New Discovery

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

Re: New Discovery

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue May 28, 2019 6:15 am


I have just read the third chapter and agree that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 28, 2019 7:33 am

There is something to fear, that one committed the sin of commission, that is You could have done something for another soul that You failed to do, because of that fear that you did not overcome.

The fear was evidence of a lack of love , and the proof in the pudding is, that love does not know fear.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5199
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby phyllo » Tue May 28, 2019 1:51 pm

On the contrary, you'll repeat yourself if nature compels you to.

You're wrong. Nature can't compel me if I don't want to repeat myself.
Are you sure that you understand what Iambig is saying?

You repeatedly reply to his point in this way - as if "your want" gives you some measure of control. But that really doesn't make sense because you will want whatever 'nature' makes you want.

In a determined world, you don't get to choose your wants, desires or preferences.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11235
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 28, 2019 3:05 pm

Peace girl,

Why can't You see this in a different way, rather then using 'strict' determination based on ontology, psychological relativity of preferred method of describing trends, 'leaning toward conclusive but probabilistic notions to support determined situations, contextual divergences, supplying relative ideas of mixed willful/ determined phases of both?

An either/or juncture develops with absolutely defined conditional reductive nominal consequance-ism where the reductive effort toward simpler explanations fail, because a reduction toward psychological explanation failing, the threas gains contradictory interpretations.
Why? Because reductive arguments can not be supported by emotive wished for conclusions: not because it's lack of validity, but because reductionism does not, can not entail it's derivitive, for psychologisms can not derive an ontology.

It's chasing it's own tail . as it were, at the very least, as shown by the structurally preoccupied linguistic considerations.
This was mentioned above, I can't remember where but I will search it out later on, today.Generally , the structural interpretation of language appears to express some need for cohesion or compatibility with the philosophy of mind. I will try to come back to this later today, this being an initial , early morning effort.

The fact of derivation is relevant and important here, because the derivation flowed from metaphysics to and through psychology , and not vica versa. inductive reasoning uses probable options to approximate the differing usage , filling in variables likely appropriate as the most possible factual choice.- In the original schematic constructive integrative route that is to be deconstructed so it can be approximated.
The deconstruction is caused by the lack of cohesive certainty, as a structural foundation, which came about by the break up of meaningful demonstrations, where strict determination can be shown to be conditionally be based on absolute and absolutely intrinsic causitive factors. This here, simply can not be shown, and the foundation can not support such a route our minds can re-route.
Its like the little girl who left home dropped pieces of bread on the road, so she will have a sign of her route retraceable on her return, only have them eaten up by birds.

These general concepts rely on the language analysis which I earlier referred to And in a like manner , will try to retrace, in order to be able to support my point.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5199
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 28, 2019 3:30 pm

Further note: the reason I am writing in ''philosophic language's, is, that if it was not for that , I could never try to recreate the patterns of reasoning which got me here. (The route which later, as I promised, will try to re route and return to-so as to be able to reduce it to 'sensible' under-standing.)
So it us of primary reason that I have to understand myself.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5199
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue May 28, 2019 4:12 pm

phyllo wrote:
On the contrary, you'll repeat yourself if nature compels you to.

You're wrong. Nature can't compel me if I don't want to repeat myself.
Are you sure that you understand what Iambig is saying?

You repeatedly reply to his point in this way - as if "your want" gives you some measure of control. But that really doesn't make sense because you will want whatever 'nature' makes you want.

In a determined world, you don't get to choose your wants, desires or preferences.
Another way to put this is to say that you will, in any given moment, find yourself with a set of desires, wants and preferences. We can set aside where they came from, because that doesn't matter...you got them now. Now someone could argue, well I can choose to aim for new ones....Sure, you can. But then the choice will be determined by those wants, desires and preferences you have now. And no baby out of the womb is choosing its desires, wants and preferences...so we wake up, in time, finding ourselves with a set. And that set determines the next one. If the determinists are right. Like water running down a hill, changing course due to gravity and the shape of the hill. Choices happening like the weather.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 4:14 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
I have just read the third chapter and agree that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death


I'm glad you agree about nothing to fear in death. Many people don't. What he explained in the last paragraph was just a prelude to Chapter Ten, Our Posterity. I am curious as to why you had no comment regarding the subject matter of Chapter Three. I mean if this principle can help prevent carelessness that kills large numbers of people every year, that's a very big deal, and you made no mention of it at all.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 4:18 pm

Meno_ wrote:This very divisive post is a semblance of what is going on in the world today.
We are mere replicas, and it's working.
Apologies to both sides. But in the deal politocal world there are no apologies, only increased hyper vigilance and paranoia.


No side has to apologize. This was not meant to be a devisive post. It was meant to show that there is a better way even if the world as it stands, is all that it can be at this time.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 4:36 pm

phyllo wrote:
On the contrary, you'll repeat yourself if nature compels you to.

You're wrong. Nature can't compel me if I don't want to repeat myself.
Are you sure that you understand what Iambig is saying?

You repeatedly reply to his point in this way - as if "your want" gives you some measure of control. But that really doesn't make sense because you will want whatever 'nature' makes you want.

In a determined world, you don't get to choose your wants, desires or preferences.


There is a difference between nature making me do something, and nature causing me to want to do something due to my preferences. Obviously, our wants, desires or preferences are not of our choosing. The difference between the two statements is huge. When you say nature made me do this, it implies that nature is an entity that is forcing me to make a preset choice, which may be opposite from the choice I prefer to make. We have no control over what we we choose (in the direction of greater satisfaction), but the difference is that we, as the agent, must give permission to those choices. We know that if will is not free, the choices we make are beyond our control, so how could we have any measure of control? But it is important to understand the other side of the equation that nothing can make us do what we make up our mind not to do, for over this we have absolute control. This ability does not grant us free will, just to clarify.

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.

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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue May 28, 2019 4:48 pm

Nature doesn't end at the skin. We are nature. Our insides, desires, flesh, intentions....are nature. It flows forward. Inevitably. If determinism is the case.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Nature doesn't end at the skin. We are nature. Our insides, desires, flesh, intentions....are nature. It flows forward. Inevitably. If determinism is the case.


Exactly, but when you say nature made you do this, it’s not an accurate expression
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 5:46 pm

Meno_ wrote:There is something to fear, that one committed the sin of commission, that is You could have done something for another soul that You failed to do, because of that fear that you did not overcome.

The fear was evidence of a lack of love , and the proof in the pudding is, that love does not know fear.


I don't think the term "sin" is accurate here. We, as social beings, were created to help each other when there is a true need, which turns out to be the key to the economic system. But often it is the case that we are expected to comply with another's request not because there is a true need, but because it's easier for them to have others do their dirty work. Are we expected to be selfless to prove we are loving?
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue May 28, 2019 6:26 pm, 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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 5:50 pm

Meno_ wrote:Further note: the reason I am writing in ''philosophic language's, is, that if it was not for that , I could never try to recreate the patterns of reasoning which got me here. (The route which later, as I promised, will try to re route and return to-so as to be able to reduce it to 'sensible' under-standing.)
So it us of primary reason that I have to understand myself.


I don't understand a lot of the philosophic language or patterns of reasoning that you've presented, since I'm not familiar with it. Therefore, I will need a translation in order for me to respond intelligently. :-?
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 6:05 pm

Meno_ wrote:Peace girl,

Why can't You see this in a different way, rather then using 'strict' determination based on ontology, psychological relativity of preferred method of describing trends, 'leaning toward conclusive but probabilistic notions to support determined situations, contextual divergences, supplying relative ideas of mixed willful/ determined phases of both?

An either/or juncture develops with absolutely defined conditional reductive nominal consequance-ism where the reductive effort toward simpler explanations fail, because a reduction toward psychological explanation failing, the threas gains contradictory interpretations.
Why? Because reductive arguments can not be supported by emotive wished for conclusions: not because it's lack of validity, but because reductionism does not, can not entail it's derivitive, for psychologisms can not derive an ontology.


