New Discovery

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 03, 2019 6:59 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

This is another religious argument that you're making.

There are two ways that this argument is made by religious people:

1.) consent violation is an illusion because we all "contracted" our souls for this, even though you think it's a consent violation, it's really not.

2.) all consent violations by law are for the greater good, so again, it is an illusion or misperception of reality as a whole and as the truth, that your consent is every truly being violated. If you think your consent is being violated, you are delusional, or just incorrect.


Additionally peacegirl,

This is actually how some people really are !!


And that's fine. People can do whatever they want. No one is stopping them. This law frees us, it doesn't bind us to some rule that must be followed, or else. You have no conception of what this book is actually about. And you don't seem interested because you are convinced you're right and I'm wrong.

Ecmandu wrote:Some people will read this book, and if it actually matters (which it doesn't) but it actually becomes a cultural phenomenon - there will emerge a group of anti satifactionists just for the sake of proving it false, they will, always choose the worst possible choice they have available to them.


You coined a new word: anti-satisfactionists. :D You are missing the most important point. Once you become a citizen of this new world which will involve a transition period, you will not be bound by the laws of your country, you will not be bound by anyone's rule. You will be free!!!!!!!!! There won't be a law trying to prevent you from hurting others; it will be your very own conscience that will prevent you when no one is telling you what to do or what not to do. The reason that you won't be able to hurt others with a first blow (do you even know what that is?) is that you won't have the necessary justification which is required by conscience, or it won't permit the act. I've never seen anything quite like this. You are debating a book you haven't read, yet you seem to know everything about it. Do you realize what you're doing? #-o
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 03, 2019 7:33 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

This is another religious argument that you're making.

There are two ways that this argument is made by religious people:

1.) consent violation is an illusion because we all "contracted" our souls for this, even though you think it's a consent violation, it's really not.

2.) all consent violations by law are for the greater good, so again, it is an illusion or misperception of reality as a whole and as the truth, that your consent is every truly being violated. If you think your consent is being violated, you are delusional, or just incorrect.


Additionally peacegirl,

This is actually how some people really are !!

Some people will read this book, and if it actually matters (which it doesn't) but it actually becomes a cultural phenomenon - there will emerge a group of anti satifactionists just for the sake of proving it false, they will, always choose the worst possible choice they have available to them.


I forgot to explain why they'll do this!

Because all of their satisfaction depends on freewill existing.

I assume you're not good at self referential arguments, which is why you're in this hole in the first place. I'm not beholden to the hole you dig for yourself because I define ethics by consent. Your ethics has no consent. Consent is a structure of compatibalism.


I don't need to give consent to do what's not a hurt to another person. This is not a contract that I must consent to.


There is no mathematical standard as to
what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of
others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire
hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those
schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope
with a hostile environment that will no longer be. In fact, since
anyone who tells others how to live or what is wrong with their
conduct blames them in advance for doing otherwise — which is a
judgment of what is right for someone else — all sermonizing and the
giving of unasked for advice are displaced. You see, this discovery
draws a mathematical line of demarcation between hurt that is real
and hurt that exists only in the imagination. The hurt of ridicule and
criticism is real, but in the world of free will there existed many forms
of hurt that justified ridicule and criticism. When the hurt that
motivated this behavior is removed, then there can be no justification
which means that any ridicule and criticism that exists thereafter
strikes a first blow, but this is controlled by the realization that it will
never be blamed or punished.


Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Fri May 03, 2019 8:41 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Again , if I may briefly interject:
A seminal shift in understanding this conceptual difficulty lies with the important and noteworthy event that accompanies this topic, particularly in the years following the American and the French Revolutions.

The semantic shift is only the patent manifestation infestation with which we are struggling the dynamic element consisting of the will, yes, but the shift or the change exhibited thereby can not be a sufficient description of what is happenong, in our minds , that does correspond, even if not as a contability
issue with the primary objective consideration.

Particularly notable is the famous will to power. Here the will and the power are related, bringing this up with a Nietzsche-en scholar who has not posted for a while, the reverse : the power to will.

Here the will to power can be interpreted as a multi dimensional representation, a sort of totality where the will is dependent on it's interiorization, it is quantified, and the power to will becomes the other side of sustaining meaning through equalization with qualifying it.

A diminishing power, can not sustain a very strong will to make the most useful and desirable choices, just as an uncertain will, not sensing what is best or useful, not only in reference inter , but intra alia, could not possibly interpret the facts as they are.

Free will is not a singular effect, but can be sensed as an affect, for sure, and the self referentiality counterpositions the objective dynamic.


Free will does not exist (this has been proven) but the feeling that we have free will continues to exist. Superficially a person says "I am free to choose this or that. I think that's what you mean by affect. What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive. Regardless of what the motive is for any behavior, that behavior is not free in the sense that the person had the free will to make a different choice. The reason this is so important is because the foundation of our justice system is based on the belief that a person who did wrongly didn't have to do what he did because he had a choice. This justifies the blame and punishment that often follows. The other observation that nothing can make a person do what he makes up his mind not to do, is also factual. These two principles lead to the two-sided equation, which is the discovery itself. I think people are just interested in retaining their own beliefs, not in understanding new knowledge. I know this is a debate forum and I'm here to share something, not debate, so this type venue is not the right one which I've known for quite some time. Unfortunately when you are not in the university system, you're invisible. The author couldn't get his foot in the door because he was not a member of a leading university. Fifty years later the same thing is happening.




What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Fri May 03, 2019 8:45 pm

Peace Girl wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Again , if I may briefly interject:
A seminal shift in understanding this conceptual difficulty lies with the important and noteworthy event that accompanies this topic, particularly in the years following the American and the French Revolutions.

The semantic shift is only the patent manifestation infestation with which we are struggling the dynamic element consisting of the will, yes, but the shift or the change exhibited thereby can not be a sufficient description of what is happenong, in our minds , that does correspond, even if not as a contability
issue with the primary objective consideration.

Particularly notable is the famous will to power. Here the will and the power are related, bringing this up with a Nietzsche-en scholar who has not posted for a while, the reverse : the power to will.

Here the will to power can be interpreted as a multi dimensional representation, a sort of totality where the will is dependent on it's interiorization, it is quantified, and the power to will becomes the other side of sustaining meaning through equalization with qualifying it.

A diminishing power, can not sustain a very strong will to make the most useful and desirable choices, just as an uncertain will, not sensing what is best or useful, not only in reference inter , but intra alia, could not possibly interpret the facts as they are.

Free will is not a singular effect, but can be sensed as an affect, for sure, and the self referentiality counterpositions the objective dynamic.


Free will does not exist (this has been proven) but the feeling that we have free will continues to exist. Superficially a person says "I am free to choose this or that. I think that's what you mean by affect. What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive. Regardless of what the motive is for any behavior, that behavior is not free in the sense that the person had the free will to make a different choice. The reason this is so important is because the foundation of our justice system is based on the belief that a person who did wrongly didn't have to do what he did because he had a choice. This justifies the blame and punishment that often follows. The other observation that nothing can make a person do what he makes up his mind not to do, is also factual. These two principles lead to the two-sided equation, which is the discovery itself. I think people are just interested in retaining their own beliefs, not in understanding new knowledge. I know this is a debate forum and I'm here to share something, not debate, so this type venue is not the right one which I've known for quite some time. Unfortunately when you are not in the university system, you're invisible. The author couldn't get his foot in the door because he was not a member of a leading university. Fifty years later the same thing is happening.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Fri May 03, 2019 8:48 pm

What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Fri May 03, 2019 8:49 pm

Peacegirl wrote:What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive


I am not suggesting a connection between will and power to be a basis of motive, in order to dissect meaning, and neither a factual understanding of what a will represents, vis. It's non existence, but merely stating the underlying themes historically speaking.

This theme has been analyzed for at least 2000 years, but existentially been treated most thoroughly , and modernly, by those who understood the problem dynamically-by method, and not the kind that's described by Descartes.

Which confirms the onus brought on toward the existentialists.

The will may not 'exist', but it is dependent on power to decide, not merely one way or another, but on differing ways of effect and affect.

I am using ' affect', the way You are suggesting, in choosing more acceptable alternatives which may be pretty much determined as again You point out.

However, does this necessarily lead to the conjecture, that , such progression in I take it, evolutionary terms will ultimately lead toward more and better understood situations, whereby choices, although determined, may set course for an optimistic view of how intelligence may land us into more certainty, regarding how overall determined choices play out in the larger scheme of things? For that is what I induce from the thesis.


