Determinism

This is the bush:

IB: Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he’s done it before. He jumps into a thread, “sets me straight”, and then abandons the discussion.
SD: We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?

And here is the beating:

IB: Again, on this thread, it’s not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.
SD: Well, assume it’s not determined and working within that context, how would you see it?
IB: What I assume in a world where we do have some measure of autonomy, is that “I” is embedded in the laws of nature in the either/or world. Here there are objective truths seemingly applicable to all of us. However, in the is/ought world of conflicting goods, “I” is still no less an “existential contraption”. At least at the intersection of identity, value judgments and political power. Obligations here are predicated on any particular objective context construed from any particular subjective/subjunctive point of view.
SD: Right, but notwithstanding yet more beating around the bush, what is your subjective point of view concerning the obligations one has to a game he/she started?
IB: What does it mean to “beat around the bush” with regard to questions this problematic?
SD: All that word salad in avoidance of the question is what it means.
IB: [more word salad to avoid answering question]

The one you had in mind when you said “Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he’s done it before. He jumps into a thread, “sets me straight”, and then abandons the discussion.”

Either you had something in mind or it was random drivel that coincidentally appeared meaningful. Right? :confusion-shrug:

But that view has been disproven by scientific experimentation so exhaustively that it is the most substantiated point in all of science, yet you continue on and on and on, for months now, in stern refusal to recognize that. Rewind the universe and there is almost zero chance it could recur the same.

In that context, there wouldn’t be one. But that context doesn’t exist. The real context is probabilistic.

I was asking why you qualify words that don’t need to be qualified. For instance, I don’t address you as “Bipedal humanoid of masculine variety on the 3rd planet from the star located between spiral arms of the milky way galaxy known as Iambiguous”, but I simply say “Iambiguous” and assume the rest is automatically known.

Beating around the bush is simply avoiding answering a question.

The woman has a natural right to choose abortion too. She could do it consciously or unconsciously, and both processes originate from the same cause.

Alright, let’s play this game: you just made a claim that a question exists. Substantiate it. How do you know the question of how life came from nonlife is an applicable question? It seems hilarious to me to even posit such an absurd inquiry. What are you even talking about? Show me this thing you think is not alive and tell me why you think it isn’t.

Baloney! They’d be ridiculed and ostracized just like every preceding genius.

What is mind? It doesn’t matter.
What is matter? Nevermind.

It occurred to me last night that what you mean by existence of existence itself is the mind of matter. If you investigate matter you’ll invariably arrive at mind and if you investigate mind you’ll invariably arrive at matter. One doesn’t exist without the other.

What is energy? Well, it’s moving matter. So, what is matter? Well, it’s energy. We can’t have one without the other. Mind seems to be the context in which energy expresses itself.

Both.

Define rational men. Is that synonymous with blind men? Anally retentive? Effusive? Who is rational? Who is the judge of that?

You see, this is why I say you like your hole. As soon as someone presents a solution, you dismiss it by saying “How could you possibly know?” as if the solution is defined as too complex to know, so you’re asking questions which you already have decided can have no answer.

By what mechanism would it do that? You think that simply increasing the processing power of computers that one day computers can make decisions and think for themselves as humans do? So it’s a function of complexity? If enough switches are arranged complicated enough then the whole array comes to life? Then why is a worm alive and an iphone not? Theoretically we should be able to situate enough dominoes that the whole assortment comes to life and talks to us, if it were merely an artifact of complexity and determinism.

Sure, how do I do that?

Pre-determinism means it’s possible to predict where a fired electron will land. Determinism means there is a reason (cause) for where it landed, but it’s not possible to predict (nonlocal hidden variable). Probabilism means there is no cause (no hidden variables either local or nonlocal) and where electrons land are an artifact of probability.

Positive exist relative to negative, but what would it mean to say positive exists in a world where there is no negative? It’s meaningless. So existence is simply the relationship between positive and negative. Positive and negative have to be something that are differentiated from each other first, and then we can recognize existence as a thing next. We can’t say positive exists and then negative exists because it’s meaningless.

Your internal nature and the external causes precipitate “choices” that are always necessarily in sync with a reality that could only ever have been. That’s why many choose to convey it as “choices” here instead of [b]choices[/b]

Yet peacegirl then seems to react with chagrin when one uses the word “fated” instead. Yet if fated is defined as “to be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way,” why not use it? All the while acknowledging that we were never really free to not use it. If in fact we do “choose” to use it.

