


Right, and at no time has he or you ever stooped to being "shrill".

You know, whatever that means.

I can only leave it to others to decide for themselves if my reaction to him is appropriate. I'm certainly not insisting that they are actually obligated to if they wish to be thought of as ever and always correct. That's his thing.

Or, with respect to points of view regarding your reaction to things like Communism, your thing.

phyllo wrote: Obviously he thinks it's true and lots of people will agree as a result of straight observation of human behavior.


But my point revolves around him being able to demonstrate this beyond the claim itself. And beyond the intellectual contraptions he invariably falls back on.

Straight observation of human behaviors? In other words, assuming that the observations themselves are necessarily autonomous. Why? Because he argues that they are.

phyllo wrote: You don't provide any examples of where it is not true or any reason to think that it is not true. You don't provide any contradictory contexts.


That's the part about me acknowledging I'm in the same boat that you and he are.

This part:

In fact, one suspects that his only recourse here [as with mine and probably yours] is to Google those folks who are in fact exploring this experimentally, scientifically, phenomenologically etc., and extracting the arguments most in sync with his own particular subjective prejudice.


In no way, shape or form am I attempting to argue that my own point of view here isn't in turn an existential contraption. A subjective/subjunctive vantage point rooted in dasein rooted and in the conflicting [though often quite reasonable] assumptions made by those on both sides of the scientific and philosophical divide. And going back now literally thousands of years.

phyllo wrote: Then this :
Perceptive Gentleman wrote :
Therefore, freedom increases in accordance to awareness and power.
Only a higher organism can mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli.

Iambig comments:

Therefore, if, compelled or not, you concur with the definition and the meaning that he gives to the words he "chooses"/chooses in this particular intellectual contraption, it's all settled.

But, again, we will need an actual context in which to explore what makes one of us a "higher organism" in regard to whatever on earth it means for an entity to "mentally and willfully usurp its genetic impulses, and its automated reactions to stimuli."


phyllo wrote: The meaning of the words is fairly clear to anyone with an average understanding of English. And there's nothing outlandish about the ideas. A lot of people/philosophers would consider it to be obviously true.


In other words, they would agree with the definition and the meaning that he gives to words that then defend the definition and the meaning he gives to other words. None of which are connected to actual human interactions other than by way of assumming that an understanding of human interactions are necessarily in sync with the definition and the meaning that he gives to the words to describe human interactions in general.

phyllo wrote: We don't need a context to explore it.


We'll have to agree to disagree about that then. Sure, we can just assume that Mary was free to choose an abortion; and that in choosing to have one, she either was or was not behaving morally.

And that if others don't flat out share our own assertions about this, they are morons or desperate degenerates.

phyllo wrote: You characterize it all as intellectual contraptions and "worlds of words" without actually showing that any of is not true or that it's not based on valid observations.

You don't have any counterarguments.


My argument is this: that if the assumption about human behaviors and the observation of human behaviors is but the embodiment of nature having evolved into living matter having evolved in human minds wholly in sync with immutable laws of matter, this very exchange is just another inherent component of that.

But I have no way in which to demonstrate this myself.

phyllo wrote: He has content, you have none.


Note to others:

So, that settles it -- settles all of it -- right? :lol:
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:55 am

iambiguous wrote:
It took 380 000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei forming the first atoms . These were mainly helium and hydrogen which
are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe I . 6 million years later gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas


... evolved into living matter that over billions of years evolved into human minds able to discuss it as / in the embodiment of I !

From zero minds to this exchange . And how it all became possible going back to a complete understanding of existence itself . And
then going forward to how those of own species thousands of years into the future will clearly be more informed than we are now

But : informed autonomously ?

Will that finally be resolved once and for all ?

And what does it mean to resolve anything at all in a wholly determined universe ?

Can something that profound ever be truly resolved to the satisfaction of all ? For will there not always be some philosophical objection to it ?
Also a wholly determined Universe cannot be possible because randomness is an observable feature within it so it is only partially determined
[ Randomness here does not mean absolutely anything happening by chance but only possible outcomes having an equal chance of happening ]
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:20 am

"It took 380 000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei forming the first atoms . These were mainly helium and hydrogen which
are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe I . 6 million years later gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas

... evolved into living matter that over billions of years evolved into human minds able to discuss it as / in the embodiment of I !