I have no desire to debate, or argue, and truly seek only clarification to an admirable assessment.
Last edited by Meno_ on Fri May 03, 2019 9:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Fri May 03, 2019 8:59 pm

Peacegirl,

This is not a proof of determinism that you are offering ...

By your own terms in this "proof", all that has to be demonstrated, is that one person, for one single choice, in the entire cosmos, knew for a fact, for themselves, that they weren't making the best possible decision that they knew was the best decision.

But that's not really what this is about.

This is about a commandment from you to stop hurting people.

"Everyone obey me and the world will be a great place for us all!" "No! Seriously! Just obey me!" "Now" "obey me now!" "Now!" "Just do what I say". "Now" "just do it!"

Billions of people have tried that in human history, you're not the first.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri May 03, 2019 9:40 pm

peacegirl wrote:Free will does not exist (this has been proven)

There's a problem with saying it is proven. If you are determined, then you cannot know if your reasoning is correct, since you are claiming you must believe it is correct. For all you know you simply believe because you are compelled by a 'this argument is right' quale reaction. And so you think determinism must applies to all, but perhaps it only applies to you. Yes, I realize that sounds impossible, but for you know it sounds that way because you are compelled to believe that. Perhaps only some people are determined.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 03, 2019 11:36 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Free will does not exist (this has been proven)

There's a problem with saying it is proven. If you are determined, then you cannot know if your reasoning is correct, since you are claiming you must believe it is correct. For all you know you simply believe because you are compelled by a 'this argument is right' quale reaction. And so you think determinism must applies to all, but perhaps it only applies to you. Yes, I realize that sounds impossible, but for you know it sounds that way because you are compelled to believe that. Perhaps only some people are determined.


Determinism is a law that applies to all mankind, which is why it’s a law, but believe whatever you want! lol
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat May 04, 2019 5:10 am

peacegirl wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Free will does not exist (this has been proven)

There's a problem with saying it is proven. If you are determined, then you cannot know if your reasoning is correct, since you are claiming you must believe it is correct. For all you know you simply believe because you are compelled by a 'this argument is right' quale reaction. And so you think determinism must applies to all, but perhaps it only applies to you. Yes, I realize that sounds impossible, but for you know it sounds that way because you are compelled to believe that. Perhaps only some people are determined.


Determinism is a law that applies to all mankind, which is why it’s a law, but believe whatever you want! lol

1) What you just did was simply repeat your position without interacting with my post in any way.
2) I think it makes much more sense to call determinism and idea or theory. Laws follow specific predictable and measurable patterns.
3) There is still quite a lot of controversy in science about whether there is determinism or some combination of determinism and indeterminism. IOW even without looking at the issue from inside one individual's life - iow the way I approached it in my post through the epistemological challenges of limited consciousnesses - there is not yet clear confirmation of determinism.

If you need clarification of my post, let me know. If you decide to actually interact with it, let me know. I am not sure why people think that restating their opinions is an actual response.

but believe whatever you want! lol
If you are assuming I believe in free will, this is a mere assumption. I see problems with belief in either determinism or free will. But further saying 'believe whatever you want' is an odd thing for a determinist to say' and it is a bit ironic for you, as a specific kind of determinist you are, to add the lol.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat May 04, 2019 1:47 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Free will does not exist (this has been proven)

There's a problem with saying it is proven. If you are determined, then you cannot know if your reasoning is correct, since you are claiming you must believe it is correct. For all you know you simply believe because you are compelled by a 'this argument is right' quale reaction. And so you think determinism must applies to all, but perhaps it only applies to you. Yes, I realize that sounds impossible, but for you know it sounds that way because you are compelled to believe that. Perhaps only some people are determined.


Determinism is a law that applies to all mankind, which is why it’s a law, but believe whatever you want! lol


Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) What you just did was simply repeat your position without interacting with my post in any way.


I don't know if have been following this thread but I have shown why will is not free many times. Not only that I have given the first three chapters of the book which explains determinism in more detail. Have you read it? Just wondering.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:2) I think it makes much more sense to call determinism and idea or theory. Laws follow specific predictable and measurable patterns.


Do you understand why man's will is not free, according to this author (which is not a hypothesis, BTW), or are you just giving your opinion?

Karpel Tunnel wrote:3) There is still quite a lot of controversy in science about whether there is determinism or some combination of determinism and indeterminism. IOW even without looking at the issue from inside one individual's life - iow the way I approached it in my post through the epistemological challenges of limited consciousnesses - there is not yet clear confirmation of determinism.


Regardless of whether the world is determined or indetermined, I am only discussing man's nature. I don't need to discuss quantum physics or the universe's attributes to prove that man can only go in one direction, which means he could not have done otherwise once a choice is made. Let me repeat: It is not necessary to know whether indeterminism actually exists because that would not change man's nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (or the least dissatisfaction) when given a choice between the greater of two or more goods, the lesser of two or more evils, or a good over an evil, rendering only one possible choice at any given moment in time.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:If you need clarification of my post, let me know. If you decide to actually interact with it, let me know. I am not sure why people think that restating their opinions is an actual response.


Because it's not an opinion,number one. And number two, it's tiring to explain why man's will is not free (which is a fact not an opinion) just because you felt like interjecting your opinion. If I am ever going to move forward you will need to accept the premise that man's will is not free, even temporarily.

but believe whatever you want! lol


Karpel Tunnel wrote:If you are assuming I believe in free will, this is a mere assumption


You said science isn't sure if there is some free will. That means you don't think these observations are scientific. It seems like you are then interjecting your opinion because my explanation in your eyes is not scientific, just another opinion. I am not sure what you consider science versus theory.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I see problems with belief in either determinism or free will. But further saying 'believe whatever you want' is an odd thing for a determinist to say' and it is a bit ironic for you, as a specific kind of determinist you are, to add the lol.


I am tired of having to defend what I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, is true and I don't feel like debating. If you don't see the proof that's okay. I don't understand what you meant that it's ironic of me to say "believe whatever you want." I am not, as a determinist, forced to say anything in particular. Your idea of determinism is obviously not mine.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat May 04, 2019 4:57 pm

Artimas,


Freedom implies a lack of restriction or restraint in choice of using ones will which is not the case as we are limited on multiple levels of what we may choose and why we may choose it.


I wonder if there could be a far better word for what you are describing as freedom above albeit I realize that that is one definition.
Those in the concentration camps were far beyond restricted and restrained yet they had the freedom of will, they exercised their right to be self-determined and to go on surviving in their own way. The world may be going crazy all around you but I think that despite that, despite the influences and the circumstances which hem us in, it is a "conscious" choice which we make to either see that we have the power within us to create free will, to create other options and act on them.


We are bound to environment and a state of duality in everything, this being bound is what goes against will being completely free.


But do we have to experience that since of internal imprisonment?

I wonder what it is within us which causes us to feel that our fates have already been determined and that we are not strong enough or self-determined enough to "see" something different or to create something different?


By "free" will I would automatically assume; Will is free, only to its limited available choices.


Perhaps free will is like beauty - in the eyes of the beholder. If we change our lenses and attempt to see with other eyes, perhaps we would then experience a world which is more within our own power of will and we would be capable of imagining and creating MORE available choices.

We have to stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You know that we will never get to the bottom of this. Nothing is absolute despite our needs to believe that it is.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15345
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat May 04, 2019 6:19 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:Artimas,

Freedom implies a lack of restriction or restraint in choice of using ones will which is not the case as we are limited on multiple levels of what we may choose and why we may choose it.


I wonder if there could be a far better word for what you are describing as freedom above albeit I realize that that is one definition.
Those in the concentration camps were far beyond restricted and restrained yet they had the freedom of will, they exercised their right to be self-determined and to go on surviving in their own way. The world may be going crazy all around you but I think that despite that, despite the influences and the circumstances which hem us in, it is a "conscious" choice which we make to either see that we have the power within us to create free will, to create other options and act on them.


I know this was to Artimas but I will respond. Maybe your post was meant for another thread since there are a few discussing this topic. People have different circumstances, some have more choices than others. That is a fact. When you say that these people had the freedom of will, and that they exercised their right to be self-determined and to go on surviving in their own way, you are using this term incorrectly. They had the will to go on surviving in their own way, but the sheer determination that it took to stay alive had nothing to do with a FREE will. They were moving in the direction of greater satisfaction even though their choices were extremely restricted . They were choosing the best survival strategies they could in order to stay alive in the hope that they soon would be rescued.


We are bound to environment and a state of duality in everything, this being bound is what goes against will being completely free.


