The true mystery regarding how matter evolves into human brains able to confront human interactions self-consciously is, in my mind, an intellectual contraption that is preventing you from showing any real interest in this discovery. And I realize your way of responding is all it could ever be.
Even if what you’re saying is mumbo jumbo or not, you can’t help yourself.
I’m not disagreeing with that. But you’re still not understanding the distinction that creates the two sides.
Well, why don’t you tap nature’s immutable laws of matter on the shoulder, and inquire as to why I am not understanding this.
It’s not up to me. I’m not even disagreeing with the fact that nature’s immutable laws are immutable. But you refuse to understand that nature (as described as a separate entity, not you as nature) cannot force a choice on you. Only when you permit a choice to be made, CAN IT BE MADE. Nature can’t say, "No iambiguous, that choice is not in the plan. You MUST make this choice.
Likewise, both those in the government making the laws and those not in the government obeying or not obeying them, would, to the autonomous aliens, be like the characters that we watch in a film. Up on the screen they seem to be choosing behaviors here and now but we know better. Same with the aliens. They watch those in the government and those not in the government seemingly making free choices. But they know that Earthlings, being in a wholly determined segment of the universe, are really only just “choosing” to do what they do per nature and her inexorably unfolding laws.
Who cares if that’s how the aliens perceive us earthlings as making free choices when we’re not? What’s your point?
My point is this: that what any of us care about here in our determined part of the universe is only that which nature compells us to care about. Unless you reside in an autonomous part of the unviverse in which you really do get to weigh these behaviors and choose of your own free will to react as you do.
You still don’t get it. YOU (the “I” that gets to choose) does not mean you are separate from the immutable laws of nature that compel you to choose what you MUST choose in the direction of greater satisfaction.
You speak [over and over again] of my “willingness” to do things…just as the free will folks would. And I’m still utterly mystified as to how this “works” for you in your head. Something about “once you choose something” it can never be changed. As though that isn’t how it would work even in an autonomous universe. The point isn’t whether a choice made is locked in, it’s whether it was ever really a choice at all. Or only a “choice” embedded in the illusion of freedom that nature has somehow made possible having evolved [as matter] into the profound mystery that is human consciousness itself.
It depends how you interpret the word choice. We are able to contemplate options, which many call choice, but our choice is never free because we can only go in one direction; therefore it is an illusion.
As long as you are unable to convince me that what I want to do here is not wholly in sync with what nature conpels me to want to do here, you are missing my point about the manner in which I construe autonomy in a determined universe as but the psychological illusion of actual choice rather than the fated and inevitable psychological reaction “I” feel in “choosing” to want to.
Autonomy is the ability to be independent but never really free of influences that affect choice.
Yes, that’s how I construe “I” as an existential contraption in an is/ought world in which human autonomy exist in some measure. In a determined universe however both your ability and my ability and the ability of all others is wholly a function of nature’s laws.
Everything is a function of nature’s laws because we are part of these laws. You cannot separate them. The “I” or self that separates us from each other does not mean we can’t make choices, which is consistent with nature’s law of greater satisfaction.
Your own wants as well here embedded in this assumption.
What assumption?
The assumption that human wants, desires, sense of satisfaction etc., are in turn compelled by nature.
All of human wants, desires, sense of satisfaction, etc, are compelled by nature. The only thing I’m trying to get you to see is that nature does not cause you to do anything, as if nature is something outside of yourself with a software program already set before you make a choice. For example, you chose to run a red light therefore you are responsible for stepping on the accelerator. Nature (as a separate from you) did not make you push on the accelerator. Therefore, who is responsible for pushing on the accelerator? YOU ARE, not in a blameworthy way, but YOU ARE responsible because you performed the action. IOW, you can’t shift your responsibility to nature by saying nature made you step on the accelerator even though you didn’t want to. You did it because this was your desire at that moment. This is important because although will is not free, nothing can make or force us to do anything we ourselves do not want to do.
