Something Instead of Nothing

Here we are clearly stuck. If the things I think, feel and do are all intertwined necessarily in a brain intertwined necessarily in the laws of matters, what is the point of making such a distinction? Other than because “I” was never able not to make it?

Human emotional and psychological reactions occur in dreams as well. But how are they not entirely determined by brain matter? And how can we determine that, with the brain awake, it’s different?

But if feeling forced is the only option the brain is equipped to create, you are bascially forced to feel forced. The larger animal and the thief would be no less compelled to think and feel and act as they do in a wholly determined universe.

I just don’t grasp this “psychological freedom” the way you do.

I mean, sure, there it is, this feeling that I am freely choosing to type these words here and not others. But how can it be demonstrated to me that this sense of autonomy is the real deal?

Why is is not reasonable to argue that the brain parts interact only as matter must there in creating the car parts that interact only as matter must in the engine?

The car parts as mindless matter are not conscious of making choices of course but that’s the mystery of mind: matter able to convince itself that the choosing is autonomous.

Thus…

My point here however is that I am conflicted. I am of “two minds”. A part of me is convinced that any autonomy we do possess in the is/ought world is circumscribed by the manner in which I construe the components of my own moral philosophy. But another part of me is not even convinced that we possess autonomy in the either/or world.

There is no wrong tree here for me. There is only this: not being able to pin down the extent which “I” am in fact in possession of any capacity to determine my own life.

Again, the presumption here [from my frame of mind] is that if I do adopt this definition, it is only becasue I could not have chosen not to.

But I have no way [here and now] in which to know this beyond all doubt. And neither do you.

Unless of course your take on all of this is in fact the most rational way in which to assess it. But if that were the case you would still have to devise an argument such that it can be demonstrated in turn that all rational men and women are obligated to embrace it in turn.

But: were they ever able to care about it?

If I thought like that, I would never pursue my other aim here: groping with the existential parameters of this: How ought one to live?

Instead, with respect to “free will”, I am drawn and quartered by arguments that make at least some sense from both sides.

Well, I thought its main point revolved around the extent to which even scientists gropping to comprehend the either/or world can ever really be certain that what they think they understand now will be sustained for long into the future.

Yes, that’s what we are attempting to come to grips with here: the extent to which any reactions from any of us were/are within our capacity to have been other than what they were/are instead.

How deep though? Is it in fact true…going all the way back to whatever it is that explains the existence of existence itself?

I am only suggesting that not only do I not know how deep it is, but that neither do you. There are only those who actually do think that their own TOE here and now either encompasses it or comes closer than anyone else.

The objectivists in other words. And whether with respect to the either/or world or the is/ought, their main aim is, in my view, to attain and then to sustain a psychological frame of mind that, to whatever degree, comforts and consoles them.

Then it comes down to whether or not they were ever able to not do this.

But then we’re still stuck with trying to figure out what it means to be human in a world in which none of us can really know for sure if what we do figure out is only that which we were ever only able to figure out. And even then we don’t know how wide the gap is between “in our head” and “all there is to know about existence itself.”

But how does this not immediately take us on to the next question: do you think that what you do think here is something that you chose to think “of your own free will”?

The banana is blue because someone painted it blue, or because you have taken LSD, or because your brain is diseased, or because you are dreaming it is blue.

It still comes down to whether with respect to any of these contexts there is an element of autonomy present.

Automobile mechanics asking questions to gain clarity regarding an engine that isn’t working…how is that the same or different from philosophers and scientists asking questions to gain clarity regarding the choices that they make in fixing it? What particular questions would pin down once and for all if these choices could have been otherwise?

In other words, with some questions, there is only so much clarity to be had. We reach points in the discussions where one person’s clear thinking is anything but that to others.

And the “free will” antinomy is certainly one of those.

Given the sheer complexity embedded in the psychological parameters of any particular one of us, this may or may not be an accurate asessment of my own motivations and intentions here.

On the other hand, from my frame of mind here and now, I – “I” – am convinced that on this side of the grave we live in an essentially meaningless world and that on the other side of it I – “I” – is obliterated for all time to come.