Not sure what you mean. Maybe you can expound on it.

Meno wrote:It's chasing it's own tail . as it were, at the very least, as shown by the structurally preoccupied linguistic considerations.
This was mentioned above, I can't remember where but I will search it out later on, today.Generally , the structural interpretation of language appears to express some need for cohesion or compatibility with the philosophy of mind. I will try to come back to this later today, this being an initial , early morning effort.


Can you give me an example?

Meno wrote:The fact of derivation is relevant and important here, because the derivation flowed from metaphysics to and through psychology , and not vica versa. inductive reasoning uses probable options to approximate the differing usage , filling in variables likely appropriate as the most possible factual choice.- In the original schematic constructive integrative route that is to be deconstructed so it can be approximated.
The deconstruction is caused by the lack of cohesive certainty, as a structural foundation, which came about by the break up of meaningful demonstrations, where strict determination can be shown to be conditionally be based on absolute and absolutely intrinsic causitive factors. This here, simply can not be shown, and the foundation can not support such a route our minds can re-route. Its like the little girl who left home dropped pieces of bread on the road, so she will have a sign of her route retraceable on her return, only have them eaten up by birds.

These general concepts rely on the language analysis which I earlier referred to And in a like manner , will try to retrace, in order to be able to support my point.


I like that analogy. We cannot identify absolute intrinsic causative factors that can be traced back because it's almost impossible to know all of the factors that lead up to an individual's preference. Identifying a cause/effect relationship is not possible because there are many variables that lead a person to choosing one thing over another. I'm sure if you've been following this thread you would also understand why the word "cause" is misleading. Meno, thanks for your input. As I mentioned in the previous post, I am trying to understand your reasoning even though it's a challenge because I'm not well versed in some of the language. I hope we can overcome this barrier. :)
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue May 28, 2019 6:25 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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 6:20 pm

Meno_ wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Peacegirl, erasing my post, seems like censure, and all I said that I seconded in big in PART. After all You duplicated the other view as well! If peace is tantamount with censorship I don't want it!


I didn't censor you. I didn't censure you. And I didn't erase your post. I'm at a loss. I duplicated a post by accident that I was editing. It would be nice to check with me first before accusing me. I have no idea what you mean by "all I said that I seconded in big in PART." Makes no sense to me. What am I missing?



After You put 'duplicate' , ambig posted , and then I posted Right, and followed it partly, by asserting some points he made. I noted that it was indeed posted, and wondered how it came to be deleted, for even if I had, I would have had to fill the post with something.

But never mind Peacegirl, and things happen, nevertheless it made me wonder, and may have been caused by a technical quirk.


It had to be a technical quirk because I never saw your post. If it was ambiguous's post, you should be able to find it. I can't delete other people's posts. You said you seconded what he was saying in part, right? I don't remember seeing your comment or I would have responded, especially if it was a question for me. I would never censor anyone, but I have blocked people in the past who were throwing around ad hominems.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 28, 2019 7:06 pm

Above you pointed out that you had "chosen" to end this exchange. Now you have "chosen" to resume it.

So, did nature compel you to flip-flop here or were you in fact able to choose to "choose" to reverse yourself?

In other words, regarding the part I do not understand, what was unfolding inside your head before and then after these two "choices"? How is free will -- the lack of it -- understood by you in both instances?

iambiguous wrote: The first thing some will note about this point is that it reflects precisely the sort of thing that would be raised by those who do believe in free will. You appreciate the time I took because you had the option not to appreciate it but chose instead to appreciate it. You have now decided to take a pass on continuing the exchange because you were able to think through the discussion and, of your own volition, decided it's time to end it.


peacegirl wrote: Saying I appreciate something does not reflect the sort of thing that would be raised by those who just believe in free will. I can still say "I appreciate" without turning it into language that I can't use.


But how are these words not in turn just more of the same: the embodiment of nature compelling you to "choose" them. How is your expression of appreciation different from how a free will advocate would encompass it? The inflection [to me] is basically the same.

Also, I have no clear understanding at all of what particular point nature has compelled you to make. As usual [with you and the author] it's just words defining, then giving meaning to, then defending more words.

iambiguous wrote:Only, sure, another part of "me" scoffs at this, convinced that, in a manner no one really understands fully, "I" am capable of choosing the words that I type. Even if I am compelled [by the laws of spelling] to chose particular sets of letters to comprise.


peacegirl wrote:You ARE capable of choosing the words that you type. Capability means you have the capacity to choose.


Which just takes me back to the distinction made between "choosing" words and choosing words.

peacegirl wrote:A lot of it is repetitive and we just don't see eye to eye.


iambiguous wrote:Again, as though in the moment before I repeat myself "I" am somehow crucial to bringing that about. But the moment after I repeat myself, my free will is really gone.


Before you do something that involves options, you have a choice.


Or: Before I do something, I am compelled by nature to embody the only option that is in sync with the laws of matter.

peacegirl wrote: Once you make a choice you are responsible for that choice. Most choices are benign. It only becomes a problem when your choices impinge on others.


Or: Once I am compelled by nature to choose the one behavior that is in sync with nature's inherent laws, my "reponsibility" [perceived by both myself and others] becomes just another necessary manifestion of reality unfolding only as it ever could have.

peacegirl wrote:You keep saying I blame you, and I don't. You keep saying these are assumptions that have no real capacity to demonstrate, which is false.


iambiguous wrote:I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves the extent to which you do in fact hold others responsible for not completely agreeing with the author's discovery.


peacegirl wrote: I can't blame you for neglecting to read the first three chapters and acting like you know what it's about. It doesn't mean I have to like your accusations.


Again, I am compelled by nature to ask: What choice do you have in reacting as you do other than in how nature compels you to? Instead, you settle for this mysterious "choice" that your own particular "I" has in the moment before the choice that you make is finally understood by you to be the embodiment of no free will.

iambiguous wrote:They can't of their own free will choose to read his book, but it clearly seems to exasperate you to no end that many of us here don't "choose" to read it.


peacegirl wrote: You can, of your own free will (or desire) choose to read his book, but only IF YOU WANT TO. If you don't want to, then your desire will move you in another direction. Your individual preference is the key as to which direction you are compelled to take.


So, in terms of an actual context preciptating actual choices precipitating actual behaviors, show me where/how the author has demonstrated empirically that someone wanting to do something is not in turn just a necessary adjunct of his or her brain complying with the laws of matter.

Instead...

iambiguous wrote: ...note just one example of where the author his demonstrated that his discoveries are on par with the manner in which folks like Edison and Einstein demonstrated both the use value and the exchange value of their own discoveries.

You claim this...


peacegirl wrote:Chapter Three gives a clear demonstration of how this law works when applied to the environment.


iambiguous wrote: Sum up the manner in which this is demonstrated. Note an argument that is free of the mere assumptions he makes, of the definitions that others must first agree to accept.


And here is your exceedingly thin response:

peacegirl wrote: I don't feel like summing it up. If you're interested, read it. If not, don't read it.


peacegirl wrote: You keep saying this discovery has no foundation without understanding what is behind existence itself, which is not true.


iambiguous wrote:In my view, only someone very, very naive could possibly believe this. Or are wholly compelled by nature to believe it.

This part:

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the existence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christian beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.


How is this not applicable to your claim about the discovery in the context of all that can be known about existence itself?


peacegirl wrote: If something was necessary for the application of these principles to work on our planet, then it would be necessary to know what that something is. But we have enough knowledge without having to know every detail about existence itself in order for it to work.