Again, I’m missing something here that she is trying to convey. Something I was never able not to miss given the fact that I do keep missing it.

But only in the sense that on another day the laws of matter would have or will have compelled her to answer differently.

But: how are our interpretations – any and all interpretations – not in turn inherently/necessarily in sync with the inherent/necessary unfolding of nature’s laws?

Same with success and failure. Same with “changing my mind”. I will or I won’t. But, in a determined universe, it won’t be because I freely thought things over again and then freely chose to change my mind.

Or so it still seems to me.

What does this have to do with her experiences [and her reactions to them] being anything other than what they were always going to be? As though her “learning” is not in just another determined “choice”.

That’s the part I keep missing. Okay, no one sticks a gun to her head and says, “learn or else”. But nature is still there to insist she does what she was always only ever able to do. Her “range of possibilities” is still going to be dictated by the laws of matter.

To wit:

What I come away with here is her seeming to suggest that if we want the future to unfold “progressively” we need to read the book she quotes from and agree with her own and the author’s rendition of determinism and “choice”. All the while seeming to acknowledge that we will or will not actually “choose” to do so in a wholly determined universe.

I still construe blame in her arguments. Not all that far removed – semantically – from the sort of blame I get from those who insist I should share their own understanding of God, religion, morality, political values, assessment of nature etc.

In an autonomous world.

On the other hand, I read her stuff and sometimes…sometimes it’s like I’m “this close” to “getting it”. But it just slips away. It’s like my reaction to Einstein’s space/time theories. I’m still unable to understand completely what he seems to be conveying about this relationship “for all practical purposes”. Like the universe being all there is expanding into…what exactly? If it is all there is what is there to expand into?

It just won’t sink in all the way.

And my internal nature. In other words not just external causes, but also internal ones, but still all utterly predetermined
[/quote]

This is one thing that frustrates me. I agree with you and then you tell me basically what I said. I don’t see why you couldn’t just say ‘agreed’. Or perhaps you really don’t get that I understood. It ends up feeling like you are just in lecture mode. I must not understand, even though I agreed with you.

The reason not to use fated is because it tends to indicate that you are not part of the causes, that the causes are all external. It is more likely to cause passivity.

Of course.

This isn’t answering my question. You had an interpretation. Is that the only possible interpretation?

Agreed. Peacegirl agrees with this.

It means that at some point perhaps you will get peacegirls point and despite the causes that previously made you not agree, then agree. One can change due to new causes. This can happen.

When reading your responses to peacegirl it is as it you must always retain the same response to peacegirl. But since his posts are causes, they mind then cause a change in your mind.

Well, her suggesting that might be part of the causes that lead to a specific future. From my limited perspective, this might be the case.

Well, either you will see if there are other possible interpretations or you will hold on to this single one you seem to think is possible. I don’t know which will come to pass.

[/quote]
Well, that’s a generous comparison since, so far, it sure seems like Einstein’s theory has been ridiculously well supported by empirical research.

If the “antecedent events” embedded in the laws of matter compel me to “choose” eggs instead of cereal, then I construe “I” here as just another one of nature’s dominos. And any “idea” I might have about it is no less the only idea I was ever able to have about it.

From my frame of mind you see the “choice” I make here in a different way. It becomes important to you in a way that seems no less fated my me.

As I noted to KT above:

…peacegirl…seems to react with chagrin when one uses the word “fated”…Yet if fated is defined as “to be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way,” why not use it? All the while acknowledging that we were never really free to not use it. If in fact we do “choose” to use it.

We think about this differently in a way that you may well no doubt insist that we could never have not thought about differently.

How then is the way I interpret the meaning of determinism any different from how I think and feel about it: in the only way I was ever able to.

And, no, I do not insist that choice does not exist given my own rendition of determinism. I merely express it as a “choice” given my own understanding of determinism. The autonomous aliens freely choose to note that I am compelled to choose to eat eggs rather than cereal. Choosing exist in both contexts. And yet with all the difference in the world.

Well, nature doesn’t dictate in the sense that “God’s will” might be said to order the universe. But that’s just another layer of profound mystery to me. The laws of nature somehow came into existence. And now they unfold as they do only because, well, they are the “laws of nature”.

There is no “purpose” or “meaning” behind it. There is simply the brute facticity embedded in existence itself. And, if the human brain/mind is just another manifestation of this brute facticity, it is no less compelled/fated to be in sync with those laws.