Arcturus Descending wrote:But do we have to experience that since of internal imprisonment?


No we don't because determinism does not mean we are internally imprisoned.

Arcturus Descending wrote:I wonder what it is within us which causes us to feel that our fates have already been determined and that we are not strong enough or self-determined enough to "see" something different or to create something different?


Sometimes it's hard to rise above one's circumstances. Many people find it difficult getting ahead from no fault of their own. They were not given a fair shot and are worn out trying to fight a system that keeps them down at every turn.

Arcturus Descending wrote:We have to stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
You know that we will never get to the bottom of this. Nothing is absolute despite our needs to believe that it is.


You're incorrect. There is no free will, although the word determinism, by the way it has been interpreted, has been misunderstood due to how the words "cause and compel" are being used.

The words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.




Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 05, 2019 2:35 pm

Last edited by peacegirl on Sun May 05, 2019 7:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 05, 2019 3:27 pm

dupe
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 05, 2019 8:39 pm

iambiguous wrote:"Sly" however is the sort of thing you would expect from the free will folks. They would accuse someone of trying to be sly because they are convinced that this choice was something they did have control over. They chose to be sly when they could have chosen not to be. Whereas in a determined universe I "chose" to be sly only because nature compelled me to.


peacegirl wrote: Pointing out someone's way of responding has nothing to do with the belief that they answered that way of their own free will.


On the other hand, those who necessarily refuse to accept your own definition of determinism argue that you were never able not to point this out. And, my being so confused about how you necessarily came to your own definition of it myself, I'm convinced that you're one of them!

The entanglements here are in my view more about the use of language than the manner in which the language that we use is able to be demonstrated as in sync with our actual behaviors. Stuff, that, among others, Wittgenstein was pointing to.

I just take it back to the gap between the language that we use here in this exchange and the language that would be needed in order to explain how human interactions on this infinitesimally tiny speck of existence that English speaking folks call Earth are intertwined.

Which nature then conplels you to dismiss as, what, incidental?

iambiguous wrote:You want it both ways. But in a manner I am still unable to grasp. You want to make a distinction between a domino not choosing to topple over and John choosing to set it up to topple over. While at the same time acknowledging that both the domino and John do only that which nature compells them to do.


peacegirl wrote:The only difference iambiguous is that a domino is being pushed by an external force. There is no external force pushing you, for example, to be here in this thread. You are here because it gives you greater satisfaction over the option not to be here.


If the immutable laws of nature are behind every single interaction between matter -- that which I understand a determined universe to be -- the domino not "choosing" to topple and the human brain "choosing" to topple it are necessarily intertwined in the only reality able to unfold in sync with those laws.

The true mystery [for me] is how matter evolves into human brains actually able to confront human interactions self-consciously. As "I". "I" amidst the antinomy that is built right into dualism. We simply can't explain that yet. Or, rather, no one has successfully explained it to me.

You keep wanting to make this distinction between "being able to make choices that comes from within, not from without" as though that which does come from within the human brain is somehow connected to realty in a way that is different from how all other matter is connected to it. For most this means God. But for you it means an understanding of nature that in my view you just make up in your head. Your own rendition of nature as God.

But, in my view, only because you were never able not to -- given my own understanding of determinism. Which I have no way of demonstrating is true either.

It has been fascinating philosophers for centuries now. But some [like you and the author] are, in my view, able to concoct "discoveries" that not only explain it all but project into a future finally brimming with "peace and properity".

But this is still part of the mystery of minds actually able to create psychological defense mechanisms that sustain some measure of comfort and consolation. Some are able to concoct these intellectual contraptions in their heads that fit all the pieces together into a foundation solid enogh in their heads to anchor "I" to. For most of course this all revolves around religion and God. But not for everyone...

iambiguous wrote:It really comes down to how you connect the dots between the things you want to do and the things that nature compels you to want to do. As though there actually is a distinction to be made in a world where all matter [including the human brain] is inherently connected to all of the dots that comprise nature itself.


peacegirl wrote:Ultimately, we are part of nature and we are inherently connected to the dots that comprise nature itself, but you seem to be stuck with the idea that you are a walking robot. This is the confusion surrounding this discussion due to the fact that having choice is not inconsistent with the truth of determinism IF it is defined correctly.


I am stuck where nature sticks me. And that precious "definitional logic" you cling to is apparently where nature has stuck you. At least until nature itself gets around to being in sync with the author's discovery. As though that's the way it actually works! The author has necessarily given nature a route to peace and properity here on planet Earth. But will nature finally get it? Not unless enough folks come around to his own understanding of all this. Even though they too are all stuck where nature puts them. If only from the cradle to the grave.

iambiguous wrote: You admit that what you think you know is necessarily embedded in all that you do not know...and then simply shrug that off. Why? Because you need to do this in order to sustain the belief that what you think you do know is somehow in sync with what the author thinks that he knows in discovering this wholly subjective progressive future


peacegirl wrote:Stop making insinuations about the author that this discovery cannot be true because he only thinks that he knows.


Here we go again. You seem to acknowledge that my insinuations about the author, like the author's discoveries themselves, are all at one with nature unfolding only as nature must given the universal laws that propel/compel it.

Yet you demand that I stop doing this with precisely the same inflection one would expect from someone convinced that I do have the autonomous capacity to stop.

Now, maybe others on this thread can explain this to me as you would like me to understand it. Indeed, maybe nature itself will at last compel to me to understand it next week or next month.

But, here and now, freely or not, I don't understand it at all. In fact, your arguments often seem completely unintelligble to me.

Stuff like this:

peacegirl wrote:He knows, trust me. He didn't have to discover this wholly progressive future. How can anyone know everything that is going to occur before it occurs. It isn't necessary. All he needed to know is how we can prevent the desire to hurt one another when given a better option. You are creating an argument that has no place.


All of this is entirely based on the assumptions that you make about the definitions that you give to the words here. You have not given me any substantive evidence that all rational men and women are in fact obligated to believe it.

You simply need to believe it yourself in order to sustain both the equillibrium and the equanimity that propels you into this progressive future.

But my own words here are in the same boat. I am no less unable to demonstrate my points. All I can do is to follow the folks who do grapple with these issues/relationships utilizing such things as the scientific method to explore the actual functioning of the human brain in the act of choosing.

iambiguous wrote:It's all neatly contained in the internal logic that revolves entirely around what you think you do know about that 5% of the universe that physicists themselves admit is applicable only to the matter that they are grappling to understand given all the unknown unknowns contained in the other 95%.


peacegirl wrote:Once again, I don't have to know everything about the universe in order to understand that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction.


No, once again you merely assert this to be the case while offering no substantive arguments/evidence to back it up. What you won't do in my opinion...if, autonomously, I even have one...is to consider why it is so important that you believe this. The reasons that I suggest above.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:What you can't ever own up to [in my view] is how crucial the authors "discovery" is to sustaining the psychological comfort and consolation that believing in all his assumptions provides you.


peacegirl wrote:Stop with the analysis please. You are way off.


And around and around and around we go. Or, rather, around and around and around we must go.

Culminating [necessarily] in this:

iambiguous wrote:Again, I am not arguing that you are wrong here, only that, given my own understanding of determinism, your argument seems entirely bizarre to me. Over and again you seem to agree with me about things that, from my point of view, refute your point of view.


peacegirl wrote:Well maybe you need to reconfigure your definition of determinism, and then it won't be so bizarre to you. :) Nothing I said refutes my own point of view if you follow me carefully.


See, nothing gets through. Maybe nature [per her laws] will one day compel me to reconfigure my definition. Or maybe any of the defintions that any of us give to it are only and always the ones that nature compels us to give it.

But what comes through clearly to me is this deeply engrained psychological need on your part for others to accept that how you deconstruct and then reconstruct determinism re the author's "discovery" is actually more a manifestation of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Only I have no way of knowing if this is not too just another inherent manifestation of what can only ever be.

It's the part where I reconfigure "I" into an existential contraption here that most perturbs the objectivists of your ilk. Or so the nihilists of my ilk take our own profoundly problematic leap to.

peacegirl wrote:Just because nature causes you to choose certain things based on your desires does not mean you can't think for yourself, do for yourself and be independent...yet still be working within the framework of determinism.


iambiguous wrote:This is a flat out contradiction in terms given my own understanding of determinism. To be compelled to think for myself such that I think only that which is wholly in sync with the laws of matter makes "thinking for myself" basically an illusion that matter has somehow evolved into when becoming a human mind.


peacegirl wrote: You are using two different definitions here.