From zero minds to this exchange . And how it all became possible going back to a complete understanding of existence itself . And
then going forward to how those of own species thousands of years into the future will clearly be more informed than we are now

But : informed autonomously ?

Will that finally be resolved once and for all ?

And what does it mean to resolve anything at all in a wholly determined universe"


{{{{{{{{Yes it can become autonomously sourced, because the referential temporal/spatial inductive gap will approach to an undifferentiable limit.

In other words, the technological/technical memory will reduce general-field multi function devices to few specific ones, where autonomy will be thus generated. ]]]]]]]]]
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4940
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Thu Jul 18, 2019 4:41 pm

Two points:

1] As you might recall, in our early exchanges at KT, he booted me out of the agora, assuring that I would be unable to respond to him
2] He permitted me to post only in the dungeon. And yet I have often suggested to the powers that be here that we create an equivalent at ILP --- thus allowing him to post again here in that forum.
So talk to him in the dungeon.

If you are going to post his statements here, then at least counter them instead of dismissing them as "worlds of words", "intellectual contraptions" and "not demonstrated".
Again, all of this providing that we do have some measure of autonomy. And I have never argued that we don't. Only that, from my frame of mind here and now, it seems more reasonable that, given the assumption the human brain/mind/consciousness are wholly in sync with the laws of matter in a No God world, "I" possess only the psychological illusion of "choice".
That's what's being discussed ... the meaning of 'choice'. And your take on it is different from his.
Right, and at no time has he or you ever stooped to being "shrill".

You know, whatever that means.
Obviously you know what 'shrill' means since you just accused him and me of being shrill sometimes.
But my point revolves around him being able to demonstrate this beyond the claim itself. And beyond the intellectual contraptions he invariably falls back on.
It looks to me like his claims can be seen in ordinary human behavior. Now, you can try to demonstrate we are wrong about those observations.
Straight observation of human behaviors? In other words, assuming that the observations themselves are necessarily autonomous. Why? Because he argues that they are.
Autonomy has nothing to do with. It's a description of human behavior. It's true or false whether we are autonomous or not. It's like saying "people hit tennis balls with tennis rackets". One can analyze how often it happens if at all, who does it and where.
phyllo wrote:
You don't provide any examples of where it is not true or any reason to think that it is not true. You don't provide any contradictory contexts.



That's the part about me acknowledging I'm in the same boat that you and he are.
So by not providing a demonstration , you are demonstrating that demonstrations are not possible. Is that it???
In no way, shape or form am I attempting to argue that my own point of view here isn't in turn an existential contraption. A subjective/subjunctive vantage point rooted in dasein rooted and in the conflicting [though often quite reasonable] assumptions made by those on both sides of the scientific and philosophical divide. And going back now literally thousands of years.
It seems that he is correctly describing human behavior. That's the bottom line as far I'm concerned. I don't care if you call it an existential contraption. That's basically an empty label.
In other words, they would agree with the definition and the meaning that he gives to words that then defend the definition and the meaning he gives to other words. None of which are connected to actual human interactions other than by way of assumming that an understanding of human interactions are necessarily in sync with the definition and the meaning that he gives to the words to describe human interactions in general.
He didn't make up the meanings of the words ... they are listed in the dictionary. And those words and meanings were created based on human experiences. I don't see the lack of connection to human interactions. Which words are you claiming are disconnected?
We'll have to agree to disagree about that then. Sure, we can just assume that Mary was free to choose an abortion; and that in choosing to have one, she either was or was not behaving morally.
Mary has choices. She chooses one which she has the power to enact and acts. There are consequences to her decision.
My argument is this: that if the assumption about human behaviors and the observation of human behaviors is but the embodiment of nature having evolved into living matter having evolved in human minds wholly in sync with immutable laws of matter, this very exchange is just another inherent component of that.
That's not really an argument against what he is saying is it?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11187
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jul 18, 2019 6:51 pm

"this atheist believes in free will"
James Kirk Wall from the ChicagoNow web page

Can your decision to read this article be traced to the beginning of the Big Bang? According to Hard Determinism the answer is yes. Every event was caused by a past event without exception. Through reductionism everything can be traced back, or reduced down, to one singular thing.


In a way, this encompasses just how absurd it seems to believe in a truly "hard determinist" assessment of human reality.