This is really all you have to fall back on, isn't it? You simply keep repeating the mantra that the author doesn't need to close that staggering gap between what he thinks he knows about free will among the human species here on planet Earth and how the existence of Earth itself somehow fits into staggering enormity of the task involved in grappling with an understanding of our own existence in what may be a multiverse encompassing an infinite number of universes.

You don't go there in my opinion because that puts a gigantic crack in the edifice that has become the discovery that has become the very foundation onto which you anchor all that is purposeful and meaningful in your life.

Just as for years, I too resisted abandoning first God, then Marxism, then the "authenticity" embraced by existentialists as my very own foundations.

Trust me: I do know what is at stake here for objectivists of all stripes.

Then, the part that truly baffles me:

iambiguous wrote:Then back to the extent to which any of the words you "chose" here...


peacegirl wrote: You keep talking about conflicts that you believe can never be resolved. You say it's just a frame of mind that I have concocted in order to feel good about the author, his discovery and all the peace and prosperity heading our way as a result of them, which is completely bogus. I have concocted nothing. You haven't shown a shred of interest in the book which is why you don't understand a shred of it. I know nature didn't allow you to, and that's okay.


iambiguous wrote:...had any possibility whatsoever of either not existing at all or of being different words.


peacegirl wrote: Nope, they had no other possibility.


Yet despite this, you cling to an "agency" which you claim to possess even though this agency "for all practical purposes" changes nothing regarding the things you think, feel, say and do!

Others here might perhaps try to make better sense of this for me. Because your rendition simply makes no rational sense to me given my own understanding of determinism.

iambiguous wrote:Was there that mysterious moment "before" you chose them when it might have become something other than what it, in fact, now is...or was nature wholly embedded in the sequence of experiences that is your own particular "I" going all the way back to the day that you were conceived.


peacegirl wrote: You can't go backward and say I could have made a different choice because we know you couldn't. This discovery deals with prevention, which takes place before a "wrongdoing" (or hurt to another), not after.


No, you can't literally go backward, but you can imagine determinism in a particular way and go back and speculate as to how your own understanding of it would for all practical purposes impact on the choices you made before, during and after they are made. For me, "no free will", no autonomous "agency" exist from start to finish. For you however there seems to be some manifestation of actual agency that reconfigures into no free will only after the choice is made. But nothing is "prevented" unless it is in sync with nature unfolding inexorably [per its laws] as it must.

That's the part that I am not yet compelled to latch onto.

Thus:

peacegirl wrote: ...because we have such different perspectives, I don't think there is any way we can move forward, therefore I'm bowing out of our discussion. It was a good run and I wish you the best. :wink:


iambiguous wrote:So, are you choosing to bow out here as those who embrace autonomy might construe this juncture, or has nature compelled you to "choose" to do what you were only ever able to.


peacegirl wrote: I, as the agent, said I was bowing out because it's my preference --- in the direction of greater satisfaction --- when I can't make any headway. Your posts are also way too long. Maybe if you break them up, I'll reconsider. I realize I didn't bow out yet. I took the time to respond to this post.


Over and over and over and over again: precisely the sort of observations and suggestions I would expect from someone who believed that their preferences and the direction that their sense of satisfaction goes in, was embodied in an agency embodied in at least some measure of free will.

Only they are convinced that they are choosing these things of their own volition, not "choosing" them only because nature wholly compels them to.

peacegirl wrote: I'm not an objectivist. So many things are subjective and relative. The "I" or self gets to choose, although the choice is never free because life can only take us in one direction.


Always you want it both ways. You topple over only as nature compels you to, but unlike the domino it is absolutely vital for you to believe that you participate in "choosing" to. Nothing at all changes in terms of what you must think, feel, say and do...but at least nature has evolved for you into an "I" that does "choose".

It doesn't work that way for me. Instead, it is only profoundly mysterious. How can mindless matter evolve over billions of years into a lifeform possessing a brain possessing a mind culminating in a self-conscious "I" wholly in sync with the laws of matter and be able to actually grasp that!!

The hard guys are, of course, groping and grappling to understand that experientially, experimentally, scientifically, empirically, materially, phenomonologically, etc.. Their discoveries are not predicated solely on intellectually self-serving assumptions and defintions.

The only question is whether this in and of itself is but another manifestation of wholly natural compulsions.

It doesn't matter that there are "many factors that affect choice, which we consider every time we deliberate" if all of them are wholly in sync with the only possible reality that can unfold in a nature that includes the matter we call mind.

Consider:

The Boeing 737 is made up of 367,000 parts. And not a one of them chooses a damn thing.

The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons. And each of them works in sync with all of the others to embody an "I". But how [in tandem] do they encompass an "I" that either does or does not possess the will to choose freely among options?

No doubt about it, the parts of an airplane were thought up and assembled by the parts of our own brains. But the distinction between not choosing, choosing and "choosing" here is far, far, far, far from being wholly understood, settled.

Except for objectivists of your ilk. However you are compelled to understand the profound mystery embedded in the fact of existence itself, you are compelled in turn to insist that others had better damn well better concur with it. Otherwise...

They!
Are!!
Wrong!!!


Right?

I'm merely compelled to suggest that this frame of mind is more in sync with the manner in which I am compelled in turn to keep coming back to this part: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
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: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 28, 2019 7:57 pm

peacegirl wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
I have just read the third chapter and agree that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death


I'm glad you agree about nothing to fear in death. Many people don't. What he explained in the last paragraph was just a prelude to Chapter Ten, Our Posterity. I am curious as to why you had no comment regarding the subject matter of Chapter Three. I mean if this principle can help prevent carelessness that kills large numbers of people every year, that's a very big deal, and you made no mention of it at all.


I've never really understood how some folks are able to "think" themselves into not fearing death. Not unless they are able to "think" themselves into believing in God, immortality, salvation and divine justice.

Or unless their life becomes so riddled with terrible pain and suffering, they yearn to die just to be done with it.

Or maybe "fear of death" is not the right way to put it.

If your life here and now is bursting at the seams with many more good things than bad things, then dying takes all of those things away. And, if you are not a believer in God, they -- like you -- are gone forever.

Me, I've found things that give me an enormous amount of pleasure, satisfaction, fulfilment. The last think I want is for oblivion to take them all away. So, in that respect, I certainly dread the prospect of dying.

On this thread though the dread is either something I have some measure of control over or it is but another inherent manifestation of my wholly determined "I".

But, again, imagine understanding the evolution of matter able to become self-conscious of it's own demise. Autonomically as it were.

How to explain that?!

And, once again, peacegirl puzzling over why someone doesn't mention something that can only be mentioned by someone when nature compels them to.
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: 31918
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 28, 2019 8:13 pm

iambiguous wrote:Above you pointed out that you had "chosen" to end this exchange. Now you have "chosen" to resume it.

So, did nature compel you to flip-flop here or were you in fact able to choose to "choose" to reverse yourself?


Nature didn't compel me to flip-flop as if it forced this on me, no. I thought that you wouldn't post anymore but when you did it gave me greater satisfaction to answer you.I don't like to intentionally ignore people. I may still still bow out if your posts are repetitive and I don't think there's any progress being made.

iambiguous wrote:In other words, regarding the part I do not understand, what was unfolding inside your head before and then after these two "choices"? How is free will -- the lack of it -- understood by you in both instances?


What was unfolding inside my head was before I said I was going to bow out was basically frustration with the lack of progress. Haven't you ever said you were never going to do something again, and then you did it again? I don't have identifiable reasons why I decided to post after I posted that I was bowing out. Maybe I felt more relaxed and at that moment I changed my mind when you were the only one posting. Maybe I saw something in your post that I wanted to respond to. We can change our mind up to the very last instant before we make a choice.

iambiguous wrote: The first thing some will note about this point is that it reflects precisely the sort of thing that would be raised by those who do believe in free will. You appreciate the time I took because you had the option not to appreciate it but chose instead to appreciate it. You have now decided to take a pass on continuing the exchange because you were able to think through the discussion and, of your own volition, decided it's time to end it.


peacegirl wrote: Saying I appreciate something does not reflect the sort of thing that would be raised by those who just believe in free will. I can still say "I appreciate" without turning it into language that I can't use.


iambiguous wrote:But how are these words not in turn just more of the same: the embodiment of nature compelling you to "choose" them. How is your expression of appreciation different from how a free will advocate would encompass it? The inflection [to me] is basically the same.


