Something Instead of Nothing

You’re the one who is constantly using the word ‘rational’ in your posts.
If you don’t have a definition for it, then what are you saying in your posts?

So you won’t commit yourself to one definition of ‘rational’.

That makes it kind of difficult to demonstrate what all rational men and women are obligated to believe.

If it’s impossible to figure out what ‘rational’ means, then what’s there to discuss?

If you had a definition of ‘rational’ then you could determine whether abortion is consistent with that definition or not.

That would be a demonstration of what all rational men and women are obligated to believe about abortion.

First of all, as I note over and over again, any defintion that any of us give is only applicable given the gap between how we define rational and how any definition of it is either in sync or out of sync with a conplete understanding of existence itself.

So, is how our species defines rational here on planet earth close enough to whatever the exact definition in fact is from the perspective of, say, God or of some pantheistic entity?

I’m willing to start with the definition derived from the OED:

rational:

The quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. The quality of being able to think sensibly or logically.

Okay, how “on earth” in any particular context where the behaviors of human beings come into conflict is that applicable?

And, in using that definition, is it rational or irrational to think that those behaviors are chosen autonomously by free human beings?

In other words, how exactly would I [would any of us] go about demonstrating that one frame of mind here is either the most rational assessment or the only rational assessment?

You first.

We can discuss whether or not it is impossible to figure out what 1] rational or 2] “rational” or 3] Rational means. And then take that meaning out into the world of conflicting human interactions in a world where those conflicts may or may not be just more dominoes toppling over onto each other as they were only ever able to in the first place.

And then we can explore what it means to speak of “the first place”. The Big Bang? The Garden Of Eden? The will of God?

Okay, back to the OED:

rational:

The quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. The quality of being able to think sensibly or logically.

abortion:

An operation or other procedure to terminate pregnancy before the fetus is viable or the premature termination of pregnancy by spontaneous or induced expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus.

morality:

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Given these definitions, is it or is it not moral to abort a human fetus?

Or, given your own definitions.

In fact, you seem inclined to embrace James S. Saint’s “definitional logic” here. If, of course I understand you.

Sure, if someone defines rational and abortion such that “by definition” an abortion is immoral, that is as far as he need go insofar as as something is true “in his head.”

Or his your point here different?

Left out: The legal definition , which usually rules here on earth.

In outer space on another planet millions of miles distant , we can’t yet know.

Was Kant right or wrong about some acts are irrevocable right or wrong?

Is it wrong for me to write this here and now? Would an innate feeling rule over common sense?

Can my penmanship compare to some. kind of hidden rule?

See how the figure of speech has a silent commitment to meaning?

Obviously it’s possible since there is a meaning written out in the dictionary.

Is there something wrong with that meaning? If yes, then what is wrong with it?

The word ‘logic’ is fairly specific but the words ‘reason’ and ‘sensible’ are too general. One would need to get a more precise meaning for those words. I can’t do that because I don’t have an account on OED.

Notice how you shifted the goal posts from figuring out if abortion is rational to figuring out if abortion is moral.

Nice try.

That assumes that you can give words any definition that you like. In fact, the dictionary definitions are a compilation of how words are used by people. The words reflect something that people see in the world - they see rationality and abortion - and they create the words which represent it. ‘Rational’ is some characteristic thought and/or behavior.

I fail to see why being a part of the universe should pose a problem… Even given determinism, by being a part of the universe, you are by definition part of the equation that determines what happens next.

Consider that in the fullness of time, even a non-deterministic universe, in which we all have magical autonomy somehow, will end up being immutable…
In such a universe you cannot change your past or make it different, yet would you not own your choices from the past all the same?

You focus on our ability to do differently… but our ability to do differently is inconsequential to the question…
What matters is our will… that we chose according to our will.

You cannot be free from yourself… and I suspect that is where you are stuck.
You are something you did not choose, but what you ARE is someone that has, does and will choose…

Ah, but have you ever consider that maybe you keep pointing that out because we live in a universe in which the laws of matter make it such that you could never have not pointed that out?