Choose not to call this nature’s “dictatorship” if you will but that doesn’t demonstrate to me how your own frame of mind here is not in turn wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

Think about this. You seem exasperated. You are asking me to please stop saying something that I was never able to choose autonomously not to say.

Now, down the road, maybe I will “choose” to not say it. Who among us really knows what nature has in store for us in the future. In fact on the Science Channel last night they were exploring Einstein’s and Hawking’s contributions in understanding the universe. They were exploring further the possibility that all information – past, present and future – is somehow intertwined in the science of black holes. Such that it might even be possible if you had access to all of this information from the past and present to predict precisely what must unfold in the future.

And the human brain/mind precipitating human interactions is not excluded here.

And all of us here would seem to “grasp the implications” of this [and everything else] only because of what was only ever going to be explained to us.

What does this point have to do with the one I made about Hitler? And “knowing” anything at all here is always going to be what we were compelled to know [and not know] intertwined in nature unfolding only as it ever could. How does the CONSENT of the German citizens back then fit into your progressive furture. How does the CONSENT of those who embrace Donald Trump today reconfigure into this peace and prosperity down the road?

What [historically] will ever be other than what it was never able not to be?

Again, as though the “analysis” that you “choose” here could ever possibly have been a different analysis. In a determined universe, what seems to be “behind” all of the choices that all of us make is nature. Nature unfolding only as it was ever able to.

And, in this sense, why can’t it be argued that nature forced you to choose that which, per nature’s laws of matter, was always ever fated to unfold?

Yes, but the human mind is an evolutionary manifestation of the human brain is an evolutionary manifestation of life on Earth. Some matter evolved into mindless rocks, and other matter evolved into mindful human brains. But all matter is intertwined inherently/necessarily in its laws. Only to the extent that dualism is applicable here might it be argued that mindful matter is qualitatively different from mindless matter. Re either God or some manifestation of nature we are not yet privy to.

On the other hand, if I construe your reaction to me as blame, and I was never able to freely choose not to construe it as something other than blame…what does that mean here? Regarding your point to me and my point to you. Both are the embodiment of a determined universe in which “choosing” is really just the psychological equivalent [the illusion] of actually choosing freely to feel blamed or not blamed.

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality technologyreview.com/s/6130 … e-reality/

Heck, I didn’t need science to tell me that LOL

Yawn.

Once again another smartass attack in which the whole point here is to make me the issue.

But, with any luck, there was never any possibility that KT could have posted anything other than this in a wholly determined universe.

The crucial point being the limitation of language [derridaian or otherwise] as it pertains to the choices that we make in either a wholly determined universe or in one in which human autonomy does in some measure exist.

Let him pick a particular context and we can explore the existential parameters of, among other things, the relationship between words and worlds as this might be applicable to conflicting goods and/or the matter of choice itself in world in which the presumption is either human freedom or the lack thereof.

Tell that to the Universe… everything that happens within it’s confines is objective, so objectivity does exist, but just not within the confines of our world and our lives.

Now… I cannot prove that, but on another note… there are instances when objective reality can happen i.e. when everyone is on the same page… objective reality is being here, but then that breaks down into our individual outlook of subjectivity.

But individual humans are the issue. A very large percentage of your posts have you, your history of political positions, the fact that you, as an individual do not know, how this contrasts with objectivists - and you label them as objectivists, making them at least part of the issue.

The entire drive of your participation has to do with you as an individual, a specific one with a specific history and how ideas do and do not affect you. That is the core of your participation here and is combined in various ways with dasein, conflicting goods, how you interpret, you are unsure, etc.

Which fits nicely with my interests, because that is precisely the level I am interested in philosophy. What happens when we have certain memes in our minds? What are these memes doing in individual minds?

I am interested in other things also, but it seems rather disingenous to dismiss my response because it makes you the issue, when your posts come out of you very specifically as part of the content with you as the issue, and further that you label other people and focus yourself on the dynamics with you - for example the whole peacegirl is blaming me, this still feels like blame issue, thing. That is you focusing on peacegirl and the interpersonal relatoin with you in a thread. That is all about making you, him and the relation the issue. Similar things happen with objectivists.

And I note that I raised a issue about your certainty - seen via the word ‘clearly’ - which you could simply have answered. Why are you clear about that and not about other things? You could have answered that question, but you didn’t.