No, as I understand determinism, I am using whatever defintions nature compels me to use. Here and now.

peacegirl wrote: It's the same thing as saying evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, but we can use the term evil when we are identifying someone who has caused a heinous crime.


Indeed, in my view, that is what is most important to you here. By your definition of determinism, we can still call particular behaviors "heinous crimes". By your definition of determinism those crimes become a thing of the past in our "progressive future".

It's how you are able to actually think yourself into believing this that continues to escape me. As promethean75 noted elsewhere, that's what the discussion of free will really revolves around: morality. In other words...

Being able or not able to hold others responsible for the things they do.

Somehow in your head you want and you get it both ways. No free will...but evil is still around.

But when I try to bring this all down to earth...

iambiguous wrote:And that the behaviors you deem to be a prerequisite for "peace and prosperity" are precisely the behaviors that others hold in contempt.


peacegirl wrote: I don't know of anyone who would rather be poor than rich, have war rather than peace, or hold these values in contempt. What they hold in contempt is exploitation.


iambiguous wrote:But I know any number of folks right here at ILP who argue the road to prosperity for all revolves either around capitalism or socialism. Which one then is more in sync with the author's "progressive" future?

And what of those nihilists who own and operate the military industrial complex who crave the sort of wars that keep them grinning all the way to the banks?

Somehow they will all be compelled to come into contact with the author's "discovery" and usher in this "progressive future". Right?


...you take it elsewhere.

peacegirl wrote: No, it won't happen necessarily like that, but let me try to get you to think more expansively here. What if government itself is no longer needed? What if conflict can be avoided and everyone benefits in the process? What then?


What if, what if what if. How does any of this actually address the point that I am making? Different folks along the political spectrum have different [very, very different] narratives and political agendas regarding government and conflict.

What then?

iambiguous wrote:My point is that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now those who are left for dead and those who leave them for dead are like the characters and the guests in West World.The characters are wholly programmed to think and feel and say and do only what they must. While the guests presume that they are free to do these things autonomously. The show then explores what happens when the two worlds begin to intertwine.

But: in a determined universe [again, as I understand it] there is no distinction between the characters and the guests. They are all compelled to think and feel and say and do things as nature commands given the immutable laws of matter.


peacegirl wrote:I agree that the guest and the characters are both doing what they are compelled to do. The only thing I have an issue with is your using the term "programmed" which indicates that you can't make a choice because it's already made. This is where there is a lot of confusion as I've already expressed.


iambiguous wrote:Okay, nature compels both the automatons and the guests to do only as they were ever able to "choose" to do. But that's not the same as nature "programming" them?


peacegirl wrote: The word "program" is problematic because, once again, the wording implies that it's the program causing you to do what you do, which is false.


How is nature itself with its immutable laws of matter not the program behind both? How is the program and the causal function of nature not one and the same here?

peacegirl wrote: Please try to get this because it is the key to what follows. Nothing, not nature, not a program, not your heredity or environment can CAUSE you to do what you do unless you want to do it. This keeps the responsibility on YOU, where it belongs, not in a blameworthy way but just to assign whose responsibility it is for making a choice.


Over and over again you insist [from my frame of mind] that we take what we want to do out of the loop. As though the laws of nature do not compel some to think that what they want to do they want to do of their own volition. While others are compelled to believe that they "choose" to want what they do.

If everything gets done only as it ever can get done then everything is wholly in sync with nature itself.

iambiguous wrote:And, yes, I agree in the sense that nature is differentiated from God. The laws of nature are [until we know otherwise] just the reflection of the brute facticity that is existence itself. No teleological component at all.


peacegirl wrote: That being said, the fact that will is not free and we are progressing toward a world where there will be no more war, hatred, crime, or poverty indicates that there is some kind of design, not in a personal God way, but in a way that points to order out of chaos.


Again, this speaks volumes regarding that which I construe to be behind the author's "discovery" here. The psychological impetus. Everything gets invested in this "future" where human beings interact as they were always meant to interact when they are finally in sync with God as nature.

That's the part "in your head" that you can nestle down in while the real world continues to clobber all the rest of us in all manner of insufferable contexts.

Hey, but if that works for you, isn't that all that really matters? Indeed, maybe my own sour reaction here is just a manifestation of my own yearning to think myself into something just like it.
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: 30198
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 05, 2019 9:02 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl, you haven't been debate supporting arguments for quite a while now - you've just been asserting with no substance.


:-"

Of course here I'm thinking more of his discussions with me elsewhere.
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: 30198
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun May 05, 2019 9:18 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) What you just did was simply repeat your position without interacting with my post in any way.


I don't know if have been following this thread but I have shown why will is not free many times. Not only that I have given the first three chapters of the book which explains determinism in more detail. Have you read it? Just wondering.
No, I like hard copy books and get them from libraries. Perhaps I am missing a book I really would love, but generally, I haven't been so happy with books I've come to via posters in discussion forums online. I come to this forum to discuss in the format online discussion forums are most suited for. Others may read your book, so I understand you put it up here. As far as your explanations of determinism, I doubt you have met the argument I presented.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:2) I think it makes much more sense to call determinism and idea or theory. Laws follow specific predictable and measurable patterns.


Do you understand why man's will is not free, according to this author (which is not a hypothesis, BTW), or are you just giving your opinion?
I was talking about the use of language. I don't think 'law' is the right term for it. I did not mention 'hypothesis', I did say theory, which is a much stronger term, in the sense of something that is considered to fit a large amount of the evidence. 'are you just giving your opinion?' was an odd thing to ask. Yes, I gave my opinion that calling determinism a law is confused. Laws of nature tend to be specific patterns of cause and effect or relations, often ones that can be represented mathematically. Determinism is more like an ontological theory. I presented an argument in favor of my suggestion around terminology. Not just an opinion. If you interacted with my post, in the manner of a respectful poster, you might have noticed that.

Regardless of whether the world is determined or indetermined, I am only discussing man's nature. I don't need to discuss quantum physics or the universe's attributes to prove that man can only go in one direction, which means he could not have done otherwise once a choice is made.
Once a choice is made he could not have done otherwise, simply means there is one timeline. But if the wording here was ambigious and you meant that in any given moment X, the next moment Y will inevitably follow from X and no other moment could have happened, that does not seem to be supported by QM. And yes, I am aware that indeterminism does not make for free will, but it does cause problems for determinism.

Let me repeat: It is not necessary to know whether indeterminism actually exists because that would not change man's nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (or the least dissatisfaction) when given a choice between the greater of two or more goods, the lesser of two or more evils, or a good over an evil, rendering only one possible choice at any given moment in time.
If it is not determined, and random or statistical factors take place - which qm seems to indicate with incredible amounts of evidence and research - then several futures are possible and were possible before that choice was made, and, in some cosmologies, ones held by a large percentage of physicists, several futures will all happen.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:If you need clarification of my post, let me know. If you decide to actually interact with it, let me know. I am not sure why people think that restating their opinions is an actual response.


Because it's not an opinion,number one.
Well, it is to a lot of scientists.
And number two, it's tiring to explain why man's will is not free
Like most people you seem to be assuming that one either believes in free will or determinism, and further that there not being free will means that someone can know that determinism is the case or trust what they are calling a proof.

(which is a fact not an opinion) just because you felt like interjecting your opinion.
But I didn't just

interject an opinion. I presented an argument. One you still haven't responded to.


If I am ever going to move forward you will need to accept the premise that man's will is not free, even temporarily.
Your ability to move forward is dependent on my accepting that my will isn't free? LOL

And again, let me state...regardless of any problems one has justifying the existence of free will, there still can be epistemological problems with being sure one can demonstrate determinism is the case and universal.

but believe whatever you want! lol


Karpel Tunnel wrote:If you are assuming I believe in free will, this is a mere assumption


You said science isn't sure if there is some free will.

I did not say that. I said there was controversy around determinism and indeterminism.

That means you don't think these observations are scientific. It seems like you are then interjecting your opinion because my explanation in your eyes is not scientific, just another opinion. I am not sure what you consider science versus theory.
There are a number of things in this paragraph that make me think you don't know much about scientific epistemology. Your use of 'observations' for one. But the last part about 'science vs. theory' really shows a lack of understanding of what theory is in science, what the word means. My sense is you have less understanding of science, scientific terminology, current scientific positions, than I do. Again, I did not interject an opinion. I interjected an argument. One you still keep avoiding even looking at. You just keep telling me you are right and showing you don't know much about the philosophy of science.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:I see problems with belief in either determinism or free will. But further saying 'believe whatever you want' is an odd thing for a determinist to say' and it is a bit ironic for you, as a specific kind of determinist you are, to add the lol.