A libertarian would think I had a choice, where I know I didn't. It's not about the inflection, it's about the underlying belief system.

iambiguous wrote:Also, I have no clear understanding at all of what particular point nature has compelled you to make. As usual [with you and the author] it's just words defining, then giving meaning to, then defending more words.


Nature hasn't compelled me to choose something; nature has compelled me to desire to choose something.

iambiguous wrote:Only, sure, another part of "me" scoffs at this, convinced that, in a manner no one really understands fully, "I" am capable of choosing the words that I type. Even if I am compelled [by the laws of spelling] to chose particular sets of letters to comprise.


peacegirl wrote:You ARE capable of choosing the words that you type. Capability means you have the capacity to choose.


iambiguous wrote:Which just takes me back to the distinction made between "choosing" words and choosing words.


We can't "choose" words that are not part of our repertoire. If every move we make is not done of our own free will, and every thought is not done of our own free will, we have no choice in anything we do. Contemplation is also part of the causal chain, which moves us in only one direction.

peacegirl wrote:A lot of it is repetitive and we just don't see eye to eye.


iambiguous wrote:Again, as though in the moment before I repeat myself "I" am somehow crucial to bringing that about. But the moment after I repeat myself, my free will is really gone.


Before you do something that involves options, you have a choice.


Or: Before I do something, I am compelled by nature to embody the only option that is in sync with the laws of matter.


You can put it that way.

peacegirl wrote: Once you make a choice you are responsible for that choice. Most choices are benign. It only becomes a problem when your choices impinge on others.


iambiguous wrote:Or: Once I am compelled by nature to choose the one behavior that is in sync with nature's inherent laws, my "reponsibility" [perceived by both myself and others] becomes just another necessary manifestion of reality unfolding only as it ever could have.


That's perfectly fine to say, although "your responsibility perceived by others" is a judgment that will not occur under the changed conditions.

peacegirl wrote:You keep saying I blame you, and I don't. You keep saying these are assumptions that have no real capacity to demonstrate, which is false.


iambiguous wrote:I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves the extent to which you do in fact hold others responsible for not completely agreeing with the author's discovery.


peacegirl wrote: I can't blame you for neglecting to read the first three chapters and acting like you know what it's about. It doesn't mean I have to like your accusations.


iambiguous wrote:Again, I am compelled by nature to ask: What choice do you have in reacting as you do other than in how nature compels you to? Instead, you settle for this mysterious "choice" that your own particular "I" has in the moment before the choice that you make is finally understood by you to be the embodiment of no free will.


No, you are misunderstanding. Before you do something that requires serious thought, you contemplate, right? There is no mysterious "I" that comes to a decision. All I am saying is that this law prevents the act of crime BEFORE it takes place, not AFTER. Why? After contemplating should I rob this person or not, for example, the desire to rob will be less satisfying than not to. If this person chooses not to rob, do we need to do those things that were required in a free will society such as incarcerate, rehabilitate, punish, seek justice and recompense?

to be cont...

iambiguous wrote:They can't of their own free will choose to read his book, but it clearly seems to exasperate you to no end that many of us here don't "choose" to read it.


peacegirl wrote: You can, of your own free will (or desire) choose to read his book, but only IF YOU WANT TO. If you don't want to, then your desire will move you in another direction. Your individual preference is the key as to which direction you are compelled to take.


So, in terms of an actual context preciptating actual choices precipitating actual behaviors, show me where/how the author has demonstrated empirically that someone wanting to do something is not in turn just a necessary adjunct of his or her brain complying with the laws of matter.

Instead...

iambiguous wrote: ...note just one example of where the author his demonstrated that his discoveries are on par with the manner in which folks like Edison and Einstein demonstrated both the use value and the exchange value of their own discoveries.

You claim this...


peacegirl wrote:Chapter Three gives a clear demonstration of how this law works when applied to the environment.


iambiguous wrote: Sum up the manner in which this is demonstrated. Note an argument that is free of the mere assumptions he makes, of the definitions that others must first agree to accept.


And here is your exceedingly thin response:

peacegirl wrote: I don't feel like summing it up. If you're interested, read it. If not, don't read it.


peacegirl wrote: You keep saying this discovery has no foundation without understanding what is behind existence itself, which is not true.


iambiguous wrote:In my view, only someone very, very naive could possibly believe this. Or are wholly compelled by nature to believe it.

This part:

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the existence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christian beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.


How is this not applicable to your claim about the discovery in the context of all that can be known about existence itself?


peacegirl wrote: If something was necessary for the application of these principles to work on our planet, then it would be necessary to know what that something is. But we have enough knowledge without having to know every detail about existence itself in order for it to work.


This is really all you have to fall back on, isn't it? You simply keep repeating the mantra that the author doesn't need to close that staggering gap between what he thinks he knows about free will among the human species here on planet Earth and how the existence of Earth itself somehow fits into staggering enormity of the task involved in grappling with an understanding of our own existence in what may be a multiverse encompassing an infinite number of universes.

You don't go there in my opinion because that puts a gigantic crack in the edifice that has become the discovery that has become the very foundation onto which you anchor all that is purposeful and meaningful in your life.

Just as for years, I too resisted abandoning first God, then Marxism, then the "authenticity" embraced by existentialists as my very own foundations.

Trust me: I do know what is at stake here for objectivists of all stripes.

Then, the part that truly baffles me:

iambiguous wrote:Then back to the extent to which any of the words you "chose" here...


peacegirl wrote: You keep talking about conflicts that you believe can never be resolved. You say it's just a frame of mind that I have concocted in order to feel good about the author, his discovery and all the peace and prosperity heading our way as a result of them, which is completely bogus. I have concocted nothing. You haven't shown a shred of interest in the book which is why you don't understand a shred of it. I know nature didn't allow you to, and that's okay.


iambiguous wrote:...had any possibility whatsoever of either not existing at all or of being different words.


peacegirl wrote: Nope, they had no other possibility.


Yet despite this, you cling to an "agency" which you claim to possess even though this agency "for all practical purposes" changes nothing regarding the things you think, feel, say and do!

Others here might perhaps try to make better sense of this for me. Because your rendition simply makes no rational sense to me given my own understanding of determinism.

iambiguous wrote:Was there that mysterious moment "before" you chose them when it might have become something other than what it, in fact, now is...or was nature wholly embedded in the sequence of experiences that is your own particular "I" going all the way back to the day that you were conceived.


peacegirl wrote: You can't go backward and say I could have made a different choice because we know you couldn't. This discovery deals with prevention, which takes place before a "wrongdoing" (or hurt to another), not after.


No, you can't literally go backward, but you can imagine determinism in a particular way and go back and speculate as to how your own understanding of it would for all practical purposes impact on the choices you made before, during and after they are made. For me, "no free will", no autonomous "agency" exist from start to finish. For you however there seems to be some manifestation of actual agency that reconfigures into no free will only after the choice is made. But nothing is "prevented" unless it is in sync with nature unfolding inexorably [per its laws] as it must.

That's the part that I am not yet compelled to latch onto.

Thus:

peacegirl wrote: ...because we have such different perspectives, I don't think there is any way we can move forward, therefore I'm bowing out of our discussion. It was a good run and I wish you the best. :wink:


iambiguous wrote:So, are you choosing to bow out here as those who embrace autonomy might construe this juncture, or has nature compelled you to "choose" to do what you were only ever able to.


peacegirl wrote: I, as the agent, said I was bowing out because it's my preference --- in the direction of greater satisfaction --- when I can't make any headway. Your posts are also way too long. Maybe if you break them up, I'll reconsider. I realize I didn't bow out yet. I took the time to respond to this post.