BTW, why are you so hung up on this particular question? Why not be like Descartes and worry about evil demons? Or question whether we’re in the Matrix? Or whether this is all just a dream? There’s a million and two scenarios you could bring up that throw certainty and agency into question. Why the one about laws of matter making your brain think, say, and do stuff?

Nope, it’s pretty spot on… and pointless.

Sorry Biggy, got my clarity. I ain’t givin it back.

Are you under the impression I’m trying to help you?

Given the picture you’re giving me (brain evolving into mind), and the sciences these brains have collectively built up and share amongst themselves, I’d say the picture is looking pretty deterministic. I mean, I don’t know how anyone can confirm that with certainty (is someone going to monitor each and every movement of every particle in every brain at all times?), but the most parsimonious picture is that the laws of chemistry, biology, and electrodynamics (all of which are at work in the brain) all work together to keep the brain pretty much under their control. Then there’s the quantum consciousness theorists who want to take quantum indeterminism and amplify it to the level of neurons, thereby giving credence to the idea of free will (your of free will), and I don’t know enough to rule that out.

I guess in brief, I flip a coin and say no, “I” is not able to determine whether “I” freely choose or has no choice.

Why do I feel like I’m writing an essay?

I just flipped a coin. I’m not certain about my answer at all. And it’s not even my answer because it’s prefaced by an assumption that I don’t agree with (brain evolving into mind).

Well, sure, relativistically speaking everyone’s right from their own side.

What are the conflicting premises again?

It’s mainly an excuse to write out my thoughts (it’s not really polemical); and it’s partially for anyone to read, not just you.

FUCK YEAH!!!

You know what you need Biggy? A sense of humor!

Yeah, pretty grim huh?

And here we come full circle. Did the existence of existence exist before the existence of existence started to exist? In other words, did something come from nothing? And if so, why something instead of (a continuation of) nothing?

You and me, Biggy, let’s tackle this one and put it to rest once and for all.

And where’s Pedro at?

In what context though?

If the dictionary says that rational means “the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic” is there something wrong with the argument that Hillary Clinton is now the president of the United States?

Is there something wrong with the argument that Clinton ought to have been elected because she got more of the popular vote?

Is there something wrong with the argument that Trump is doing a superb job as the president of the United States?

Can the dictionary definition clarify or resolve conflicted arguments in each context?

Suppose you had access to the most precise meaning of “reason” and “sensible” in the world. Would this then allow you to state that, “given these definitions”, it is 1] reasonable and sensible to abort a human fetus, or 2] it is not reasonable and sensible to abort a human fetus.

Note to others:

All I am able to assume here is this: that he is making a solid argument I keep missing. Shifting the goal posts is basically my point. To speak of something being both irrational and moral or rational and immoral…what on earth does that mean given a particular context precipitating particular conflicting behaviors around an issue like abortion?

There are any number of philosophers down through the ages who had intertwined rationality and morality. My argument instead is only to suggest that the relationship is embedded more in…

1] an existential contraption fabricated and then refabricated at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power
2] an existential contraption embedded in a particular historical, cultural and interpersonal context
3] an existential contraption ever subject to reconfiguration in a world of continency, chance and change

That was always my point with James. Then I would challenge him to bring his own definitions out into the world of conflicting goods.

Well, let’s take this general description out into the world that we live in. What things can we say – what facts can we demonstrate – about abortion that ought to be embedded in the “characteristic thought” of all rational people. If by characteristic thought we mean thought in sync with the actual material, physical, phenomenal interactions of men and women.

Or, again, I am simply missing your point here altogether. Some “technical” aspect of philosophical discourse that is always over my head.

And I am always willing to concede the possibility of that.

Your reply consists entirely of questions. You don’t have anything to say about what I wrote. No statements. :confused:

And instead of addressing "is there something wrong with the meaning of the word ‘rational’, you shift to “is there something wrong with this (fill in the blank) argument”.