I am tired of having to defend what I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, is true and I don't feel like debating.
Well, you picked a very odd place to communicate your ideas.

If you don't see the proof that's okay. I don't understand what you meant that it's ironic of me to say "believe whatever you want." I am not, as a determinist, forced to say anything in particular. Your idea of determinism is obviously not mine.
Well, if you'd actually interact with my argument, we might find out. And I understand that you are not forced by external forces to say anything in particular.

But anyway. You're a rude person and a rather naive one, coming to a philosophy forum and expecting people to be swayed by restatements of your position, while you make no effort to understand the points I was making. And not wanting to debate. And then telling me that you will not be able to move forward unless I accept your ideas.

What a long post you made with not the slightest bit of an actual response to what I wrote, with no new substance on the issue...

No wonder you are tired. So much effort you made in not addressing my post and in reasserting that you are right and are so sure of it - which really distinguishes your position from other people's. So few people are sure of their philosophical positions you must be correct if you are 100 percent sure. All this effort in this last post with no substance at all. The work that must go into posts where there is substance must be incredible.

While I will never read another thing you write again, I wish you good luck with your book. If your writing and attitude here is any indication of your skills, interpersonally and philosophically, finding a publisher for that book or even a solid online distribution, is going to be very hard.
In case I haven't made myself clear, I won't read any response you make to this post, so you can skip the tiring not responding you engage in and just move on to other posts. Save that energy.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sun May 05, 2019 9:48 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Peacegirl,

This is not a proof of determinism that you are offering ...

By your own terms in this "proof", all that has to be demonstrated, is that one person, for one single choice, in the entire cosmos, knew for a fact, for themselves, that they weren't making the best possible decision that they knew was the best decision.

But that's not really what this is about.

This is about a commandment from you to stop hurting people.

"Everyone obey me and the world will be a great place for us all!" "No! Seriously! Just obey me!" "Now" "obey me now!" "Now!" "Just do what I say". "Now" "just do it!"

Billions of people have tried that in human history, you're not the first.
But Ecmandu, he assured me he is 100 per cent sure and there can't have been other people who could say that. He was so sure, he knew he didn't even need to read my post or interact with my ideas. This kind of sureness is new and must indicate a proof.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sun May 05, 2019 10:49 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:1) What you just did was simply repeat your position without interacting with my post in any way.


I don't know if have been following this thread but I have shown why will is not free many times. Not only that I have given the first three chapters of the book which explains determinism in more detail. Have you read it? Just wondering.


Karpel Tunnel: No, I like hard copy books and get them from libraries. Perhaps I am missing a book I really would love, but generally, I haven't been so happy with books I've come to via posters in discussion forums online. I come to this forum to discuss in the format online discussion forums are most suited for. Others may read your book, so I understand you put it up here. As far as your explanations of determinism, I doubt you have met the argument I presented.

2) I think it makes much more sense to call determinism and idea or theory. Laws follow specific predictable and measurable patterns.

Peacegirl: That is what determinism does.

Do you understand why man's will is not free, according to this author (which is not a hypothesis, BTW), or are you just giving your opinion?

Karpel Tunnel: I was talking about the use of language. I don't think 'law' is the right term for it. I did not mention 'hypothesis', I did say theory, which is a much stronger term, in the sense of something that is considered to fit a large amount of the evidence. 'are you just giving your opinion?' was an odd thing to ask. Yes, I gave my opinion that calling determinism a law is confused. Laws of nature tend to be specific patterns of cause and effect or relations, often ones that can be represented mathematically. Determinism is more like an ontological theory. I presented an argument in favor of my suggestion around terminology. Not just an opinion. If you interacted with my post, in the manner of a respectful poster, you might have noticed that.

Peacegirl: Determinism (i.e. or man’s will not being free) is not a theory, ontologically or epistemologically.

Regardless of whether the world is determined or indetermined, I am only discussing man's nature. I don't need to discuss quantum physics or the universe's attributes to prove that man can only go in one direction, which means he could not have done otherwise once a choice is made.

Karpel Tunnel: Once a choice is made he could not have done otherwise, simply means there is one timeline. But if the wording here was ambigious and you meant that in any given moment X, the next moment Y will inevitably follow from X and no other moment could have happened, that does not seem to be supported by QM. And yes, I am aware that indeterminism does not make for free will, but it does cause problems for determinism.

Peacegirl: Not in regard to the law of man’s nature. If I show you that one and one is two, you could just as well tell me somewhere in the universe it might not be. Empirical proof is obviously the ultimate test.

Let me repeat: It is not necessary to know whether indeterminism actually exists because that would not change man's nature, which is to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (or the least dissatisfaction) when given a choice between the greater of two or more goods, the lesser of two or more evils, or a good over an evil, rendering only one possible choice at any given moment in time.

Karpel Tunnel: If it is not determined, and random or statistical factors take place - which qm seems to indicate with incredible amounts of evidence and research - then several futures are possible and were possible before that choice was made, and, in some cosmologies, ones held by a large percentage of physicists, several futures will all happen.

Peacegirl: You are appealing to authority which is a no no. If a timeline can only go in one direction, it could not go in another direction. Total contradiction. It is true that before a choice is made there is nothing external that says you must choose X, but once you decide to choose X because you find that choice the most preferable when comparing X and Y, by choosing X you could never have chosen Y. This is where there is confusion because people think determinism means you must choose X (it has been preordained) even if you prefer Y.

Karpel Tunnel: If you need clarification of my post, let me know. If you decide to actually interact with it, let me know. I am not sure why people think that restating their opinions is an actual response.

Peacegirl: It’s not an opinion that we are compelled to choose among meaningful differences what we find to be the most preferable based on our individual circumstances.

Karpel Tunnel: Well, it is to a lot of scientists.

Peacegirl: And number two, it's tiring to explain why man's will is not free.

Karpel Tunnel: Like most people you seem to be assuming that one either believes in free will or determinism, and further that there not being free will means that someone can know that determinism is the case or trust what they are calling a proof.

Karpel Tunnel: It’s not about trusting, it’s about understanding the proof.

Peacegirl: (which is a fact not an opinion) just because you felt like interjecting your opinion.

Karpel Tunnel: But I didn't just interject an opinion. I presented an argument. One you still haven't responded to.

Peacegirl: QM does not prove that man’s will is free or undetermined.

Peacegirl: If I am ever going to move forward you will need to accept the premise that man's will is not free, even temporarily.

Karpel Tunnel: Your ability to move forward is dependent on my accepting that my will isn't free? LOL

Peacegirl: Yes, you need to temporarily accept the premise that will is not free even if you’re not sure or I can’t move forward as to why this knowledge is significant.

Karpel Tunnel: And again, let me state...regardless of any problems one has justifying the existence of free will, there still can be epistemological problems with being sure one can demonstrate determinism is the case and universal.

Peacegirl: The law of greater satisfaction is why man’s will is not free. There are no exceptions because all life (at least on Earth) moves in this direction.

Peacegirl: but believe whatever you want! lol

Karpel Tunnel: If you are assuming I believe in free will, this is a mere assumption.

Peacegirl: You obviously don’t believe in determinism solely so you’re probably a compatibilist which is just a play on the word free. In the end they are creating a definition of what constitutes free will which is not free will at all. This is done so they can hold people blameworthy and punishable by law. Nothing changes.

Peacegirl: You said science isn't sure if there is some free will.

Karpel Tunnel: I did not say that. I said there was controversy around determinism and indeterminism.

Peacegirl: That’s all well and good but when it comes to man’s will, it’s 100 percent not free.

Peacegirl: That means you don't think these observations are scientific. It seems like you are then interjecting your opinion because my explanation in your eyes is not scientific, just another opinion. I am not sure what you consider science versus theory.

Karpel Tunnel: There are a number of things in this paragraph that make me think you don't know much about scientific epistemology. Your use of 'observations' for one. But the last part about 'science vs. theory' really shows a lack of understanding of what theory is in science, what the word means. My sense is you have less understanding of science, scientific terminology, current scientific positions, than I do. Again, I did not interject an opinion. I interjected an argument. One you still keep avoiding even looking at. You just keep telling me you are right and showing you don't know much about the philosophy of science. I see problems with belief in either determinism or free will. But further saying 'believe whatever you want' is an odd thing for a determinist to say' and it is a bit ironic for you, as a specific kind of determinist you are, to add the lol.

I was just frustrated. Didn’t mean anything by it.

I am tired of having to defend what I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, is true and I don't feel like debating.