So, to the extent that anyone is able to point out the weaknesses of this assessment, I can only be grateful.

On the other other hand, to the extent that we do in fact live in a wholly determined universe, I can only assume that this asessment was the only one I was ever going to make. At least up until now. I may well be “destined” to change my mind down the road.

So, how “weak” or “strong” is that assumption?

What can be exchanged here clearly?

And I suspect that the peace of mind that you and “most others” are able to sustain here is embedded in a psychological defense mechinism that revolves around one or another rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

But how on earth can any of us know for sure?

Maybe.

But what still works best for me is the rather simple understanding that whether or not I have free will, it doesn’t make food taste any less delicious or music sound any less exhilarating or films enchant me any less intensely…

…or in regard to all of the other things that I do which bring me enormous satisfaction and fulfillment. That’s the part I fall back on. All of the distractions available to us to take us out of our more debilitating frames of mind.

As with the scientist and his new theory. The thoughts and the feelings that he or she experiences “in the moment” are such that “free will” is the last thing that is likely to come to mind.

Still, with oblivion [free will or not] they’re all gone too.

Still, the part that “spoils” it for folks like me, is in imagining that all of this chooing, all of these new meanings given, were not as a result of me actually freely accomplishing this but only as the result of all the dominoes in my head toppling over onto each other as they only ever could have.

The experience is still there, but only because it could never have not been there.

In other words, this seems to work for you…

…in a way that really doesn’t make much sense to me. I’m simply not free to make a ham and cheese sandwich if I was always ever going to make it. If thinking that I am free is in turn the only way I was ever able to think about it, then this feeling of “compatibilism” is in turn illusory.

So, this part…

…is just another intellectual contraption that your brain was determined to concoct in order to sustain the illusion that a part of you – the psychological “I” – might have chosen something different.

Are you guys kidding with those walls of text?

viewtopic.php?p=2712564#p2712564

That’s the answer.

You can only thank your lucky stars that your posts are only as they ever could have been. :laughing:

You might want to look up the word, “indetermenancy” someday, maybe then, you can actually reply to what i wrote and proved.

I can only curse my unlucky stars that this post is only as it ever could have been. :banana-dance:

For you? None. For everyone else? Tons.

Sure you do. You just don’t like. So you block it out.

I haven’t quite grasped what you’re ultimate aim in pursuing this all-encompassing determinism is, but given your interest in bringing the topic to the lives and struggles of human beings competing with each other and making moral judgement on each other, I’m going to guess that you want to prove to the world that no one is at fault for anything… ever… and thereby undermine all moral judgements. And here I come with my proposal of alternate meanings of freedom and ruin everything. How can no one be at fault for anything if yet another form of freedom rears its ugly head, a form by which we can continue to make moral judgements?

^ That’s your motive, I believe, and so the only form of freedom you’ll accept is the impossible kind.

I think you like it that way.

Prove it to me. The next time you remind us that you do or say or think X because you could never have not done or said or thought X, try coupling that with a statement underscoring what you would do if free will were real. You can begin with “On the other hand…” But I’ll bet my children’s education fund, I’ll never see you say it.

Ah, but… are we attempting to come to grips with this because we are freely choosing to? Or is it because we could never have not attempted to come to grips with it?

And BTW, why are you agreeing with me? What happened to the gap between what you think you know “in your head” and all that would be needed to know in order to say for sure what we are attempting to come to grips with?

If my answer to that question is the only answer I was ever able to give, what would be the point in giving it?

Not really.

We’re all human, Biggy, and I think we’d all take comfort in knowing that we’ll be taken care of by a benevolent God after we die, but there are some things we cling to more than hope in a blissful afterlife. Stakes in an argument, for example. You’ve clung to your nihilistic position for so long, and spoke in defence of it so many times, I think at this point, you’d prefer to be right despite knowing the implications that has for your “I”.

A lot more than you’re allowing for.

That doesn’t sound too peaceful. If I may suggest, maybe it’s just not having to be confused by how the world works. I have an understanding of how the world works on a fundamental metaphysical level. I may be right, I may be wrong. But once engraved into my mind, how can I undo this understanding? And why would I? Just for the sake of taking the hard road? Of being tormented by confusion and existential angst? ← No thanks.