That’s 'the crucial point´. It might be crucial for you. Again you seem certain of something.

This thread isn’t about conflicting goods, so I am not sure where that came from.

I actually don’t think it matters. I understand that it sounds terrible or at least can if everything is determined (or if there is quantum indeterminism which also does not lead to freedom) but it doesn’t seem to matter at all to me. How does this affect my next day? My next second? I black box it. I remain unconvinced that I must decide dterminism is the case or decide that free will is the case or that I must be in pain about it. If there is an argument someone has as to why I should do one of these things, that it is good to do so, let me know. I do not mean - demonstrate that free will or determinism is the case. Rather that it is important I decide and commit myself to one of those or to suffering not knowing.

Yes, but it is a “bush” that is clearly open to conflicting points of view. I see the point here [a point to either beat or not beat around] one way and he sees it another. I construe our obligations as revolving only around the assumptions that I make regarding this point; and he in his own conflcting ways.

Nothing really changes. My reaction to KT is a value judgment. I make the assumption that he is reacting to me in a certain way. And I disagree with his assessment of me. Now, “beating around the bush” here would seem to be moot if, in a wholly determined unverse, KT and I were never able to freely choose to post anything other than what our brains propel/compel us to post in order to be in sync with the laws of matter.

And, in an autonomous world, I am never really able to demonstrate that my assumptions about him [or his assumptions about me] reflect that which all rational men and women are obligated to share.

Link me to sites on the internet where it has been demonstrated that, if time could be rewound in a determined universe, events would not unfold over and again only as they ever could have. Hell, there are even astrophysicists who argue that all events [past present and future] already exist in some extraordinary way in which one is able to grasp space/time.

How on earth would you/could you demonstrate that women have an inherent, necessary, natural right to kill their unborn babies? How can we even pin down precisely when the “unborn” becomes a bonafide “human being”?

Other than in assuming that what is “natural” here is that whatever the woman chooses it is the only thing that she was ever able to choose in a determined universe. In a world governed entirely by the laws of matter nothing can be said to be unnatural. Right?

Right from the start I flat out acknowledge there are any number of claims I make, I am unable to demonstrate. I certainly cannot demonstrate how [or why] non-life matter evolved into living matter. Or if ultimately they are actually two very different things. I can only note that here and now in this particular world they exist side by side. And that determinism is one possible explanation for that.

Who is ridiculing and ostracizing folks like Newton and Einstein now?

Just try to imagine if someone actually could demonstrate once and for all – scientifically, empirically, phenomenologically, experientially etc. – if they either were or were not able to freely, autonomously accomplish this.

That’s the point. We say things like this because we really don’t fully comprehend where one stops and the other begins. It’s not for nothing that some have speculated that human consciousness may well be the biggest mystery of them all.

Why? And how is this able to be explained going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself.

What’s this point really have to do with mine? Everything that you argue here you are either able to demonstrate as true for all of us or not.

The “solution” to what? What context? What conflicting points of view?

And my hole is completely irrelevant regarding those contexts and points of view that can be grasped objectively by all of us.

Look at all of the solutions that revolve around our capacity to invent technology, to solve engineering problems, to interact from day to day in any number of contexts in which we can all agree on what is true and what is false.

Instead, my “hole” revolves around the assumption that human autonomy does exist in some measure when we confront conflicting goods. And that for “I” death equals oblivion.

For you to say that, in this regard, I like my hole, is simply preposterous. You know, from my point of view.

You’re asking me? Some of the greatest minds on the planet are grappling with this day in and day out. And without a definitive answer having been discovered. Or none that I am aware of.

Again, I really don’t grasp what this point has to do with mine. Either nature and it’s immutable laws are behind all of this or there is some way in which the human brain is able transact relationships in the world with some measure of free will.

Well, you can go into communities on line that delve into mind and matter in a systemic, scientific, experiential manner. Communities of physicists, neurologists, biologists, neuroscientists, chemists etc…

Communities that have forums.

You make your points and observations and they respond. You bring their reactions back to us.

But are not predeterminism and determinism here necessarily embedded/intertwined in what can only ever unfold in a universe that is wholly ordered by the laws of nature?

And in what the particular context involving the choices that we make in the course of actually living our lives from day to day?

Okay, you could say this on a youtube video. But what about the part where you then illustrate it?