Karpel Tunnel: Well, you picked a very odd place to communicate your ideas.

Peacegirl: I have found out the hard way that philosophy forums aren’t the right venue to introduce a genuine discovery. It’s hard for philosophers especially to be able to decipher between so many opposing theories. But this is not a theory yet it’s being treated with disregard.

Peacegirl: If you don't see the proof that's okay. I don't understand what you meant that it's ironic of me to say "believe whatever you want." I am not, as a determinist, forced to say anything in particular. Your idea of determinism is obviously not mine.

Karpel Tunnel: Well, if you'd actually interact with my argument, we might find out. And I understand that you are not forced by external forces to say anything in particular.

Peacegirl: Well maybe that’s a starting point.

Karpel Tunnel: But anyway. You're a rude person and a rather naive one, coming to a philosophy forum and expecting people to be swayed by restatements of your position, while you make no effort to understand the points I was making. And not wanting to debate. And then telling me that you will not be able to move forward unless I accept your ideas.

Peacegirl: I don’t expect you to accept my ideas unless you see why they are undeniable.

Karpel Tunnel: What a long post you made with not the slightest bit of an actual response to what I wrote, with no new substance on the issue...

No wonder you are tired. So much effort you made in not addressing my post and in reasserting that you are right and are so sure of it - which really distinguishes your position from other people's. So few people are sure of their philosophical positions you must be correct if you are 100 percent sure. All this effort in this last post with no substance at all. The work that must go into posts where there is substance must be incredible.

While I will never read another thing you write again, I wish you good luck with your book. If your writing and attitude here is any indication of your skills, interpersonally and philosophically, finding a publisher for that book or even a solid online distribution, is going to be very hard.
In case I haven't made myself clear, I won't read any response you make to this post, so you can skip the tiring not responding you engage in and just move on to other posts. Save that energy.

Peacegirl: Sorry that you feel that way. There have been a lot of misunderstandings! Good luck in all your endeavors!
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 06, 2019 12:33 am

Meno_ wrote:
Peacegirl wrote:What is most important for the purposes of this thread is not why people will to power or have the power to will because this is not about dissecting motive


Meno: I am not suggesting a connection between will and power to be a basis of motive, in order to dissect meaning, and neither a factual understanding of what a will represents, vis. It's non existence, but merely stating the underlying themes historically speaking.

This theme has been analyzed for at least 2000 years, but existentially been treated most thoroughly , and modernly, by those who understood the problem dynamically-by method, and not the kind that's described by Descartes.

Which confirms the onus brought on toward the existentialists.

The will may not 'exist', but it is dependent on power to decide, not merely one way or another, but on differing ways of effect and affect.

I am using ' affect', the way You are suggesting, in choosing more acceptable alternatives which may be pretty much determined as again You point out.

However, does this necessarily lead to the conjecture, that , such progression in I take it, evolutionary terms will ultimately lead toward more and better understood situations, whereby choices, although determined, may set course for an optimistic view of how intelligence may land us into more certainty, regarding how overall determined choices play out in the larger scheme of things? For that is what I induce from the thesis.

Peacegirl: Absolutely Meno. Although will is not free and never has been, the understanding as to why it’s not free and what this means for our benefit, doesn’t change our nature, but veers us in a new direction that could not take place without the understanding.


Meno: I have no desire to debate, or argue, and truly seek only clarification to an admirable assessment.

Peacegirl: Thanks for your interest! This knowledge, as we extend the principles, is revolutionary in that it prevents that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.
Last edited by peacegirl on Mon May 06, 2019 3:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 06, 2019 2:50 am

Ecmandu: Peacegirl,

This is not a proof of determinism that you are offering ...

By your own terms in this "proof", all that has to be demonstrated, is that one person, for one single choice, in the entire cosmos, knew for a fact, for themselves, that they weren't making the best possible decision that they knew was the best decision.

Peacegirl: The best decision for someone may be the worst decision in hindsight, which will then change his future decision if a similar situation presents itself. It is also possible that someone knows he is not making the best decision but for reasons that are unclear to an onlooker, he gets greater satisfaction making a choice that offers him more in terms of immediate gratification or some other payoff.

Ecmandu: But that's not really what this is about.

This is about a commandment from you to stop hurting people.

"Everyone obey me and the world will be a great place for us all!" "No! Seriously! Just obey me!" "Now" "obey me now!" "Now!" "Just do what I say". "Now" "just do it!"

Billions of people have tried that in human history, you're not the first.

Peacegirl: Who is making any commands? Who is saying obey me? Is that what you’ve gotten from my presentation? The author urged people not to jump to conclusions 50 years ago and that’s all you’ve been doing. I was hoping the internet would bring open minds together, but it looks like history is repeating itself.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Mon May 06, 2019 3:22 am

Oh sure, some guy writes a book, even though he's proven that not writing the book has the same exact outcome ?? That's called a proof through behavior against intellectual contradiction, in other words, he's a hypocrite: do as I say, not as I do
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 06, 2019 12:55 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Oh sure, some guy writes a book, even though he's proven that not writing the book has the same exact outcome ?? That's called a proof through behavior against intellectual contradiction, in other words, he's a hypocrite: do as I say, not as I do


Whoaaaa, you're making all kinds of false accusations about this author. Your logic is warped and filled with fallacy! Is this the calibre of individual I'm dealing with in here? If it is, I will have to move on. :(
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 06, 2019 1:24 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:"Sly" however is the sort of thing you would expect from the free will folks. They would accuse someone of trying to be sly because they are convinced that this choice was something they did have control over. They chose to be sly when they could have chosen not to be. Whereas in a determined universe I "chose" to be sly only because nature compelled me to.


peacegirl wrote: Pointing out someone's way of responding has nothing to do with the belief that they answered that way of their own free will.


On the other hand, those who necessarily refuse to accept your own definition of determinism argue that you were never able not to point this out. And, my being so confused about how you necessarily came to your own definition of it myself, I'm convinced that you're one of them!

The entanglements here are in my view more about the use of language than the manner in which the language that we use is able to be demonstrated as in sync with our actual behaviors. Stuff, that, among others, Wittgenstein was pointing to.

I just take it back to the gap between the language that we use here in this exchange and the language that would be needed in order to explain how human interactions on this infinitesimally tiny speck of existence that English speaking folks call Earth are intertwined.

Which nature then conplels you to dismiss as, what, incidental?



The language gap can cause a problem as was shown by this author regarding how determinism is interpreted. Language caused a gap in understanding and it's the same language that is clearing the misunderstanding up so that we can apply this knowledge effectively.

iambiguous wrote:You want it both ways. But in a manner I am still unable to grasp. You want to make a distinction between a domino not choosing to topple over and John choosing to set it up to topple over. While at the same time acknowledging that both the domino and John do only that which nature compells them to do.


peacegirl wrote:The only difference iambiguous is that a domino is being pushed by an external force. There is no external force pushing you, for example, to be here in this thread. You are here because it gives you greater satisfaction over the option not to be here.


iambiguous wrote:If the immutable laws of nature are behind every single interaction between matter -- that which I understand a determined universe to be -- the domino not "choosing" to topple and the human brain "choosing" to topple it are necessarily intertwined in the only reality able to unfold in sync with those laws.

The true mystery [for me] is how matter evolves into human brains actually able to confront human interactions self-consciously. As "I". "I" amidst the antinomy that is built right into dualism. We simply can't explain that yet. Or, rather, no one has successfully explained it to me.


The topic that interests you is not a prerequisite to understanding that man's will is not free and what this means for the benefit of all mankind.

iambiguous wrote:You keep wanting to make this distinction between "being able to make choices that comes from within, not from without" as though that which does come from within the human brain is somehow connected to realty in a way that is different from how all other matter is connected to it. For most this means God. But for you it means an understanding of nature that in my view you just make up in your head. Your own rendition of nature as God.


It makes a difference since making choices from within indicate that external factors such as how you describe nature, or God himself, cannot force you like a domino to fall if you yourself (the "I" you call the self) don't want to make that choice. The word "cause" is misleading. I'll post this again and maybe you'll get it this time.