Over and over and over and over again: precisely the sort of observations and suggestions I would expect from someone who believed that their preferences and the direction that their sense of satisfaction goes in, was embodied in an agency embodied in at least some measure of free will.

Only they are convinced that they are choosing these things of their own volition, not "choosing" them only because nature wholly compels them to.

peacegirl wrote: I'm not an objectivist. So many things are subjective and relative. The "I" or self gets to choose, although the choice is never free because life can only take us in one direction.


Always you want it both ways. You topple over only as nature compels you to, but unlike the domino it is absolutely vital for you to believe that you participate in "choosing" to. Nothing at all changes in terms of what you must think, feel, say and do...but at least nature has evolved for you into an "I" that does "choose".

It doesn't work that way for me. Instead, it is only profoundly mysterious. How can mindless matter evolve over billions of years into a lifeform possessing a brain possessing a mind culminating in a self-conscious "I" wholly in sync with the laws of matter and be able to actually grasp that!!

The hard guys are, of course, groping and grappling to understand that experientially, experimentally, scientifically, empirically, materially, phenomonologically, etc.. Their discoveries are not predicated solely on intellectually self-serving assumptions and defintions.

The only question is whether this in and of itself is but another manifestation of wholly natural compulsions.

It doesn't matter that there are "many factors that affect choice, which we consider every time we deliberate" if all of them are wholly in sync with the only possible reality that can unfold in a nature that includes the matter we call mind.

Consider:

The Boeing 737 is made up of 367,000 parts. And not a one of them chooses a damn thing.

The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons. And each of them works in sync with all of the others to embody an "I". But how [in tandem] do they encompass an "I" that either does or does not possess the will to choose freely among options?

No doubt about it, the parts of an airplane were thought up and assembled by the parts of our own brains. But the distinction between not choosing, choosing and "choosing" here is far, far, far, far from being wholly understood, settled.

Except for objectivists of your ilk. However you are compelled to understand the profound mystery embedded in the fact of existence itself, you are compelled in turn to insist that others had better damn well better concur with it. Otherwise...

They!
Are!!
Wrong!!!


Right?

I'm merely compelled to suggest that this frame of mind is more in sync with the manner in which I am compelled in turn to keep coming back to this part: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296[/quote]
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Wed May 29, 2019 1:05 am

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Above you pointed out that you had "chosen" to end this exchange. Now you have "chosen" to resume it.

So, did nature compel you to flip-flop here or were you in fact able to choose to "choose" to reverse yourself?


Nature didn't compel me to flip-flop as if it forced this on me, no. I thought that you wouldn't post anymore but when you did it gave me greater satisfaction to answer you.I don't like to intentionally ignore people. I may still still bow out if your posts are repetitive and I don't think there's any progress being made.

iambiguous wrote:In other words, regarding the part I do not understand, what was unfolding inside your head before and then after these two "choices"? How is free will -- the lack of it -- understood by you in both instances?


What was unfolding inside my head was before I said I was going to bow out was basically frustration with the lack of progress. Haven't you ever said you were never going to do something again, and then you did it again? I don't have identifiable reasons why I decided to post after I posted that I was bowing out. Maybe I felt more relaxed and at that moment I changed my mind when you were the only one posting. Maybe I saw something in your post that I wanted to respond to. We can change our mind up to the very last instant before we make a choice.

iambiguous wrote: The first thing some will note about this point is that it reflects precisely the sort of thing that would be raised by those who do believe in free will. You appreciate the time I took because you had the option not to appreciate it but chose instead to appreciate it. You have now decided to take a pass on continuing the exchange because you were able to think through the discussion and, of your own volition, decided it's time to end it.


peacegirl wrote: Saying I appreciate something does not reflect the sort of thing that would be raised by those who just believe in free will. I can still say "I appreciate" without turning it into language that I can't use.


iambiguous wrote:But how are these words not in turn just more of the same: the embodiment of nature compelling you to "choose" them. How is your expression of appreciation different from how a free will advocate would encompass it? The inflection [to me] is basically the same.


A libertarian would think I had a choice, where I know I didn't. It's not about the inflection, it's about the underlying belief system.

iambiguous wrote:Also, I have no clear understanding at all of what particular point nature has compelled you to make. As usual [with you and the author] it's just words defining, then giving meaning to, then defending more words.


Nature hasn't compelled me to choose something; nature has compelled me to desire to choose something.

iambiguous wrote:Only, sure, another part of "me" scoffs at this, convinced that, in a manner no one really understands fully, "I" am capable of choosing the words that I type. Even if I am compelled [by the laws of spelling] to chose particular sets of letters to comprise.


peacegirl wrote:You ARE capable of choosing the words that you type. Capability means you have the capacity to choose.


iambiguous wrote:Which just takes me back to the distinction made between "choosing" words and choosing words.


We can't "choose" words that are not part of our repertoire. If every move we make is not done of our own free will, and every thought is not done of our own free will, we have no choice in anything we do. Contemplation is also part of the causal chain, which moves us in only one direction.

peacegirl wrote:A lot of it is repetitive and we just don't see eye to eye.


iambiguous wrote:Again, as though in the moment before I repeat myself "I" am somehow crucial to bringing that about. But the moment after I repeat myself, my free will is really gone.


You are failing to understand that before and after a choice is no different in terms of determinism. We are not free at any time whether before or after a choice is made.

Before you do something that involves options, you have a choice.


Or: Before I do something, I am compelled by nature to embody the only option that is in sync with the laws of matter.


You can put it that way. That's why he said that the word choice is misleading because in actuality we have no choice at all. I have posted this before but you don't pay attention.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.


peacegirl wrote: Once you make a choice you are responsible for that choice. Most choices are benign. It only becomes a problem when your choices impinge on others.


iambiguous wrote:Or: Once I am compelled by nature to choose the one behavior that is in sync with nature's inherent laws, my "reponsibility" [perceived by both myself and others] becomes just another necessary manifestion of reality unfolding only as it ever could have.


That's perfectly fine to say, although "your responsibility perceived by others" is a judgment that will not occur under the changed conditions.

peacegirl wrote:You keep saying I blame you, and I don't. You keep saying these are assumptions that have no real capacity to demonstrate, which is false.


iambiguous wrote:I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves the extent to which you do in fact hold others responsible for not completely agreeing with the author's discovery.


peacegirl wrote: I can't blame you for neglecting to read the first three chapters and acting like you know what it's about. It doesn't mean I have to like your accusations.


iambiguous wrote:Again, I am compelled by nature to ask: What choice do you have in reacting as you do other than in how nature compels you to? Instead, you settle for this mysterious "choice" that your own particular "I" has in the moment before the choice that you make is finally understood by you to be the embodiment of no free will.


No, you are misunderstanding. Before you do something that requires serious thought, you contemplate, right? There is no mysterious "I" that makes a decision. All I am saying is that this law prevents the act of crime BEFORE it takes place, not AFTER. Why? Because that's what this knowledge is about, preventing the crime before it occurs. After contemplating whether to rob a store, for example, the desire in the new world will not be the direction a person would desire going. If this person chooses not to rob, do we need to do those things that were required in a free will society such as incarceration, rehabilitation, retaliation, just desert, etc?

iambiguous wrote:They can't of their own free will choose to read his book, but it clearly seems to exasperate you to no end that many of us here don't "choose" to read it.