Not if you understand what it’s saying.

And again, the feeling of freedom is no more an illusion than a dark room is the illusion of emptiness.

The advantage of compatibilism is that you actually can say that. You phrase it: “I could have chosen different, if I wanted to.”–the catch being that your wanting to is the determining force that decides your choosing one way or another. That we were destined to choose one way over another is neither here nor there with compatibilism.

With your sense of freedom, there is no way to distinguish between a man in his kitchen ready to make a sandwich and a starving prisoner begging a cruel guard for something to eat. In your view, they are both equally unfree to do anything. To everyone else, this makes all the difference in the world.

Can we stick to debating and not psychoanalysing others… thanks.

What’s the difference between a person who believes in determinism and one who believes in compatabilism/free will?

On the plus side:
The determinist feels that he is not responsible/accountable for his life.

The non-determinist feels that he has control of his life.

On the minus side:
The determinist feels that he lacks control of his life.

The non-determinist feels the pressure of responsibility and accountability.

Which feeling do you prefer to have?

To what extent do these beliefs alter a life?

Aw, why you gotta ruin our fun, Mags?

Tell you what… Biggy, do you like psychoanalyzing me? I like psychoanalyzing you. If we both agree to accept each other’s psychoanalyzations (because it’s fun), can we continue?

phyllo…

Some very profound questions there. I prefer to feel in control of my life. Even as a determinist (which I’m not sure I am), one can feel in control of one’s life. The only sense in which determinism entails no control over one’s life is if one believes all the determining factors controlling one’s self are outside one’s self (or not one’s self). But you can still say: it was me who did it, and yet think of yourself as just a cog in a wheel. You can still identify yourself as a link in the chain of cause and effect, and therefore any effect you have on the events that follow from your action comes from you. You can say: I made that happen, I was in control of it. What you can’t say with determinism is: I could have done otherwise.

But it’s true that if you believe you could not have done otherwise, you don’t really bear any responsibility for your actions, and so the determinist may be free of that.

Only if, and only in this thread… it is not an unconditional/applies to all threads consensus.

You’re overlooking something critically important here.

You cannot say “I could have done otherwise” but you can say something much more damning if you were to add one or more conditions.
Which is exactly what taking responsibility demands we do anyway…

I not only could but WOULD have done otherwise, If only I were stronger, if only I were better educated, if only I placed more value on it… etc

If that is not an imperative toward self-improvement and responsibility, then nothing is.

That assumes that the determinist is identifying an ‘I’ or ‘self’. That’s not necessarily the case. Does a billiard ball, a rock or a cog have a ‘self’? No.

He can say that there is no one in control.

And even if he does identify a ‘self’, he can still say that his actions are entirely due to outside forces - forces which created him as he is (the properties of the rock or ‘self’) and forces currently acting on him (the present environment).

Which is what Iambig is saying.

You’re the best Mags… but I have a feeling Biggy will reject this enticing offer, or just ignore it. Until then, no psychoanalyzing!

Yes, that’s why I left that part out. To be free in the incompatible sense is to say “I could have done otherwise,” period. Not if this was the case, or that condition was met, etc.

That is correct, phyllo.

This is why I was trying to say that there can be two types of determinists–those who think we are participants in the chain of cause and effect and those who think we (or “we”) are outside the system all together. Biggy keeps putting quotes around “I” so I think it’s fair to say he’s of the latter variety (plus he’s out right said so on numerous occasions).

I think the “I” is just what it feels like to be the cog in the wheel; sure, we’re nothing more than a system of neurons and chemicals processing information about the world, but that’s just what we look like from the outside, as a third person, but it’s still like something to be a system of neurons and chemicals, and that’s just our thoughts, emotions, and inner experiences–the view from the inside.

I’m going to assume you’ve lost sight of the context… though I do not know how.

So put into context… what you say above does NOT hold true at all because of this fairly critical oversight. The determinist cannot escape responsibility by recourse to “I could not have done otherwise”

In the context of responsibility, I would argue the “I could have done otherwise” is a weaker claim.