The government holds each person responsible to obey the laws
and then punishes those who do not while absolving itself of all
responsibility; but how is it possible for someone to obey that which
under certain conditions appears to him worse? It is quite obvious
that a person does not have to steal if he doesn’t want to, but under
certain conditions he wants to, and it is also obvious that those who
enforce the laws do not have to punish if they don’t want to, but both
sides want to do what they consider better for themselves under the
circumstances. The Russians didn’t have to start a communistic
revolution against the tyranny that prevailed; they were not compelled
to do this; they wanted to. The Japanese didn’t have to attack us at
Pearl Harbor; they wanted to. We didn’t have to drop an atomic
bomb among their people, we wanted to. It is an undeniable
observation that man does not have to commit a crime or hurt
another in any way, if he doesn’t want to. The most severe tortures,
even the threat of death, cannot compel or cause him to do what he
makes up his mind not to do. Since this observation is
mathematically undeniable, the expression ‘free will,’ which has come
to signify this aspect, is absolutely true in this context because it
symbolizes what the perception of this relation cannot deny, and here
lies in part the unconscious source of all the dogmatism and
confusion since MAN IS NOT CAUSED OR COMPELLED TO
DO TO ANOTHER WHAT HE MAKES UP HIS MIND NOT
TO DO — but that does not make his will free.
In other words, if someone were to say — “I didn’t really want to
hurt that person but couldn’t help myself under the circumstances,”
which demonstrates that though he believes in freedom of the will he
admits he was not free to act otherwise; that he was forced by his
environment to do what he really didn’t want to do, or should he make
any effort to shift his responsibility for this hurt to heredity, God, his
parents, the fact that his will is not free, or something else as the
cause, he is obviously lying to others and being dishonest with himself
because absolutely nothing is forcing him against his will to do what
he doesn’t want to do, for over this, as was just shown, he has
mathematical control.


iambiguous wrote:But, in my view, only because you were never able not to -- given my own understanding of determinism. Which I have no way of demonstrating is true either.


Just because you can't demonstrate the fact that man's will is not free given your background and experience does not mean that author hasn't demonstrated that man's will is not free. Please stop putting this author in the same basket as you. The author is not confused.

iambiguous wrote:It has been fascinating philosophers for centuries now. But some [like you and the author] are, in my view, able to concoct "discoveries" that not only explain it all but project into a future finally brimming with "peace and properity".


That is very true. All this author has shown is how to prevent the desire to strike a first blow by removing the causes that lead to it. Other than that, he could not predict what will bring you or anyone else greater satisfaction. He couldn't know this, and it's not necessary to demonstrate how this progressive future of "peace and prosperity" can become a reality.

iambiguous wrote:But this is still part of the mystery of minds actually able to create psychological defense mechanisms that sustain some measure of comfort and consolation. Some are able to concoct these intellectual contraptions in their heads that fit all the pieces together into a foundation solid enogh in their heads to anchor "I" to. For most of course this all revolves around religion and God. But not for everyone...


Intellectual contraptions to anchor an "I" to? I think you are projecting onto me your own intellectual contraption. But you don't see it. 8-[

iambiguous wrote:It really comes down to how you connect the dots between the things you want to do and the things that nature compels you to want to do. As though there actually is a distinction to be made in a world where all matter [including the human brain] is inherently connected to all of the dots that comprise nature itself.


peacegirl wrote:Ultimately, we are part of nature and we are inherently connected to the dots that comprise nature itself, but you seem to be stuck with the idea that you are a walking robot. This is the confusion surrounding this discussion due to the fact that having choice is not inconsistent with the truth of determinism IF it is defined correctly.


iambiguous wrote:I am stuck where nature sticks me. And that precious "definitional logic" you cling to is apparently where nature has stuck you.


I'm not stuck. I know that man's will is not free and your idea of autonomy does nothing to prove it is free.

Tom Clark writes: Hey, get a load of this: over at WEIT Jerry Coyne says in response to my comment (#9) that I'm a compatibilist just because I say that we're causally effective agents that are sometimes rational, self-controlled and autonomous. But of course I'm not a compatibilist, rather a pragmatic determinist who thinks that seeing that we don't have contra-causal free will has significant implications for attitudes and social policy (which compatibilists generally don't). He says I think determinism is demoralizing, which it isn't *if* we see that we retain effective agency and make real choices in a deterministic (non-libertarian) universe. We are not puppets or mere meat robots. Too bad Jerry doesn't get this since he's setting back the cause of determinism acceptance by drawing false conclusions concerning it. Can I get a witness?

iambiguous wrote: At least until nature itself gets around to being in sync with the author's discovery. As though that's the way it actually works! The author has necessarily given nature a route to peace and properity here on planet Earth. But will nature finally get it? Not unless enough folks come around to his own understanding of all this. Even though they too are all stuck where nature puts them. If only from the cradle to the grave.

You admit that what you think you know is necessarily embedded in all that you do not know...and then simply shrug that off. Why? Because you need to do this in order to sustain the belief that what you think you do know is somehow in sync with what the author thinks that he knows in discovering this wholly subjective progressive future


peacegirl wrote:Stop making insinuations about the author that this discovery cannot be true because he only thinks that he knows.


iambiguous wrote:Here we go again. You seem to acknowledge that my insinuations about the author, like the author's discoveries themselves, are all at one with nature unfolding only as nature must given the universal laws that propel/compel it.

Yet you demand that I stop doing this with precisely the same inflection one would expect from someone convinced that I do have the autonomous capacity to stop.


You do have the autonomy to stop if you want to, which only means you have the ability to stop if you want to. I've said this many times; autonomy does not mean free will. Additionally, determinism does not mean I can't express myself when I know that what you're saying about this discovery being an intellectual contraption of the author's making is an intellectual contraption of your own.

iambiguous wrote:
Now, maybe others on this thread can explain this to me as you would like me to understand it. Indeed, maybe nature itself will at last compel to me to understand it next week or next month.

But, here and now, freely or not, I don't understand it at all. In fact, your arguments often seem completely unintelligble to me.

Stuff like this:

peacegirl wrote:He knows, trust me. He didn't have to discover this wholly progressive future. How can anyone know everything that is going to occur before it occurs. It isn't necessary. All he needed to know is how we can prevent the desire to hurt one another when given a better option. You are creating an argument that has no place.


Many philosophers believe that determinism means we have to be able to predict everything that is going to happen, which is false.

iambiguous wrote:All of this is entirely based on the assumptions that you make about the definitions that you give to the words here. You have not given me any substantive evidence that all rational men and women are in fact obligated to believe it.


You aren't obligated to believe anything if you don't believe it, but your disbelief won't stop this new world from coming about because others will understand these principles and want to help bring this knowledge to light.

iambiguous wrote:You simply need to believe it yourself in order to sustain both the equillibrium and the equanimity that propels you into this progressive future.


That's not true either. A discovery cannot be understood by a few people and have a major effect on the entire world.

Remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark...the hour is getting late.


iambiguous wrote:But my own words here are in the same boat. I am no less unable to demonstrate my points. All I can do is to follow the folks who do grapple with these issues/relationships utilizing such things as the scientific method to explore the actual functioning of the human brain in the act of choosing.


What you're insinuating is that this can't be a discovery because your idea of proof has to come from something other than what this author has proven. Wrong again.

iambiguous wrote:It's all neatly contained in the internal logic that revolves entirely around what you think you do know about that 5% of the universe that physicists themselves admit is applicable only to the matter that they are grappling to understand given all the unknown unknowns contained in the other 95%.


peacegirl wrote:Once again, I don't have to know everything about the universe in order to understand that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction.


iambiguous wrote:No, once again you merely assert this to be the case while offering no substantive arguments/evidence to back it up. What you won't do in my opinion...if, autonomously, I even have one...is to consider why it is so important that you believe this. The reasons that I suggest above.


First of all, it has been proved that man does not have free will for the reasons given. There is no reason to keep talking about autonomy as if this freedom to think and speak (of your own desire or volition) means that you have free will. You're very confused here.

iambiguous wrote:Thus...

What you can't ever own up to [in my view] is how crucial the authors "discovery" is to sustaining the psychological comfort and consolation that believing in all his assumptions provides you.


Believe what you want iambiguous if that's what you must based on your preferences. Your responses are in sync with your beliefs that compel you to answer in this way...in the direction of greater satisfaction.

peacegirl wrote:Stop with the analysis please. You are way off.


iambiguous wrote:And around and around and around we go. Or, rather, around and around and around we must go.

Culminating [necessarily] in this:

Again, I am not arguing that you are wrong here, only that, given my own understanding of determinism, your argument seems entirely bizarre to me. Over and again you seem to agree with me about things that, from my point of view, refute your point of view.