Yes, please attack the argument and not the arguee… let’s keep the discussion moving forward and not stagnate on matters of the other… even if Iambig is an interesting specimen to dissect for most here. :stuck_out_tongue:

Waiting for Serendipper’s reply to my last… :confusion-confused:

Good job moderating (mediating, cooling) by a moderate (cool) moderator :slight_smile:

Of course, there is no reason that any ordinary citizen couldn’t have said that :wink:

I don’t mind playing by rules so long as everyone plays by them. But when I suffer veiled attacks and feel like I can’t retaliate, then I feel I’m disarmed, the cops won’t defend me, and if I do defend myself, then I get in trouble. You see?

I’ll start a thread about objectivity since there is a lot of information in the Turd thread I need to consolidate. I just posted that link mainly for biggie’s benefit stemming from a conversation in that thread. The short answer is objectivity has no observer. What reality is depends just as much on how the subject is put together as it does on how the object is put together, so there is no objective way of viewing anything and every reality is subjective.

The thread I started on objectivity viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194818

negative, but what would it mean to say positive exists in a world where there is no negative? It’s meaningless. So existence is simply the relationship between positive and negative. Positive and negative have to be something that are differentiated from each other first, and then we can recognize existence as a thing next. We can’t say positive exists and then negative exists because it’s meaningless.


By a priori apprehension . Between prescription and postscriptio, descriptive presentations are possible, where prescriptive ideas are sources of information, including the existential descriptions Sarte informs through being and nothingness, where the source is an inductive (phenomenolycal assertion of a negation at a point of nihilization.

Clarification later

Consider:

Either our internal natures, necessarily in sync with external causes in a determined universe, precipatated/compelled my post and your reaction to it above, or we had some measure of autonomy enabling us to sustain a different exchange. Had, for example, we been able to freely choose to think about things longer.

I am part of the exchange only in the sense that I am compelled by the laws of matter to “choose” my words here. A necessary bit part in a necessary overall reality.

For nature, where do the external causes stop and our internal natures begin? How is “I” – in a manner we do not yet understand – not but one of nature’s equivalent of dominoes?

And around and around we go. I am compelled to answer as I do above. You are compelled to point out that my answer evades your question. My point is that there might have been a hundred different interpretations, but I interpreted it as I did because I was never able to interpret it in any other way. I “chose” an interpretion. And my brain matter is able to compel me to think that perhaps I chose this interpretation of my own free will.

Then it’s back this: did I in fact [b]chose[/b] to instead? Yes? No? Maybe?

So, am I compelled to ask this of others here? Are they compelled to answer only as they must?

Which then takes us back to that crucial “choice” again. Understanding it as she is compelled to versus understanding it the way I am compelled to. Nothing is any less compelled but at least we aren’t literally dominoes.

If I do get it why won’t it be entirely embedded in nature’s way? What part of nature’s causes and nature’s effects do “I” have any capacity to impact other than in “choosing” what I am compelled to? How are her posts any less necessary causes here?

But “I” don’t/can’t/won’t freely pursue the other possible interpretations. What will pass will pass. Period. It could not ever have not passed.

At least insofar as [here and now] I understand the meaning of [and the existential implications of] a wholly determined universe.

This more or less reflects the “for all practical purposes” point of view that many/most of us take.

There are things that we think we know are true. And day after day after day, we bump into others who think that the same things are true. All embedded in the laws of nature, the rules of language, mathematics. And [then] the way in which all three, when intertwined out in a particular world, produce any number of “things” – technologies, engineering feats, the “stuff” in our lives – that would seem to come as close as we are now able to in encompassing the objective truth.

But then there are all of those things that become entangled in that which we are never really quite able to define definitively as “subjective” points of view.

Moral and political narratives being the most critical. Why? Because conflicting subjective assessments here precipitate all of those numbing headlines we encounter in the media.

But this thread explores another take on subjectivity altogether. The one that revolves around whether in a wholly determined universe human subjectivity itself is just another manifestation of the whole objective truth.

Again, most take their own subjective leap here to human autonomy. Though some will acknowledge that they believe that they are free [to varying degrees] even if they know they can’t actually prove it.

As opposed to those here who have actually managed to convince themselves that they are either free or determined.

And [of course] the fact that they believe this [one way or the other] is demonstration enough for them.

Yes, but this thread focuses more on whether or not we are able to freely determine if the individual human beings posting here have any capacity argue their points autonomously.

And I only label someone as an “objectivist” when they insist that how they think about right and wrong in the is/ought world encompasses the obligation of all rational/virtuous human beings. Or, in regard to the really Big Questions like this, that their argument reflects the answer.