Something exist. Either out of nothing at all or because there was never not something. And if somehow we can unravel all the pieces that encompass all there is, we'll find that nothing in it could ever have been other than what it only could have been.

Right up to me typing these words and you reading them.

And yet from somewhere deep down inside our "hearts and souls" we just know that this is completely preposterous. "Prove it" is the obvious reaction. But then those who argue for it can always come back with "prove that it's not".

Then what? Where's the definitive argument coupled with the definitive evidence that finally resolves it beyond all doubt?

But, in my view, most folks can't even bring themselves to acknowledge it has not been pinned down yet. They merely assume that their own point of view need be as far as they go. They become objectivists. Why? Because, psychologically, convincing yourself that you have the answer is more important than whatever the answer might possibly be.

As soon as the Big Bang began, and anything leading up to that moment which is unknown to us, everything was determined. Hence the word determinism. With the size, speed, and direction of celestial bodies we can trace where they were in the past and determine where they will be in the future.


In other words, "I" being but another "celestial body" on a celestial body that we call Earth.

Only, for all mindless celestial bodies, there does indeed seem to be a set of laws -- the either/or world -- that they must obey going all the way back to the Big Bang.

It's mindful bodies that throw everything for a loop. Surely they must be an exception somehow. Either through God or through some extraordinary component embedded in the evolution of mindless matter into minds into "I".

Something we will just have to wait for science to figure out so that one day in the future it will be confirmed that, yes, we do indeed have at least some capacity to freely shape our own lives.

Still, folks like me then go on to suggest that, even to the extent our will is free, "I" in the is/ought world is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That, in the is/ought world, the subjective/subjunctive "I" still appears to prevail.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:55 pm

phyllo wrote: So talk to him in the dungeon.


He walked out on that exchange. You know, compelled to or otherwise.

phyllo wrote: If you are going to post his statements here, then at least counter them instead of dismissing them as "worlds of words", "intellectual contraptions" and "not demonstrated".


Again, in regards to this, we are in two different exchanges. Either he will embed his general description assessments of determinism in contexts in which he makes an attempt to demonstrate that his will is free or he won't.

Or, if you are convinced that he already has, cite examples of it.

Again, all of this providing that we do have some measure of autonomy. And I have never argued that we don't. Only that, from my frame of mind here and now, it seems more reasonable that, given the assumption the human brain/mind/consciousness are wholly in sync with the laws of matter in a No God world, "I" possess only the psychological illusion of "choice".


phyllo wrote: That's what's being discussed ... the meaning of 'choice'. And your take on it is different from his.


You're missing my point though. Assuming we do possess some measure of autonomy, my point is less in regard to the points being raised themselves and more in regard to the extent to which one insists that only his or her points reflect that which all rational men and women are oblgated to embrace.

Or else they become "morons" or "desperate degenerates" too!

Let's face it, with him there are any number of your own arguments that make you a moron or a desperate degenerate.

But my point revolves around him being able to demonstrate this beyond the claim itself. And beyond the intellectual contraptions he invariably falls back on.


phyllo wrote: It looks to me like his claims can be seen in ordinary human behavior. Now, you can try to demonstrate we are wrong about those observations.


What does it mean to speak of ordinary human behavior when to the best of my knowledge here and now it has not been demonstrated definitively that what we choose to do we choose to do of our own volition.

And then the part I always come back to: the way in which the human brain seems able to create both ordinary and extraordinary behaviors in our dreams such that, while in them, we are convinced that we are calling all the shots of our own volition as well.

At least that's how it works in my dreams.

Straight observation of human behaviors? In other words, assuming that the observations themselves are necessarily autonomous. Why? Because he argues that they are.


phyllo wrote: Autonomy has nothing to do with. It's a description of human behavior. It's true or false whether we are autonomous or not. It's like saying "people hit tennis balls with tennis rackets". One can analyze how often it happens if at all, who does it and where.


Autonomy has everything to do with it. Are we compelled by the laws of nature to describe what we do? Or to hit tennis balls with tennis rackets? Or to analyze to one conconclusion rather than another?

Everything here seems to revolve around a comprehensive understanding of how the brain actually accomplishes this. And then going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.

Sure, many will just shrug off, "but there are also unknown unknowns...there are things we don't know we don't know".