Now you shift to the words ‘reasonable’ and ‘sensible’ instead of sticking with word ‘rational’. #-o

Yeah, you could say that given clear definitions, abortion is rational or abortion is irrational.

Yeah, I have noticed that. As soon as things start to become clearer, you change the words or the context in order that answers are continually out of reach.

Why do you turn it around?

Just state the characteristic thoughts of rational people and then evaluate whether abortion is consistent with those thoughts.

Is that really too complicated?

My point revolves more around the extent to which we can know for certain that you failed to see something only because you were never able not to fail to see it.

What if, in being part of the equation that determines what comes next, that which does come next comes only as a result of you and I and all the other matter in the universe unfolding as it ever could have given the physical laws of matter? And then it would seem [to me] that human consciousness is just this really, really weird matter – matter having evolved into being conscious of itself as matter grappling with whether or not anything it ever thought, felt or did had any possiblity of changing what does come next.

Not sure what you mean here. Human autonomy is either magical or real. The past can’t be reconfigured but if we live in a non-deterministic present the future would seem to be only any number of possibilities. Or, existentially, probabilities.

Even our autonomy is circumscribed by nature and nurture, by genes and memes. By a particular “lived” life.

And from my own frame of mind – re the is/ought world – what we own is embedded in an “I” that I construe to be an existential contraption “thrown” into a particular world at a particular time.

We’ll have to bring this down to earth. Let’s note a particular context in which we have the actual option to freely choose different behaviors.

We “will” this instead of that. And this precipitates consequences. Then others come along and reject those consequences. They “will” something else that precipitates conflict.

What can we all agree is true objectively here and what is only subjective points of view that may or may not be demonstrable to others.

Apply this to yourself. Describe how it is applicable regarding your own interactions with others. How are you stuck or not stuck given the extent to which you can grasp why you chose some things but not others.

Only on practically every post of mine on this thread.

Huh? Over and again I make note of how, if we go far enough out on the metaphysical limb, there are all manner of “explanations” that might encompass this exchange: sim worlds, the demons, senility, dreams, solipsism…

But all of this still comes down to the extent to which we can determine if anything at all that happens to us happens because the choices that we made autonomously necessitated that something else didn’t happen instead.

And this is the part where I ask if it was ever within your capacity to freely choose to care or not care.

Suppose they don’t. Respond to the point I made.

This sounds more like a “retort” to me than an attempt to argue how in fact I can be straightened out.

What’s this then, a witticism? :wink:

I’m under the impression that you are somehow able to reconcile “metaphysical determinism” and “psychological freedom” “in your head” such that whatever you try to do you were never able not to try to do…but that this doesn’t bother you.

No, you seem to have concocted an explanation that, what, starts with mind?

So, how does this general description analysis relate to the extent to which your own particular “I” is able to understand it such that it can be determined whether or not your “I” is freely choosing to type those words or, instead, was never able not to type them?

Okay, fair enough. But you seem rather certain that your answer is considerably closer to what the right answer might be [if there is a right answer] than mine. And if it is not matter evolving into mind how does mind evolving into matter [if that’s what you believe] make it any easier to understand whether you either do or do not have the capacity to freely choose to do one thing rather than another.

Though it would seem to be clearly the case that in regard things able to be demonstrated as either this or that, everyone’s “right” is not created equal.

In the either/or world:

Donald Trump is or is not president of the United Sates.

In the is/ought world:

Donald Trump is or is not doing a superb job in the Oval Office.

And then the conflicting premises on this thread:

We are or are not choosing to exchange these posts of our own free will.

Exactly. Nothing would seem to be of more fundamental importance than connecting the dots between what we think we know now about these relationships and all that can be known [must be known] in order to demonstrate that what we do think we know now is in sync with the answer.

It all ties into my own assumption that having an answer is far more important to many [psychologically] than in whatever their answer might be.

After all, isn’t that really the only way in which to come to grips with, among other things, death and oblivion? If there is an answer and “I” am somehow intertwined in it, then why not for all of eternity?