You note things like this about me but [generally] it is up in the clouds of abstraction. What particular memes in what particular context? And, here, as that relates to conflicted understandings of determinism.

I’m sorry, but, from my frame of mind, this is an abstract psychologism. You say these things about me but nothing really clicks.

Clearly, “clearly” would not seem to be the most appropriate word. But I either had no choice [only a “choice”] in using it or I should come up with a better word. On the other hand, over and again, I make the point that in regard to relationships such as this, the points I make are no less entangled in the existential contraptions that revolve around the manner in which I construe the meaning of “I” as the embodiment of dasein. In particular contexts.

Many would disagree.

Sure, this is a reasonable manner in which to approach questions such as this. And if you approach it this way only because you were never able not to approach it this way, well, the days still unfold and there are “choices” to be made.

Just as with our discussions regarding the “hole” I’m in. You are able to concoct an understanding of pragmatism that is different from mine. This one “works” for you [for all practical purposes] in a way that I am unable to make mine work for me.

And perhaps that too is only as it ever could have been. But somehow given the accumulated experiences, relationships and access to ideas that have come to encompass your life and mine, we have come to react to these things differently.

And, sure, maybe [in an autonomous world] because your thinking is more reasonable than mine.

Well, the implications of determinism are even more undermining than that. How could a wholly determined person know that their arguments made sense or even applied to other people? All they would know is that it seemed like it made sense to them - perhaps because they were logical arguments, but perhaps just because of qualia.

So I was reacting to the oddity of your humility in relation to language and other places where ‘us being creatures of such small mass’, and in general being so affected by dasein lead to us not being able to know anything (perhaps) and what was suddenly clear…

but then someone states a position that matches yours…

and your response is ‘clearly…’ + agreement.

I find myself often noticing that people do not seem to understand the implications of the own positions. They hold others to a certain kind of rigor, but not themselves. When I was younger I truly suffered the implications of certain ideas. Ideas I was not sure were the case, but if so, it was horrible. Those who were sure these things were the case, seemed not bothered at all. So, I notice when people seem not to understand the implications of their beliefs. And especially anyone who seems to be claiming, at least implicitly, that they can stare into the abyss while anyone who disagrees with them cannot.

In the context of my argument it only matters that you do label them that, and as it happens this is quite often. This is ad hominim also. And if what promethean said was clear then it becomes ‘the answer’ regarding communication and an objectivist stance.

Saying X is the answer is objectivist. Saying language is a weak tool for discussing these issues is objectivist. It is making claims about what is going on, what can happen, what is happening and indicates that objectivists who believe in effective communication on Big Questions are wrong.

Precisely. And promethians post, which you cited and agreed with as clearly the case, was also extremely abstract. Who gets to be abstract? You and people you agree with, when you agree with them. When people who seem to be disagreeing or pointing out problems in your position are abstract, suddenly this is a problem.

And we both know there is a whole range of possibilities as to why, a number possible at the same time.

Great, then it wasn’t clear.

If we are really going to take the position that our situation is such that we cannot know things, this leads to a lot of consequences. Some easier than others to face.

I was pointing out one that seemed harder to face.

I agree. But then they also think soon to be released Spring lines of clothing matter. Dasein has many effects.

Yes.

I didn’t concoct an understanding of pragmatism. I described how I am unconvinced by arguments that I should commit to one of the positions and that it matters. That’s not me explaining pragmatism- which I never mentioned in this context - that is me describing how I react. I am unconvinced.

Nope. You are positing a ‘something’ that works for me. I was describing how these arguments fail to engage me. Maybe you have a something that makes you think you need to decide if determinism is the case. I don’t know.

Yes, we react differently.

Might be more reasonable, might have nothing to do with reason. Might be because I prioritize other things and have no energy to do into this one - if I had set out to prioritize consciously, there might be some reasoning there, but I haven’t. I have things I have to get better at. At least, I think I do. I have professional and private challenges. If I am going to tilt at windmills or fight real giants (I don’t know which one the issue of determinism is) it seems to be in other arenas. Maybe I am lazy. Maybe I don’t realize how important it is to me and my life why Ia must know if determinism or free will is the case. Maybe I should be more concerned about Spring fashions also. i can now mull over reasons i DONT prioritize the issue of determinism. maybe i am right about why i dont. but i dont plan it out. to call it pragmatism is silly. unless we consider cows eating certain herbs when they have a bacteriaL infection pragmatists:

Understanding people and what makes them tick, that has helped me both professionally and privately, I now realize (realizing its relevance to this context). So I do focus on that. I certainly can’t prove I am divvying up my interests, focus and energy in the best possible way.