Of course I'm exasperated! Imagine how Edison felt when no one listened because they thought he was a goofball until he was able to prove that he was right during the short time he had a window of opportunity.

peacegirl wrote: You can, of your own free will (or desire) choose to read his book, but only IF YOU WANT TO. If you don't want to, then your desire will move you in another direction. Your individual preference is the key as to which direction you are compelled to take.


iambiguous wrote:So, in terms of an actual context preciptating actual choices precipitating actual behaviors, show me where/how the author has demonstrated empirically that someone wanting to do something is not in turn just a necessary adjunct of his or her brain complying with the laws of matter.


It is a necessary adjunct of her brain complying with the laws of matter. No one is saying any different iambiguous.

iambiguous wrote:Instead...

...note just one example of where the author his demonstrated that his discoveries are on par with the manner in which folks like Edison and Einstein demonstrated both the use value and the exchange value of their own discoveries.


He demonstrated the value of this discovery in that it changes the entire landscape of human relations for the better. You won't read the book, so there's nothing I can do. Others will read it.

iambiguous wrote:You claim this...


peacegirl wrote:Chapter Three gives a clear demonstration of how this law works when applied to the environment.


It does.

iambiguous wrote: Sum up the manner in which this is demonstrated. Note an argument that is free of the mere assumptions he makes, of the definitions that others must first agree to accept.


There are no assumptions. That's what makes me recognize how off you are in your reasoning.

iambiguous wrote:And here is your exceedingly thin response:

peacegirl wrote: I don't feel like summing it up. If you're interested, read it. If not, don't read it.


I am not interested in doing more than you care to do. This book took many years to put these concepts down on paper that could be understood. If you are that uninterested, then don't read it but don't expect me to spoon feed it to you.

peacegirl wrote: You keep saying this discovery has no foundation without understanding what is behind existence itself, which is not true.


iambiguous wrote:In my view, only someone very, very naive could possibly believe this. Or are wholly compelled by nature to believe it.

This part:

It would be like physicists discovering that the multiverse does in fact exist, and someone insisting that, for the purposes of their own discussion, they want only this universe to be relevant. Even though the existence of the multiverse might have profound implications for our own universe.

Or like someone living in Flatland able to demonstrate the existence of our own three dimensional world, and dismissing that as irrelevant to all that might be understood regarding the relationship between these two worlds.

Or like someone who was raised to believe their Christian beliefs were based only on the Old Testament alone, discovering that the New Testament existed...but then dismissing that is irrelevant to a discussion about Christianity.


How is this not applicable to your claim about the discovery in the context of all that can be known about existence itself?


It's not relevant. I know that one plus one is two. I don't need to know if this math works in theoretical multiverses.

peacegirl wrote: If something was necessary for the application of these principles to work on our planet, then it would be necessary to know what that something is. But we have enough knowledge without having to know every detail about existence itself in order for it to work.


iambiguous wrote:This is really all you have to fall back on, isn't it? You simply keep repeating the mantra that the author doesn't need to close that staggering gap between what he thinks he knows about free will among the human species here on planet Earth and how the existence of Earth itself somehow fits into staggering enormity of the task involved in grappling with an understanding of our own existence in what may be a multiverse encompassing an infinite number of universes.


Do we need to know that two plus two equals four may be three in a different multiverse? Does it matter to our understanding of mathematics here on Earth which provides the building block for every architectural structure that's ever been built?

iambiguous wrote:You don't go there in my opinion because that puts a gigantic crack in the edifice that has become the discovery that has become the very foundation onto which you anchor all that is purposeful and meaningful in your life.


Let up ambiguous. All you are spouting off is psychobabble.

iambiguous wrote:Just as for years, I too resisted abandoning first God, then Marxism, then the "authenticity" embraced by existentialists as my very own foundations.

Trust me: I do know what is at stake here for objectivists of all stripes.


You fail to listen. I told you I am not an objectivist.

iambiguous wrote:Then, the part that truly baffles me:

Then back to the extent to which any of the words you "chose" here...

peacegirl wrote: You keep talking about conflicts that you believe can never be resolved. You say it's just a frame of mind that I have concocted in order to feel good about the author, his discovery and all the peace and prosperity heading our way as a result of them, which is completely bogus. I have concocted nothing. You haven't shown a shred of interest in the book which is why you don't understand a shred of it. I know nature didn't allow you to, and that's okay.


What baffles you? You have accused me of concocting ideas about the author that comfort me.

iambiguous wrote:...had any possibility whatsoever of either not existing at all or of being different words.


peacegirl wrote: Nope, they had no other possibility.


iambiguous wrote:Yet despite this, you cling to an "agency" which you claim to possess even though this agency "for all practical purposes" changes nothing regarding the things you think, feel, say and do!


Do you ever say "I did this or I did that?" Please answer. Can you tell me that the things you choose everyday are not your choice (although not free) because you have no agency? Are you saying there's nothing that can distinguish you as an individual, from others?

iambiguous wrote:Others here might perhaps try to make better sense of this for me. Because your rendition simply makes no rational sense to me given my own understanding of determinism.


Maybe if you read the first three chapters, it would begin to make rational sense to you.

iambiguous wrote:Was there that mysterious moment "before" you chose them when it might have become something other than what it, in fact, now is...or was nature wholly embedded in the sequence of experiences that is your own particular "I" going all the way back to the day that you were conceived.


peacegirl wrote: You can't go backward and say I could have made a different choice because we know you couldn't. This discovery deals with prevention, which takes place before a "wrongdoing" (or hurt to another), not after.


iambiguous wrote:No, you can't literally go backward, but you can imagine determinism in a particular way and go back and speculate as to how your own understanding of it would for all practical purposes impact on the choices you made before, during and after they are made. For me, "no free will", no autonomous "agency" exist from start to finish. For you however there seems to be some manifestation of actual agency that reconfigures into no free will only after the choice is made. But nothing is "prevented" unless it is in sync with nature unfolding inexorably [per its laws] as it must.


You're right. Nothing is prevented unless it is in sync with nature unfolding inexorably [per its laws] as it must. I never said otherwise.

iambiguous wrote:That's the part that I am not yet compelled to latch onto.

Thus:

peacegirl wrote: ...because we have such different perspectives, I don't think there is any way we can move forward, therefore I'm bowing out of our discussion. It was a good run and I wish you the best. :wink:


iambiguous wrote:So, are you choosing to bow out here as those who embrace autonomy might construe this juncture, or has nature compelled you to "choose" to do what you were only ever able to.


peacegirl wrote: I, as the agent, said I was bowing out because it's my preference --- in the direction of greater satisfaction --- when I can't make any headway. Your posts are also way too long. Maybe if you break them up, I'll reconsider. I realize I didn't bow out yet. I took the time to respond to this post.


iambiguous wrote:Over and over and over and over again: precisely the sort of observations and suggestions I would expect from someone who believed that their preferences and the direction that their sense of satisfaction goes in, was embodied in an agency embodied in at least some measure of free will.


You are very confused here. Agency does not mean you have any measure of free will. It's nonexistent, a mirage.

iambiguous wrote:Only they are convinced that they are choosing these things of their own volition, not "choosing" them only because nature wholly compels them to.


Again, contemplation is an attribute of the human mind. When the phrase of my own volition is used, it only means "of my own desire." Can you make a choice not of your own desire? Whose choice would it be if not your own?

peacegirl wrote: I'm not an objectivist. So many things are subjective and relative. The "I" or self gets to choose, although the choice is never free because life can only take us in one direction.


iambiguous wrote:Always you want it both ways. You topple over only as nature compels you to, but unlike the domino it is absolutely vital for you to believe that you participate in "choosing" to. Nothing at all changes in terms of what you must think, feel, say and do...but at least nature has evolved for you into an "I" that does "choose".


I do participate in choosing. God doesn't choose for me. Nature doesn't choose for me. I choose, although the word choice, once again, is misleading because we don't ever have a real choice.

iambiguous wrote:It doesn't work that way for me. Instead, it is only profoundly mysterious. How can mindless matter evolve over billions of years into a lifeform possessing a brain possessing a mind culminating in a self-conscious "I" wholly in sync with the laws of matter and be able to actually grasp that!!