If somehow “I” is at “one with the universe” and the universe is always around one way or another then so am “I”.

So, just out of curiosity, re your own beliefs regarding mind/matter, how do you imagine your own “I” fares once it shuffles off this mortal coil?

Is there any measure at all of comfort and consolation here for you? Because, given the way in which I think about all this, there is absolutely none for me.

At best I can only accept my own oblivion to the extent that my pain becomes so unbearable, I, like those folks in Aliens, will beg to die.

But Biggy, don’t you realize that you might only be saying this because you were never able not to say this?

Ok, it’s just… you seem to really, really, really like to emphasize the laws of matter making us think, say, and do stuff.

See, this is the problem, Biggy. No one knows what kind of response you want. I said I’m not troubled by it (I forget what “it” is at this point, but that doesn’t matter). You asked: what if autonomous aliens pointed out that I could never have not been troubled by it? And you want me to respond to that. Well, ok. I respond that nothing would change. I would still not be bothered by it. The only light this would shed would be that I couldn’t help but to not be troubled by it. Still… I would not be troubled by it.

You seem to expect that the idea of not having a choice in the matter would somehow change things. Like now I am troubled by it.

Yes. If you want to rephrase your question in terms of brain matter evolving from mind, be my guess, but I’d think by now you know what to expect from me–one of those metaphysical limbs.

It says that my particular “I” cannot determine it either.

First of all, I’m not sure what your answer is. Do you just mean the belief that mind evolved from matter?

Second, I wouldn’t put it in terms of “being closer to the truth”. Rather, I would say “making more sense”–and only in regards to specific philosophical puzzles. It’s a theory primarily designed to solve the mind/metter problem, and it has far reaching implications for the nature of existence–ironically, answering the question: why something rather than nothing.

All I claim is that with my theory, the questions of how consciousness comes out of brain matter, and what is existence and how did it come to be, don’t arise. That is, they are answered. But this is different from the claim that my theory is right, that the answers it provides are actually true, that they match the state of reality outside the cognitive picture of reality it paints. I cannot say how close or how far away the theory is to that, or whether the essential nature of reality is such that a cognitive model like my theory can be said to be “close” or “far” from matching it.

Think of it like an riddle: what gets wetter the more it dries? If you think to yourself “a towel” you suddenly have a theory about what the thing is, and that puts the question to rest. However, you could still go to the person who posed the riddle and ask: is it a towel? In other words, you don’t actually know that you got the answer right, you just have a answer that meets the criteria of the question. So you don’t know if the answer is close or far away from the truth, just that it makes sense.

My theory is not designed to answer the question of whether we are determined or free. It’s like asking: how does Einstein’s theory of relativity make it any easier to understand how life began on this planet?

When things are demonstrated one way or another, this changes a person’s “side”. If what relativism says is: X is true according to a person’s “side” (where “side” just means someone’s beliefs, point of view, picture of the world, etc.), and if demonstration has the power to change a person’s side, then X remains true according to that person’s previous side. It’s just that he doesn’t take that side anymore.

According to the geocentric model of the universe, the Sun orbits around the Earth. Today, nobody believes in the geocentric model of the universe. It has been demonstrated wrong, and we have switched “sides”. Still, according to the geocentric model of the universe, the Sun orbits around the Earth.

Something like that. I’ve always thought that a belief in an afterlife was a way of making us feel that reconciliation will come. It’s not just the comfort of knowing that we will never really die, but that everything will be made right somehow. All wrongs done to you, all the misfortunes and missed opportunities, all the unfairness, all the disappointments. A chance to finally get what you deserve (Heaven) or a chance to start over (reincarnation). It’s a way of coping with the unbearable prospect that life just isn’t fair… period.