They already know what they do know and they're ready to just move on to the next thing that they already know that they do know.

Well, I'm not one of them.

phyllo wrote: So by not providing a demonstration , you are demonstrating that demonstrations are not possible. Is that it???


I don't know if demonstrations are possible. And someone can always insist that he did in fact demonstrate it but that I really am a "moron" and keep failing to grasp it. Or, in turn, that you have in fact demonstrated your views about Communism...only I keep missing that too.

I never deny the possibility of that. It always comes down to that which any particular "I" is convinced has been demonstrated. Then it becomes a matter of how one demonstrates in turn that enough folks are convinced of the demonstration that it is accepted as true for all of us. The either/or world interactions for example.

Where I draw the line here myself is in regard to "I" in the is/ought world; and in regard to "I" going all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical limb where questions such as this are explored.

Those demonstrations. Or the lack thereof. The part where your "empty labels" kick in?

Sure, we can just assume that Mary was free to choose an abortion; and that in choosing to have one, she either was or was not behaving morally.


phyllo wrote: Mary has choices. She chooses one which she has the power to enact and acts. There are consequences to her decision.


Yes, and you merely assume that these choices are free. That these consequence are solely as a result of that assumption. And that becomes a demonstration enough for you.

My argument is this: that if the assumption about human behaviors and the observation of human behaviors is but the embodiment of nature having evolved into living matter having evolved in human minds wholly in sync with immutable laws of matter, this very exchange is just another inherent component of that.


phyllo wrote: That's not really an argument against what he is saying is it?


It's my argument. An argument predicated on my assumptions. An argument, however, that I am not able to demonstrate one way or the other is of my own actual volition.
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: 31020
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Thu Jul 18, 2019 9:43 pm

He walked out on that exchange. You know, compelled to or otherwise.
Another person who walked out on an exchange with you. I wonder why? :-k
Again, in regards to this, we are in two different exchanges. Either he will embed his general description assessments of determinism in contexts in which he makes an attempt to demonstrate that his will is free or he won't.
Look at how you handle yourself in these discussions. You don't embed your general descriptions in contexts and you don't demonstrate them.
Why should he? Or anyone for that matter?

In your last post, you brought up the context of Mary and her abortion. But what did you actually analyze about it? What did you explain with it? What did you demonstrate?
You're missing my point though. Assuming we do possess some measure of autonomy, my point is less in regard to the points being raised themselves and more in regard to the extent to which one insists that only his or her points reflect that which all rational men and women are oblgated to embrace.
Who wants to discuss "what all rational men and women are obligated to embrace" when you can't even agree to some simple dictionary definitions of words??
You act as if he has some crazy ideas about 'freedom' which he has completely fabricated out of a web of words. Settle that before moving on to the obligation of all rational men and women. Please. [-o<
Let's face it, with him there are any number of your own arguments that make you a moron or a desperate degenerate.
I don't have any control over what he thinks of me. Therefore, I'm not concerned about it.
What does it mean to speak of ordinary human behavior when to the best of my knowledge here and now it has not been demonstrated definitively that what we choose to do we choose to do of our own volition.
It's observed human behavior whether it's chosen of "our own volition" or not.
Autonomy has everything to do with it. Are we compelled by the laws of nature to describe what we do? Or to hit tennis balls with tennis rackets? Or to analyze to one conconclusion rather than another?

Everything here seems to revolve around a comprehensive understanding of how the brain actually accomplishes this. And then going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.
No. Once you describe something, then the description is either accurate or inaccurate. The words correspond to a high degree with the something or they don't. Autonomy doesn't enter into it.
Sure, you may not be capable of producing an accurate description but that's separate from the evaluation of the description.
Sure, we can just assume that Mary was free to choose an abortion; and that in choosing to have one, she either was or was not behaving morally.

phyllo wrote:
Mary has choices. She chooses one which she has the power to enact and acts. There are consequences to her decision.



Yes, and you merely assume that these choices are free. That these consequence are solely as a result of that assumption. And that becomes a demonstration enough for you.
Notice that I did not use the word 'free'. After one establishes that she has choices and that she acts on a choice that she has the power to execute, then one can go on to discuss what it means for the choice(s) to be 'free'.

Do you concede that she has choices, power to act and that she acts?

If not, then what is she doing?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11187
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users