It has done just that.

iambiguous wrote:The hard guys are, of course, groping and grappling to understand that experientially, experimentally, scientifically, empirically, materially, phenomonologically, etc.. Their discoveries are not predicated solely on intellectually self-serving assumptions and defintions.


Off the wall comment that I know you couldn't help articulating. :-k

iambiguous wrote:The only question is whether this in and of itself is but another manifestation of wholly natural compulsions.


Of course it is. There is an element of compulsion in everything we do.

iambiguous wrote:It doesn't matter that there are "many factors that affect choice, which we consider every time we deliberate" if all of them are wholly in sync with the only possible reality that can unfold in a nature that includes the matter we call mind.


That is true but you can't eliminate the attribute of deliberation, pondering the pros and cons, contemplation (that comprise the matter we call mind) which is part of the causal process, not separate from it.

iambiguous wrote:Consider:

The Boeing 737 is made up of 367,000 parts. And not a one of them chooses a damn thing.

The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons. And each of them works in sync with all of the others to embody an "I". But how [in tandem] do they encompass an "I" that either does or does not possess the will to choose freely among options?

No doubt about it, the parts of an airplane were thought up and assembled by the parts of our own brains. But the distinction between not choosing, choosing and "choosing" here is far, far, far, far from being wholly understood, settled.


There is a lot of unknowns, but you can't clump everything together and just say nothing is settled when much is settled. It boils down to what you want to believe.

iambiguous wrote:Except for objectivists of your ilk. However you are compelled to understand the profound mystery embedded in the fact of existence itself, you are compelled in turn to insist that others had better damn well better concur with it. Otherwise...


Who the hell said that? I never said people have to concur with me, but I do know that the people who don't concur have absolutely no understanding of this book. That includes you.

iambiguous wrote:They!
Are!!
Wrong!!!


Right?


They are wrong if they believe that free will exists, just as those who believe one plus one is three are wrong.

iambiguous wrote:I'm merely compelled to suggest that this frame of mind is more in sync with the manner in which I am compelled in turn to keep coming back to this part: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296


I know you feel compelled to make this nothing more than an intellectual contraption based on your assumption that this is nothing more. I asked you to please shorten your posts or break them up. I am hoping you will honor my request.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby barbarianhorde » Wed May 29, 2019 12:09 pm

Until all causes that go into a moment can be gathered and thus until every moment can be predicted from anywhere in advance, determinism is unverifiable except analytically.

Analytically I have only seen attempts at verification in two forms: Value Ontology and Rational Metaphysics.

I find Value Ontology more powerful as a predictor, but I have great esteem for RM as well especially its founder James S Saint.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2442
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: rain and revolution

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Wed May 29, 2019 3:16 pm

So you responded to satisfy yourself? You still satisfied? Isn't that the opposite of what a wise man is?

So I'm curious, after you got the satisfaction, where did it go? Unless you're still satisfied? Is that enough?
Is wisdom satisfaction? Does it thrill you to believe you're correct?

Free will is the never ending cause and effect scenario(s) that one has the option of choosing. The present moment is a continuity of choice, which is an infinite string of options until dead.

Note, there is a beginning and an end, for cause and effect yes? So then where's the middle? You think you are caused? Have an effect then just die? Do we look like cells? Unconscious and not able to choose our purpose? The fact that we have options and cause and effect is observable should be enough to show you there is more at play than only that. Does a cell self destruct because they want to or do they function to keep the body alive? Do we self destruct or try to keep ourselves alive? I've seen both forms of self destruction in the case of humanity but not in cells. So then how can both exist if everything is managed by a system of cause and effect that isn't open to any sort of freedom? Which freedom would bring new. How did we evolve otherwise if no freedom or diverse multiplicity within cause and effect itself?

I mean if that's how you wish to live your life, being an effect of others cause than so be it but in my life, I control my emotions to the best of my ability and I am not merely an effect to everything else's causing or effecting me. How? Understanding the role attachment plays to satisfaction or desire/instincts. Your argument for greater satisfaction is pointless due to satisfaction barely lasting a minute and if that's the case that you argue for your own satisfaction then you meet the quota of a fool and I am not calling you it, I am pointing out what is there according to Plato. It's only satisfying if you have attached yourself to an idea you defend. Attachment brings a bias, so how can you be clear in your thought, logically or reasonably rather, if biased toward an idea that is your own?

Why would a 'fool' -have- to say something? For their own satisfaction right?

That means my response now will easily trigger you into responding because you will want a satisfaction from that addressing me, right? So tell me Peacegirl, how can I predict you if I am just an effect of cause or cause of effect, I don't need a free will to choose to respond to you directly? I can just observe and I am bound by a need to respond to you? So I'm curious how can I observe the system while being in the system? Does that mean a cell in our body can as well? How can I predict you by observing you and the system? It just happened? I didn't choose freely?

Are you claiming I do this for satisfaction as well? I could think of a million things I could be doing with my time 100x more satisfying and a quarter of those are probably sexual lmao. Wisdom is necessary to evolve, not because I wish to spend my life in the dark, learning through pain. Your satisfaction argument makes it seem like wisdom or pain is just a play jump house, a mockery. Wisdom and it's pursuit is no satisfying and easy task. No proof? What's society? Why isn't everyone doing philosophy actively then? If it's such a satisfying thing to pursue? Why and how are our achievements built off of suffering then? Fruits of labor aren’t made with being satisfied nor hope alone. It’s easy to say or think this /after/ the fact.

So there's two or three possible choices or responses to me, I'll let you figure those out on your own, they should be as clear as day.
Attachments
8891B386-E0C7-4CDA-BCC2-2746A7A7FF1C.jpeg
8891B386-E0C7-4CDA-BCC2-2746A7A7FF1C.jpeg (63.49 KiB) Viewed 4733 times
AEEAB7F0-2391-4EC4-8171-F7CD4E21CF8D.jpeg
AEEAB7F0-2391-4EC4-8171-F7CD4E21CF8D.jpeg (35.59 KiB) Viewed 4733 times

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Wed May 29, 2019 4:11 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:Until all causes that go into a moment can be gathered and thus until every moment can be predicted from anywhere in advance, determinism is unverifiable except analytically.

Analytically I have only seen attempts at verification in two forms: Value Ontology and Rational Metaphysics.

I find Value Ontology more powerful as a predictor, but I have great esteem for RM as well especially its founder James S Saint.


Prediction is not at all necessary if you understand the true definition of determinism. Do you see the problem here? That's the old way of thinking because it means we would have to determine in advance what will happen to prove determinism true. This is completely false.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Wed May 29, 2019 4:15 pm

Artimas wrote:So you responded to satisfy yourself?


No, that's not what greater satisfaction means. I can't communicate with you if are determined to be right without proof and you are only here to defend your position, which is a joke.

Artimas wrote: You still satisfied? Isn't that the opposite of what a wise man is?

Let it go Artimas. You don't have a clue.

Artimas wrote:So I'm curious, after you got the satisfaction, where did it go? Unless you're still satisfied? Is that enough?
Is wisdom satisfaction? Does it thrill you to believe you're correct?


OMG, please find another thread. I don't say that lightly.

Artimas wrote:Free will is the never ending cause and effect scenario(s) that one has the option of choosing. The present moment is a continuity of choice, which is an infinite string of options until dead.


Your definition is fucked up to put it lightly.

to be cont...

Note, there is a beginning and an end, for cause and effect yes? So then where's the middle? You think you are caused? Have an effect then just die? Do we look like cells? Unconscious and not able to choose our purpose? The fact that we have options and cause and effect is observable should be enough to show you there is more at play than only that. Does a cell self destruct because they want to or do they function to keep the body alive? Do we self destruct or try to keep ourselves alive? I've seen both forms of self destruction in the case of humanity but not in cells. So then how can both exist if everything is managed by a system of cause and effect that isn't open to any sort of freedom? Which freedom would bring new. How did we evolve otherwise if no freedom or diverse multiplicity within cause and effect itself?