Here, I’m a lot more closely aligned with your views. I too believe the “I” fragments and disintegrates upon death, but unlike you, I don’t believe in an absolute oblivion. I believe experience continues but there will be no “I”. It parallels the body. The body, after death, decays and rots away. But it’s not as though the matter that makes up the body disappears into a black hole. The molecules, atoms, and elementary particles that make up the body continue to exist and get dispersed into nature–some being carried off by the wind, some being consumed by other organisms, some mixing in with other elements, etc. I believe that there will be a continuum joining our experiences while we’re alive with those of the universe after we die. Our minds will disintegrate into “pieces”, like the body into atoms, and transform into qualities that merge seamlessly with those of the universe, like the molecules of the body merging back into nature. There will be no more experience of “I am gib” or “I remember my childhood” or “I am a computer programmer” or “My favorite food is pizza”–all thoughts and experiences once connected to our individuality or personal identity will be gone–unimaginable experiences that only the universe can have will replace them.

On a surface reading, most people I describe this to say it sounds relatively peaceful (although some don’t)–the thought of “becoming one with the universe” sounds kind of like a “heavenly” experience–but formally speaking, I always say that what the experience is like is totally unpredictable. It may be blissful, it may be hell. It may be something completely unimaginable. So formally speaking, I don’t know how I should feel about this. It’s a big fuzzy question mark in my mind.

In fact, it takes an incredibly dark side according to which we ought to be terrified of death and strive to stay alive as long as possible. According to this view, the universe gave way to evolution as a means of escaping itself, of creating organisms that could function relatively independently from the rest of itself, and thereby maintaining an inner microcosm sheltered from the outer macrocosm, a sanctuary in which to rest from and forget the pain of being existence… at least for a short while.

Biggy, have you ever considered that your pain might be due to something as simple a bad brain chemistry? Maybe you’re brain just isn’t producing enough dopamine. I mean, we all fall into bad moods. We all get depressed. And we always attribute it to something–the first things our brains can reach for–some will blame their misery on politics, some on the state of war and poverty we see the majority of the world in, some on their family, how they were never loved, some on their job and how under-paid or under-appreciate they are. But then they have better days. They have a good night sleep and wake up in a better mood. Still, that doesn’t change anything. The world is still full of war and poverty, they still have the same job, their family hasn’t changed… but someone, now in a better mood, they shrug it off and say: life goes on, or: yeah, it’s all pretty bleak, but there’s hope that things will get better. You know how it is when you get drunk, right? All of a sudden, life is great and you love everyone around you. Did life really change in the course of a couple hours of drinking? Did everyone around you suddenly become that much more lovable? Or did your brain chemistry just change. You wonder why I could agree with everything you say yet not be troubled by it. Might it not be just differences in our brain chemistry? Maybe happiness has absolutely nothing to do with the state of the world, or whether we have the answers to the most profound metaphysical questions, but rather just what kinds of juices our brains our cooking.

If you think there might be anything to this, you might want to see a doctor about medication. ← Just something to think about.

We’re going in circles…
Allow me to try and summarize what has been said between us thus far in the hope that we can make progress.

Given determinism things can and will only play out one way… there is no possibility of anything big or small to be or have been any different.
But unlike fatalism, in determinism everything that does happen determines what happens next…

So imagine a row of dominos… you knock down one and then you watch the causal chain knock down all the others, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
I say that if we take ourselves to be “one of these dominoes” it would not be inaccurate to say “we knocked down the the next demino”… that without us the outcome would be different.

Your response to this seems to be to question whether or not our role in this scheme ever was a matter of “choice”… since we could not have done any different
To which I respond by saying that our ability to do otherwise is irrelevant to it being a “choice”… it’s our will that makes it a choice…
And while you can argue that we could never have wanted anything other than what we wanted, I would argue that it was no less what we wanted.

We cannot be free from ourselves…

It’s how we are put together. It’s our navigation tool… we model the world and we simulate the forces at play in order to predict the outcome of our actions, then we “elect” the actions that have simulated results that are preferable to us.

It’s a process in our brains… given determinism the result of that process may well be predictable… but the process still takes place.