Perhaps someone here will convince me I should be concerned about knowing determinism is correct or not. Sillouette, elsewhere, or maybe in this thread seemed to think he could. Or at least, that I should believe in dterminism, that this had good consequences. I am skeptical he will convince me.

We’ll see.

As an objectivist, I see subjective reality underpinning the objective world… an omniscient perspective on all things, if you will… the subjective feeding into the objective.

To be continued… in your ‘Objectivity’ thread.

One problem with this sort of speculation is how wide the gap might be between what we think we know about the quantum world here and now and what we will be able to more fully demonstrate is true about it a hundred years from now.

And, of late, I’ve found myself coming back to this:

How are we to factor this into our understanding of QM?

Anyway, it would seem that in a wholly determined universe, matter is either in sync with laws that are in fact objectively true for all material interactions or there are dimensions of reality that even our own brains are simply not capable of grasping.

We don’t really know what the full implications of determinism would be. If only because we don’t really know if what we think, feel, say and do is in fact determined by a necessary, inextricable intertwining of “I” out in the world it exist in. And then there are all the conflicting assessments of how one is expected to define the meaning of the word.

The bottom line is that for whatever reasons existentially a few of us become fascinated by questions like this. We think about it more than most and offer up our conjectures. While accepting that the gap between what we think we know about it and what we are able to demonstrate that others ought to think about it in turn will no doubt follow us to the grave.

Over and again, I point out that I don’t exclude my own point of view from my own point of view. But, sure, there are [no doubt] points of mine that others can note as inconsistent; or even in conflict with a basic premise of mine.

For example, a few years ago it was moreno who noted that, while embracing moral nihilism on the philosophy board, I would often come down as a hardcore leftist on the Society, Government, and Economics. I would critique the conservative point of view as though liberals were always right and conservatives were always wrong. And it was true. I wasn’t practicing what I preached. And ever since I have been more self-conscious of that. I still embody many liberal/left points of view but I am more aware that, given my own rendition of the “hole”, they can only be particular political prejudices embedded in “I” as dasein.

As for the abyss, I don’t pretend to be more sync with the existential implications of it than others. At least not any more. I think that my frame of mind is reasonable. But that can only be “here and now”. Why? Because given the nature of my own philosophy, I can never really be certain if new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas might change my mind.

Same with determinism.

Here, in my view, you are trying to make communication in places like this relating to issues like these something more precise than I think it can be.

I tell others how I have come to understand [subjectively] an objectivist frame of mind. It’s not a science. It’s not an exercise in pure logic. It’s a value judgment. It’s a point of view embedded in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein as an existential contraption. In regard to conflicting value judgments.

That’s you saying I’m saying these things. I’m simply suggesting that in regard to conflicting goods in the is/ought world and the nature of reality itself embedded in the Big Questions, “effective communication” is often problematic to say the least.

That’s why to the extent that we are able we need to situate our positions in particular contexts. The things that we claim to know – are we able to actually demonstrate them to others or not.

But being convinced is no less an existential contraption to me. You are convinced about certain things because the trajectory of your actual lived life predisposed you to one frame of mind over another. You recognize that had your experiences been different you might just as well have been convinced of the opposite point of view. And in a No God world you recognize in turn that reasonable arguments can be made by those on both sides [on many sides] of any particular issue. Here philosophy does not appear able to provide us with a deontological assessment such that being rational is said to be the equivalent of being virtuous.

That you are convinced or unconvinced about particular value judgments “here and now” doesn’t make them [in my view] any less political prejudices rooted in dasein.

And that is the assumption that I make when describing the hole that I am in

And then on this thread whether all of this may well be “beyond my control” as a “determined” human being.

The practical implications of that are of course of fundamental importance. But if I could never have not pointed that out here…what are the implications of that?

What doesn’t change here for me is that some things can be understood more rather than less objectively than others. What makes people tick biologically, chemically, neurologically etc., is one thing, what makes them tick morally and politically, something different. To me very different.

And what ultimately explains “I” [determined or autonomous], going all the way back to an understanding of existence itself, is, as well, a far more peculiar reality.