I mean if that's how you wish to live your life, being an effect of others cause than so be it but in my life, I control my emotions to the best of my ability and I am not merely an effect to everything else's causing or effecting me. How? Understanding the role attachment plays to satisfaction or desire/instincts. Your argument for greater satisfaction is pointless due to satisfaction barely lasting a minute and if that's the case that you argue for your own satisfaction then you meet the quota of a fool and I am not calling you it, I am pointing out what is there according to Plato. It's only satisfying if you have attached yourself to an idea you defend. Attachment brings a bias, so how can you be clear in your thought, logically or reasonably rather, if biased toward an idea that is your own?

Why would a 'fool' -have- to say something? For their own satisfaction right?

That means my response now will easily trigger you into responding because you will want a satisfaction from that addressing me, right? So tell me Peacegirl, how can I predict you if I am just an effect of cause or cause of effect, I don't need a free will to choose to respond to you directly? I can just observe and I am bound by a need to respond to you? So I'm curious how can I observe the system while being in the system? Does that mean a cell in our body can as well? How can I predict you by observing you and the system? It just happened? I didn't choose freely?

Are you claiming I do this for satisfaction as well? I could think of a million things I could be doing with my time 100x more satisfying and a quarter of those are probably sexual lmao. Wisdom is necessary to evolve, not because I wish to spend my life in the dark, learning through pain. Your satisfaction argument makes it seem like wisdom or pain is just a play jump house, a mockery. Wisdom and it's pursuit is no satisfying and easy task. No proof? What's society? Why isn't everyone doing philosophy actively then? If it's such a satisfying thing to pursue? Why and how are our achievements built off of suffering then? Fruits of labor aren’t made with being satisfied nor hope alone. It’s easy to say or think this /after/ the fact.

So there's two or three possible choices or responses to me, I'll let you figure those out on your own, they should be as clear as day.[/quote]
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Wed May 29, 2019 4:24 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Artimas wrote:So you responded to satisfy yourself?


No, that's not what greater satisfaction means. I can't communicate with you if are determined to be right without proof and you are only here to defend your position, which is a joke.

Artimas wrote: You still satisfied? Isn't that the opposite of what a wise man is?

Let it go Artimas. You don't have a clue.

Artimas wrote:So I'm curious, after you got the satisfaction, where did it go? Unless you're still satisfied? Is that enough?
Is wisdom satisfaction? Does it thrill you to believe you're correct?


OMG, please find another thread. I don't say that lightly.

Artimas wrote:Free will is the never ending cause and effect scenario(s) that one has the option of choosing. The present moment is a continuity of choice, which is an infinite string of options until dead.


Your definition is fucked up to put it lightly.

to be cont...

Note, there is a beginning and an end, for cause and effect yes? So then where's the middle? You think you are caused? Have an effect then just die? Do we look like cells? Unconscious and not able to choose our purpose? The fact that we have options and cause and effect is observable should be enough to show you there is more at play than only that. Does a cell self destruct because they want to or do they function to keep the body alive? Do we self destruct or try to keep ourselves alive? I've seen both forms of self destruction in the case of humanity but not in cells. So then how can both exist if everything is managed by a system of cause and effect that isn't open to any sort of freedom? Which freedom would bring new. How did we evolve otherwise if no freedom or diverse multiplicity within cause and effect itself?

I mean if that's how you wish to live your life, being an effect of others cause than so be it but in my life, I control my emotions to the best of my ability and I am not merely an effect to everything else's causing or effecting me. How? Understanding the role attachment plays to satisfaction or desire/instincts. Your argument for greater satisfaction is pointless due to satisfaction barely lasting a minute and if that's the case that you argue for your own satisfaction then you meet the quota of a fool and I am not calling you it, I am pointing out what is there according to Plato. It's only satisfying if you have attached yourself to an idea you defend. Attachment brings a bias, so how can you be clear in your thought, logically or reasonably rather, if biased toward an idea that is your own?

Why would a 'fool' -have- to say something? For their own satisfaction right?

That means my response now will easily trigger you into responding because you will want a satisfaction from that addressing me, right? So tell me Peacegirl, how can I predict you if I am just an effect of cause or cause of effect, I don't need a free will to choose to respond to you directly? I can just observe and I am bound by a need to respond to you? So I'm curious how can I observe the system while being in the system? Does that mean a cell in our body can as well? How can I predict you by observing you and the system? It just happened? I didn't choose freely?

Are you claiming I do this for satisfaction as well? I could think of a million things I could be doing with my time 100x more satisfying and a quarter of those are probably sexual lmao. Wisdom is necessary to evolve, not because I wish to spend my life in the dark, learning through pain. Your satisfaction argument makes it seem like wisdom or pain is just a play jump house, a mockery. Wisdom and it's pursuit is no satisfying and easy task. No proof? What's society? Why isn't everyone doing philosophy actively then? If it's such a satisfying thing to pursue? Why and how are our achievements built off of suffering then? Fruits of labor aren’t made with being satisfied nor hope alone. It’s easy to say or think this /after/ the fact.

So there's two or three possible choices or responses to me, I'll let you figure those out on your own, they should be as clear as day.
[/quote]
That wasn’t the definition of freewill, that’s why/how it is.
My definition for free will being self determinism is fucked up?

“1.
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.”

A fate is only a fate by the choice of what one may value, whatever it may be that one picks. The only thing determinism has set in stone is genetics, which genetics aren’t the sole or even the main cause of personality and genes can also be altered by environment, which we can choose environment. How else did we breed the dog out of the wolf?

I’ll leave the thread, but not because you told me to, because arguing with logic bots is pointless.
Attachments
BFD1CB1D-7706-4502-872C-B165FF2282BD.jpeg
BFD1CB1D-7706-4502-872C-B165FF2282BD.jpeg (47.9 KiB) Viewed 4689 times

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Wed May 29, 2019 4:30 pm

So you responded to satisfy yourself? You still satisfied? Isn't that the opposite of what a wise man is?

So I'm curious, after you got the satisfaction, where did it go? Unless you're still satisfied? Is that enough?
Is wisdom satisfaction? Does it thrill you to believe you're correct?


let me do this one, peacegirl.

by 'toward greater satisfaction', it is meant that at the level of some function of some system, sustaining some degree of stasis is being attempted. 'satisfaction' is not merely 'what i like', but actions that avoid dissonance, disintegration and local entropy. for example, if joe chooses to do x, but is in doubt about him oughting (wait is oughting a word?) to do x, cognitive dissonance will result... but here's the kicker; this dissonance is not founded at the level of language or conscious thought, but in the very reasoning he's developed as a conditioned response to historically similar experiences which, in turn, were not products of his 'choice'. an entire series of habitual beliefs and certainties are accessed and processed at a neurological level during every individual decision to act... so satisfaction does not amount simply to 'well i think this would be the better thing to do', but instead inventories the motivation of a whole greater than the sum of its parts comprising a complete system... one which wants to sustain it's stasis.

the big mystery is, for instance, why does, say, the failure of certain neurotransmitters to be reabsorbed by uptake valves on the dendrites result in a feeling of 'whoa this is great'?

'toward greater satisfaction' presents the entire organism as one big hedonistic putz that even at an intellectual level is only striving to prevent dissonance from occurring. so all these wonderfully logic and rational arguments exist only for the sole purpose of preventing that lowest level of pain - the 'uh oh i'm wrong' - from happening to the organism. being wrong on a math problem is neuro-ontologically identical to bashing your shin on the front step... only it's a different kind of dissonance, a different kind of breaking of stasis.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]