My exchanges with you have consisted of any number of questions and answers. And statements. And when you accuse me of having nothing to say about what you write, I’ve learned to just reconfigure that into not having said the thing that you would say instead.

But, okay, let’s zero in here on the specific thing you say that I ignored.

This?

Until the word and the defintion and the meaning are implicated in questions [contexts] such as those I raised above, what are we really pinning down?

Pick one of them and we can explore the actual existential parameters of the word “rational”. In other words, how people actually use the word “for all practical purposes” in discussions and debates relating to the lives they live.

All I can do here is to appeal to others:

What crucial point is he noting here that I keep missing? As it relates to connecting the dots between the words “rational” and “abortion” and “moral obligation”.

It’s almost [to me] as though his posts have now become an exercise in irony.

We can say [or believe] anything. But how is it then noted that one definition allows us to demonstrate that any particular abortion either is or is not moral?

What might that “clear” definition be? Or, again, are basically talking about Saint’s “definitional logic” here?

Clearer? In what sense? In what context? Or are things always “clearer” with regard to issues like Communism when others think about it in exactly the same manner that you do?

The very embodiment of the objectivist mind. Though even here [on this thread of late] assuming this mind is arguing autonomously.

No, not if you just assume that “characteristic thoughts of rational people” are always in sync with your own thoughts about it.

Or, again, sure, I’m missing your point.

You want to have a discussion but you can’t or you won’t even pin down the meaning of one word. A word which you use repeatedly. A word on which “demonstrations” and “obligations” hinge.

What does ‘rational’ mean?

Is this your own rendition of repartee? :wink:

It is precisely what might be the case here that philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with since matter first evolved into minds like theirs. Or since mind first evolved into matter, as you seem to suggest.

Actually, what I like to emphsize most of all is the gap between what any particular one of us might claim to know about the relationship between the laws of matter and the things we think, feel, say and do, and all that actually can be known about the existence of existence itself.

The only kind of response I expect is one that either nudges my own thinking in the direction of that response or it doesn’t. The alien is pointing out that you had no capacity to not not be bothered by it. But that changes nothing, true.

The difference however [from my frame of mind] is the hypothetical assumption that the aliens can choose autonomously to be or not be bothered by something. Thus if you were somehow able to leave the planet earth and be in a part of the universe where the human will is not just on automatic pilot, you would grasp the disctinction more clearly.

It’s like the folks in Flatland. They are compelled to view the world through two dimensions. But there actually does exist a three dimensional world. And for all we know [re string theory] there are many more dimensions besides.

If nothing changes other than in the manner in which it must change in a wholly determined universe what does our choosing to change something mean? Our minds are matter able to broach it. Mind-boggling matter in other words. Unless there is in fact a component of mind able to choose autonomously.

Matter into mind or mind into matter, what really changes? What you and I think about it either “metaphysically” or “psychologically”, is either within our capacity autonomously or it isn’t. But how “on earth” do we go about determining that given either assumption?

And that would seem to be where all of us are stuck. We can only determine it to the extent that the human mind is even capable of determining why there is something instead of nothing. And why this something and not another.

It’s just that we are among the few folks around the globe who give it a go. Most just leave all this stuff to God. We create these fascinating discussions, but some of us speculate on how futile it all might be. And that’s beofre the part about oblivion. Or the part about the is/ought world.

Any answer that I might give may or may not be subsumed in a universe that allows for only one answer. And that answer may or may not be in sync with the answer. Though almost certainly not.

I just speculate that this is the case for all the rest of us too.

And “belief” is always my point. That gap between what we believe about the relationship between mind and matter and all that we cannot possibly know about it given all that can be known about it if the human mind is even sophisticated enough to know something like that.

And then I like to point out the gap between a “general description” such as this and attempts to bring words of this sort out into the world of actual human interactions.

Okay, fair enough. I can’t possibly ask more of you than this. You are making an attempt to grapple with it. And, as a result of that, I might in time learn from it. Or not. I’m just hopelessly ambivalent [here and now] about whether the things that I choose, I choose autonomously such that I will have learned from it only because I freely chose the right things. The things that allowed me to learn from it.