The implication is I could have done otherwise AS I AM… no correction required, no flaw, nor excellence… no cause at all is recognized.

I have to comment on this confused mess…

Seriously Phyllo, Gib…
Do not mistake one person’s failure to use language effectively with a variant of determinism, please.

What qualifies as “I” is a semantic issue, not a variant of determinism.

I could define identity in such a way to make it impossible outside of strict determinism… say something along the lines of anything that is not directly caused by my physical body’s interacting with the environment is not “mine” or is “outside of me”, thus making free will incompatible with the existence of an “I”

Though the classic conception is that there is a duality and in many cases (as a result) “I” is defined as the spirit or soul or otherwise immaterial entity that is in possession of the body, a body which is subject to this spirit’s will…

But these are definitions that are custom designed to fit a particular conception. If you use the “wrong” definition while applying a different conception, you will be left without the ability to identify an “I”

I’m noting a difference between a rock rolling down a hill and a person selecting a path by which to descend down the hill.

Both are reacting to the terrain based on their particular characteristics.

The person is choosing and the rock is not choosing. The person has control and the rock does not.

That’s what choice is. Right?

If he slips and starts falling, then he loses control and choice.

Agreed… but perhaps agency would be a better term than “choice”

You could make the same observation about a machine “selecting” how to steer down a hill…

A rudimentary version might be to simply detect and steer toward the most even topography within a short distance… but in order to implement any agency it requires certain conditions. It needs to be oriented such that it’s wheels touch the ground and the camera faces forward etc.

You might not consider that a “choice” but I would argue that’s a matter of definition… selecting a path based on a preference, no matter how predictable, is no less a selection.

Sure. You could say that a human being is a very sophisticated ‘machine’. It’s a machine making decisions based on a huge number of inputs and stored memory. Some of those inputs are far removed from the physical terrain of the hill. For example, a recommendation heard about which path to take, avoiding stepping on plants and animals for ethical reasons, mistaken assessments of situation or danger involved, fear in general, etc.

This is significantly removed from a rock or even a simple machine doing down hill. Or at least, I choose to think so.

Therefore, I would talk about human decisions in a particular way.

That is what I imagine we all elect to do… for strictly pragmatic reason if nothing else.
It’s way easier to model a goal seeking agent in our heads than a complex web of neural and chemical reactions as a result of stimuli past and present that ultimately result in something approximating said agent.

But I worry we’ve lost sight of any disagreement or topic at this point.

I was primarily interested in challenging your and Gib’s agreement about the implications a deterministic view has on individual responsibility.

Your original claim seemed to make the mistake of conflating determinism with fatalism given your conclusions but I could be wrong.

Gib then boiled it down to well you can find some measure of escape by recourse to “I could not have done differently” which I believe I have countered quite strongly.

See I find these intuitions people have about the implications of determinism on personal responsibility distressing.
I don’t think they have any logical basis, hence why I call them intuitions.

This is a view I encounter often as a determinist, and I don’t know if it’s caused by confusing determinism and fatalism or something else.
Granted I do not have a particularly strong attachment to determinism, it’s a view I hold entirely for pragmatic reasons and do not regard at all as conclusively true or false…
Yet on this topic I find I am often faced with a failure of logic for some inexplicable reason… and I lack a good explanation for why it occurs.

That’s because the discussion was geared towards Iambig’s particular “style” of determinism.

If you tell Iambig that he is not responding to posts, he uses determinism to rationalize it as “he could not have responded in any other way”.

Talk about self-improvement or responsibility and he says that he has no control over that. Why? Determinism.

He appears to want to remove power, control and responsibility from the individual and place it somewhere else.

If I see a complex machine making decisions, then I would tend to assign it agency. Iambig seems to see a reason to take away agency from humans.

That’s my reading of his position. :confusion-shrug:

Sorry, poor wording. The determinist doesn’t escape responsibility just on his beliefs, but on whether he’s right.

How is this any different from what I said? Yeah, different definitions for the same term. Different definitions lead to different concepts. Different concepts lead to different “isms”. You get two variants of determinism—one that defines “I” as a participant in the system, the other that defines “I” as outside the system (or possibly non-existent).