That's because you are not understanding the simple nuance regarding the word "cause" that is misleading. Some people just won't get it or want to get .
it. People are often invested in their own worldview and if something conflicts they will fight tooth and nail to try to find loopholes in order to retain their beliefs.
peacegirl wrote:Well maybe you need to reconfigure your definition of determinism, and then it won't be so bizarre to you. :) Nothing I said refutes my own point of view if you follow me carefully.


iambiguous wrote:See, nothing gets through. Maybe nature [per her laws] will one day compel me to reconfigure my definition. Or maybe any of the defintions that any of us give to it are only and always the ones that nature compels us to give it.

But what comes through clearly to me is this deeply engrained psychological need on your part for others to accept that how you deconstruct and then reconstruct determinism re the author's "discovery" is actually more a manifestation of this: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296

Only I have no way of knowing if this is not too just another inherent manifestation of what can only ever be.

It's the part where I reconfigure "I" into an existential contraption here that most perturbs the objectivists of your ilk. Or so the nihilists of my ilk take our own profoundly problematic leap to.


The only objective standard that is of extreme import is this hurting of others which only means doing something to someone that they don't want done to themselves.

peacegirl wrote:Just because nature causes you to choose certain things based on your desires does not mean you can't think for yourself, do for yourself and be independent...yet still be working within the framework of determinism.


iambiguous wrote:This is a flat out contradiction in terms given my own understanding of determinism. To be compelled to think for myself such that I think only that which is wholly in sync with the laws of matter makes "thinking for myself" basically an illusion that matter has somehow evolved into when becoming a human mind.


peacegirl wrote: You are using two different definitions here.


iambiguous wrote:No, as I understand determinism, I am using whatever defintions nature compels me to use. Here and now


We are compelled by the laws of nature to think in the only way we can think. Choosing, based on those thoughts, are not free yet in everyday parlance, we can think for ourselves if it's qualified to mean "we are free of any external force or pressure."

peacegirl wrote: It's the same thing as saying evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, but we can use the term evil when we are identifying someone who has caused a heinous crime.


iambiguous wrote:Indeed, in my view, that is what is most important to you here. By your definition of determinism, we can still call particular behaviors "heinous crimes". By your definition of determinism those crimes become a thing of the past in our "progressive future".


In total perspective evil is not evil, but in everyday experience, we can use the term to mean a vicious crime; vicious meaning with great rage.

iambiguous wrote:It's how you are able to actually think yourself into believing this that continues to escape me. As promethean75 noted elsewhere, that's what the discussion of free will really revolves around: morality. In other words...

Being able or not able to hold others responsible for the things they do.

Somehow in your head you want and you get it both ways. No free will...but evil is still around.


Evil (hurt to others) is still around. If you want to omit the word evil, then do so, but I'm referring to a hurt. We still have hurt in this world even though everything had to be, but that doesn't mean that hurt and pain of this world has to continue.

iambiguous wrote:But when I try to bring this all down to earth...

And that the behaviors you deem to be a prerequisite for "peace and prosperity" are precisely the behaviors that others hold in contempt.


What behaviors do people hold in contempt?

peacegirl wrote: I don't know of anyone who would rather be poor than rich, have war rather than peace, or hold these values in contempt. What they hold in contempt is exploitation.


iambiguous wrote:But I know any number of folks right here at ILP who argue the road to prosperity for all revolves either around capitalism or socialism. Which one then is more in sync with the author's "progressive" future?

And what of those nihilists who own and operate the military industrial complex who crave the sort of wars that keep them grinning all the way to the banks?

Somehow they will all be compelled to come into contact with the author's "discovery" and usher in this "progressive future". Right?

...you take it elsewhere.

peacegirl wrote: No, it won't happen necessarily like that, but let me try to get you to think more expansively here. What if government itself is no longer needed? What if conflict can be avoided and everyone benefits in the process? What then?


iambiguous wrote:What if, what if what if. How does any of this actually address the point that I am making? Different folks along the political spectrum have different [very, very different] narratives and political agendas regarding government and conflict.

What then?


I get that iambiguous, but when this knowledge is brought to light, and everyone in the world can only benefit, government (controlling the masses by a few) will no longer be necessary. Most things will be privatized. Do you see how you're jumping ahead which is a problem for this author.

iambiguous wrote:My point is that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now those who are left for dead and those who leave them for dead are like the characters and the guests in West World.The characters are wholly programmed to think and feel and say and do only what they must. While the guests presume that they are free to do these things autonomously. The show then explores when the two worlds begin to intertwine.

But: in a determined universe [again, as I understand it] there is no distinction between the characters and the guests. They are all compelled to think and feel and say and do things as nature commands given the immutable laws of matter.


peacegirl wrote:I agree that the guest and the characters are both doing what they are compelled to do. The only thing I have an issue with is your using the term "programmed" which indicates that you can't make a choice because it's already made. This is where there is a lot of confusion as I've already expressed.


iambiguous wrote:Okay, nature compels both the automatons and the guests to do only as they were ever able to "choose" to do. But that's not the same as nature "programming" them?


peacegirl wrote: The word "program" is problematic because, once again, the wording implies that it's the program causing you to do what you do, which is false.


iambiguous wrote:How is nature itself with its immutable laws of matter not the program behind both? How is the program and the causal function of nature not one and the same here?


Because volition still exists. Our agency is part of the causal process, which means we are not robots that are following a program like a domino. We, as agents, do get to choose but it's not of our own free will. You can call it "free will" in a colloquial sense if it means there is nothing obstructing our ability to make a decision (which compatibilists and libertarians have defined as free will, which it is not). No, nature didn't make you choose anything because nature (as separate from you) can't push you in a direction you don't want to go, which is what opponents of determinism believe is being proposed. And they are right, nothing can make a person injure or kill another if he doesn't want t;, nothing can make a person hurt anyone if he doesn't want to, for over this he has absolute (or mathematical) control. A person chooses to hurt because he wants to, since nothing can make him hurt another if he doesn't want to. If you can't wrap your head around this, hopefully you will eventually.

peacegirl wrote: Please try to get this because it is the key to what follows. Nothing, not nature, not a program, not your heredity or environment can CAUSE you to do what you do unless you want to do it. This keeps the responsibility on YOU, where it belongs, not in a blameworthy way but just to assign whose responsibility it is for making a choice.


iambiguous wrote:Over and over again you insist [from my frame of mind] that we take what we want to do out of the loop. As though the laws of nature do not compel some to think that what they want to do they want to do of their own volition. While others are compelled to believe that they "choose" to want what they do.


Obviously, what we do of our own volition is not of our own volition if everything is part of a deterministic process, but even here the meaning of "I did something of my own volition" can still mean "of my own desire," even if at it's root one's choices are completely determined. It's the same thing as saying "evil is not really evil if seen in total perspective", but we can use the term "evil" to mean "hurt." This is very problematic because saying that nothing is your choice, but nature's choice, is shifting your responsibility to nature. You, as an agent, are still responsible for making the choice you made. Most choices are benign but many are not. These are the choices that this entire discussion revolves around because it deals with who is actually responsible in a no free will world? And if we aren't free, how can our civilization function if we cannot blame those who couldn't help themselves? That is the issue at hand.

iambiguous wrote:If everything gets done only as it ever can get done then everything is wholly in sync with nature itself.


iambiguous wrote:And, yes, I agree in the sense that nature is differentiated from God. The laws of nature are [until we know otherwise] just the reflection of the brute facticity that is existence itself. No teleological component at all.


peacegirl wrote: That being said, the fact that will is not free and we are progressing toward a world where there will be no more war, hatred, crime, or poverty indicates that there is some kind of design, not in a personal God way, but in a way that points to order out of chaos.


iambiguous wrote:Again, this speaks volumes regarding that which I construe to be behind the author's "discovery" here. The psychological impetus. Everything gets invested in this "future" where human beings interact as they were always meant to interact when they are finally in sync with God as nature.


No, not at all. We always have been in sync with God as nature. It's just that now we have more knowledge and when it is applied to the environment, it allows us to remove the hurt in human relations by veering in a new direction but still in sync with the laws of our nature.

iambiguous wrote:That's the part "in your head" that you can nestle down in while the real world continues to clobber all the rest of us in all manner of insufferable contexts.


Maybe the nihilists will become optimists. Miracles do happen. :)

iambiguous wrote:Hey, but if that works for you, isn't that all that really matters? Indeed, maybe my own sour reaction here is just a manifestation of my own yearning to think myself into something just like it.


Don't talk yourself into it. Just follow the principles and you will be able to see for yourself (providing you understand the two-sided equation) that this is not a figment of anyone's imagination but a real true discovery. :P
Last edited by peacegirl on Mon May 06, 2019 3:57 pm, edited 7 times in total.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Meno_