Again, I can only respect that. It’s just that, in regard to that which most intrigues me philosophically – how ought one to live? – I have to grapple in turn with whether or not I was ever even really free to be intrigued by that.

Thus, from my frame of mind, matter from mind or mind from matter…what’s the difference re dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?

But in the either/or world [assuming there is one] there is a right side and a wrong side to choose. One’s answer is relative to that which can in fact be demonstrated to be the case for all rational human beings. With human minds, however, one can still be convinced that the wrong answer is the right answer “in his head”. And, most crucially, he behaves in accordance with what he thinks is true. And it is human behavior that precipitates actual consequences.

It’s just that given my own assumptions in the is/ought world there does not appear to be an essentially/necessarily right or wrong answer from which to choose.

But here [far and away] God is the belief of choice for sustaining comfort and consolation among the true believers. And it really isn’t necessary at all to even demonstrate His existence. That’s the whole point of having faith in Him. Either through one or another religious denomination, one or another Kierkegaardian leap or one or another rendition of Pascal’s wager.

Instant karma in the next world.

Here of course all there is, is someone [anyone] asking you to demonstrate that what you believe is true is in fact true. And then to the extent that this might provide some measure of “comfort and consolation” – peacefullness – for some and not for others. But it’s still more than I am able to conjecture: “I” desintegrating back into star stuff. Not completely gone, but, come on, who is kidding whom.

If there is any comfort at all for me it resides precisely in that unimaginable gap between what “I” think I know here and now and all that must be known in order to know for sure.

There is only dying and finding out or dying not finding out.

Thus…

Yeah, sure. Grappling with this necessarily takes us in many directions. On the other hand, the same could be said about our pleasure. About anything we think, feel or do. In a wholly determined unverse in which mind is brain is matter in sync with those alleged immutable “natural laws” nothing is not going to be subsumed in necessity.

Clearly that is one way to look at at. Just as there are clearly other conflicting narratives. But how does that fit into “I” interacting with “we” interacting with “them” interacting on this particular planet in this particular solar system in this particular galaxy in what may or may not be this particular universe going back to something instead of nothing going back to the reason it is one rather than another going back to or not going back to God.

But there it still is: the profoundly problematic mystery that is mind. The human mind especially.

But who really knows how many extraterrestrial minds might be out there who could take this exchange in directions that none of us have ever even imagined. Perhaps never could have imagined.

Okay, I am typing these words here and now because I chose to do so. I chose to do this rather than watch a movie or take a nap or make a sandwich. But, in your view, this is not the same as holding to the fatalistic belief that “all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable”?

Even though “I” am embedded in what must happen given the laws of matter, “I” am compelled in turn to convince myself that without “I” there was no possibility of anything big or small being any different than they in fact had to be.

“I” am in sync with the universe. And even after “I” am dead and gone, the matter that constituted my mind is still a part of the universe.

And that’s consolation enough?

Maybe. But I am still unable to really wrap my head around the difference.

The quandary however would seem to revolve more around the extent to which it can be determined that in choosing to set up the dominoes in one way rather than another, “I” was either doing this with or without some measure of autonomy.

I’m still back to this: the dominoes were set up by me but I was never really able to set them up other than as I was compelled to given that the matter embedded in “I” is no less in sync with the laws of matter than the matter embedded in the dominoes.

All I can say is that this assessment “works” for you in a way that it does not for me. Calling something that we could not have done otherwise a choice is like arguing that the heart chooses to beat. That the heart “wanted” to beat.

This is just another intellectual contraption to me.

Again:

“Apply this to yourself. Describe how it is applicable regarding your own interactions with others. How are you stuck or not stuck given the extent to which you can grasp why you chose some things but not others.”

Let’s bring the discussion out into the world of actual flesh and blood human interactions. We choose different things. Why? And how are these choices understood differently by those who embrace determinism, by those who embrace fatalism and by those who embrace autonomy.

