You’re repeating yourself over and over and over again. It is an established fact that everything we do could not have been otherwise, so why keep repeating it? We can’t make progress if you keep going around in circles iambiguous.
And that’s before we get to the part that most interest me: How, assuming some level of autonomy instead, progress is basically an existential contraption embodied in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.
You are presupposing there has to be conflict in these things that you mentioned.
Let’s just say that throughout the entire length and breadth of human history, our species has been awash in them.
So what is your question?
Let’s bring this down to earth. In a determined universe what would constitute progress in regard to, say, the role of government in our lives? And how would we go about improving the human condition in regard to government when we can only go about doing what we must?
Doing what we must is simply saying that we are moving in the direction that we think is best for us. Improving the human condition, once this knowledge is recognized and confirmed, government as we know it will no longer be necessary.
Right, like in a wholly determined universe, we could choose to think about this in any other way than we are compelled to. Like we are actually free to recognize this.
Meanwhile out in the world that we live in? To build or not to build Trump’s wall. To be or not to be a socialist. To abort or not to abort the unborn baby. What here does improve the human condition?
A new grasp of what it means that man’s will is not free which has never been fully understood.
All I can do is to ask others here who share your point of view to reconfigure it into an assessment I might be able to better grasp. How is an individual “applying knowledge” not in turn entirely subsumed in a deterministic universe?
As long as you use the phrase “subsumed in a deterministic universe” you are reducing us to automatons that can’t make choices.
But how are you not reducing us down to men and women who choose only that which they are compelled to? Was the Terminator more like us or more like an automaton?
For purposes of this discussion, I don’t want to get into the difference between humans and computers. We make choices and those choices are determined not by force from a program dictating what we must obey, but by our desires and preferences which can only go in one direction. Please make note of that as we continue…if we do. We are not Terminators who are blindly doing what a program tells us to do yet our will is not free to do otherwise.
Although the word choice is misleading because it implies we can choose A or B equally (which is false) does not mean that our choices are less meaningful as part of our continued development.
[quote="In a world where the meaning we ascribe to things is the only meaning we were ever able
to ascribe to things…what does that tell you about this choice? Something different than what it tells me.
It all becomes somewhat surreal. We grasp that man’s will is not free. But we grasp that only because we could never not grasp it. And however we apply that to the human condition it is the only way that we ever could apply it.
And… are you saying that my words mean nothing because I couldn’t not be in this forum and type what I’m typing?
You mean your words only as you ever could mean them. And they mean to me only that which they ever could mean to me. But those autonomous aliens are up there pointing out that that we still “choose” this meaning.
We still choose this meaning because we had no other choice but to choose this meaning. No one is disputing this iambiguous.
I’m still missing something in the meaning you are trying to convey. Not that I could ever have not missed it?
You definitely are missing what I am trying to convey. You obviously didn’t read any of the first three chapters which is why you are having problems understanding. If you don’t read because it doesn’t give you greater satisfaction to move in this direction, then obviously you couldn’t have done otherwise, but I hope you will be inspired to read the first three chapters so you will better understand what I am trying to convey.
And around and around we go. Making points that the other does not fully grasp in a wholly determined universe in which there was never any possibility of it being otherwise.
True, from the birth of the universe to today had to occur exactly the way it did. Once again, a wholly determined universe does not remove our part in that determined universe by the “unfree” choices we make which will deterministically influence where our world is headed.
As nature’s dominoes, we’re not removed.
We are not removed from nature, but we are not dominoes or Terminators that have no say in the choices we make, although those choices are not free. In that respect we are part of the causal chain of life where everything that has been done or will be done could not be otherwise.
A little help here!!
Admitting that perhaps I really am the one who needs it. Your point is solid and I keep missing it.
You’re missing the point because there’s no real point yet other than the reason man’s will is not free (i.e., that he is constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction).
But what on earth does this mean regarding our actual interactions with others? Other than the only thing that it ever could mean?
It means a lot iambiguous if you follow the extension.
What is important to recognize (which leads to the two-sided equation) is that although we have no control over which choice gives us greater satisfaction at any given moment in time…nothing has the power to make or force us to do anything against our will (which the conventional definition of determinism ignores).
Other than the fact that our “will” is entirely subsumed in nature —and in those immutable laws of matter?
True, but being that our will is entirely subsumed in nature does not take away from the fact that our will has absolute control to say “no” to a choice that we do not want to make. No domino can force a choice upon us, in other words.
So when someone says “he made me pull the trigger”, he is not being truthful. This is important in regard to this discovery which you will understand if you find this interesting. If you don’t find this interesting, then you could not not have moved on. I get that iambiguous. You don’t have to keep repeating it.
We can just take that back [re an infinite regression] to the understanding of existence itself. I pulled the trigger because someone made me.
No one made you pull the trigger. You had control over whether to pull the trigger or not. You pulled the trigger because the option to not pull the trigger was less desirable at that moment. This is not trivial and leads to an important observation.
And someone before that made him make me. And then all of the wholly determined interactions that come into play that brought both of us into existence. Going back to the laws of matter that brought into existence life itself.
Once again, no one made him do anything. No one has that power to force you to do what you don’t want to do. Keep this in mind because this IS the other side of the equation which leads to an amazing discovery about how these two laws of our nature bring about enormous changes in human conduct.