If you google “rationality in philosophy” you get this: scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ra … i=scholart

So, down through the ages, any number of very, very intelligent minds have grappled with pinning down what “rational” means.

My own philosopihical bent however revolves more around taking these technical, epistemological, scholastic meanings out into the world of human interactions such that we can discuss and debate the extent to whether particular things that we think, feel, say and do can be described as rational or irrational.

And then the extent to which these descriptions are or are not only that which we were ever able to convey in what may or may not be a wholly determined universe.

To me rational means something that can be demonstrated to be true for all of us. Going all the way back to an understanding of why there is something and not nothing. And why it is this something and not another.

Yeah, I can google stuff but I was trying to get information from you.

Determined or non-determined would appear to have nothing to do with the meaning of ‘rational’.

I will assume that by “something” you mean thoughts and actions since objects can’t have the property of being rational.

Right away, you have the problem with ‘demonstrations’. It’s difficult to demonstrate a lot of things. For example, you can’t demonstrate advanced mathematics and science to people who are not intelligent enough to understand it, even if those people can be considered ‘rational’ in every respect. So who are you demonstrating it to? Other mathematicians and scientists. Right? The demonstration is only accessible to a small group.

Also, it’s usually difficult to demonstrate perfectly ordinary events. If I say that I say a deer on the road today, then without photographs, video or other witnesses, I have no way to demonstrate it. Does it mean that it’s an ‘irrational’ statement? No.

IOW, I suspect that a definition of ‘rational’ based on demonstration is not workable.

Then there is the difference between true/false statements and rational/irrational statements. A rational statement may well be false.

Again, that seems to have nothing to do with meaning of ‘rational’.

Well fatalism discounts your actions and choices as being deterministic of your ultimate fate… that some things were always meant to be, whether you ran into traffic every chance you got or only sat at home playing video games, those fated things would happen.

Determinism states everything that happens is determined by everything that happened before… so your thoughts, actions and choices would very much play a role in determining your ultimate fate, but those same thoughts, actions and choices would too have been determined by previous thoughts actions and choices as well as the influences of the outside world etc.

People who believe in autonomy as distinct from determinism/randomness believe themselves to be supernatural, imposing their will on the natural world through their bodies but remain, partly, apart from and immune to the influences of the natural world and thus remain autonomous. They have trouble reconciling neurological disorders, the effects of drugs and brain chemistry with this view and often contort themselves into odd shapes to try and maintain it… either by denying those things and instead claiming other supernatural forces at play, claiming that such brain manipulations only make it difficult or impossible for us to command our bodies, but our will and mind remain intact or some other such invention.

Now having said all that…

I have to ask you… what is the minimum requirement for a choice?

Let’s say a man has a woman and her baby held hostage at gunpoint and gives you two options, which you magically know to be true:

  1. He shoots you, then he kills both of them right here and now in front of you as you bleed out
  2. You ask him nicely… and he will let them go, hand you the gun and turn himself in to the police

Now you could argue, that those are only options if we discount you… you being who you are and having the values that you do, would (I hope) “chose” option 2 every single time without fail. That this is a foregone conclusion and would be perfectly predictable to anyone who knew you in the least.

Yet those are still options, no?
and that remains a choice, no?

So let us say that we take ourselves to be part of our brains…
You may ask yourself, should I go make myself a snack or sit here and read MMP’s post, given determinism are those even choices?
If we discount your character (in this case those brain parts), do you have options about what to do next?
The answer is yes (even given determinism)… but just like the example above, if we knew your character well enough… the choice would likewise be perfectly predictable.

You suggest that this seems like a trick of language… but I honestly fail to see how.
The one making the choices is YOU… So if your character should turn out to be immaculately definable and thereby perfectly predictable… how does that in any way change the nature of choice?

amazing, it is best post of the forum. ( for me only ) leave everyone is side. cuz ( lol ) im not any supreme being in the heart of everyone else. ( including ants and 8.4 million forums of life )