The mystery is still how nature has managed to evolve into life evolving into human brains evolving into human minds able to believe all sorts of conflicting things about this and many other interactions.
It is cool, isn’t it? What this has to do with the price of eggs, you got me!
Everything though…from something being thought of as cool to the price of eggs…is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of nature.
Everything that is except the manner in which you seem convinced that the author has discovered something about nature that, what, even nature is in for a surprise regarding? In other words, although human interactions going back to the caves has revolved around all manner of terrible pain and suffering, that will all be a thing of the past once men and women are somehow compelled to embrace his principles and nature itself is then somehow compelled toward “peace and prosperity”.
Once again, you talk about nature as if it’s something apart from ourselves. Of course nature, or ourselves, as part of nature, are compelled to want and desire what we have no control over. But the most important thing I am trying to express is that we are given the ability to agree to what we want; to give permission to what we want. Nature, as it appears from your posts, cannot make you choose an option that you don’t want. Therefore, you cannot say nature made me choose to hurt someone. No, you hurt someone not because nature made you do it but because you wanted to, in the direction of what gave you greater satisfaction. You and me know this person couldn’t help himself, but we also know that nothing made him choose this option if he didn’t want to, because nothing can do that.
How it evolves further into minds [like yours] able to convince themselves that they and only they actually grasp all of this correctly while minds like mine are filled with all manner of considerably more ambiguous uncertainties.
The mystery is still nature itself going all the way back to how and why it became what it is or always was what it is.
Nature going all the way back only means life could not have unfolded any other way.
irrelevant
Indeed, everything that anyone brings up on this thread that is not wholly in sync with your own “intellectual contraption” conclusions, is irrelevant. None of us are compelled to not doubt that.
Why something occurs is less important than asking how something occurs. Have you ever heard the expression: Y is a crooked letter?
It’s the same thing as saying evil is not evil when seen in total perspective, but we can use the term evil when we are identifying someone who has caused a heinous crime.
Indeed, in my view, that is what is most important to you here. By your definition of determinism, we still call particular behaviors “heinous crimes”. By your definition of determinism those crimes become a thing of the past in our “progressive future”.
In total perspective evil is not evil, but in everyday experience, we can use the term to mean a vicious crime; vicious meaning with great rage.
In “total perspective”. Exactly. Given that this perspective is seen by particular determinists to be encompassed in nature unfolding only as it ever could have given laws of matter it is wholly comprised of, good and evil are just “props” in nature’s entirely scripted narrative we are compelled to call the “human condition”. “Everyday experience” isn’t just sometimes a part of all this and sometimes not. But to pin down how and why that can possibly be true? We simply don’t know enough about existence itself to even begin to answer that.
Evil is part of our present narrative but not part of our future narrative! I know you don’t believe me. Oh well!
Over and again: In your own rendition of “no free will” it is vital to be able to make that distinction between good and evil. We have no free will, but: But that revolves around the fact that once we make a choice to be either good or evil that can never change.
Whatever that means.
It’s important to focus on good and evil (hurt) because that’s the issue iambiguous. Compatibilists and libertarians are not interested in what you chose for breakfast. They are interested in what you did that they believe you didn’t have to do, and that involves doing something that society considers a wrongdoing.
Whereas, from my own understanding of determinism, good and evil reflect only the embodiment of a human mind able to convince itself psychologically that the behaviors we are ever compelled to “choose”, are still understood by us “in our head” as though we really were free to choose good instead of evil.
I agree. We are not free to choose good over evil if evil is what we prefer for reasons that may not be understood by psychologists. Free will is the illusion and that is why compatibilism doesn’t fly.
There can be no real substantive/existential good and evil because all of our “choices” can only ever be in sync with that which nature compels us to think, feel, say and do.
That is true, but if we can veer in a different direction creating the desire (but still in the direction of greater satisfaction) to choose what is not evil (hurt) and prefer choosing good (not hurting anyone), that is a very good thing.
Thus:
Somehow in your head you want and you get it both ways. No free will…but evil is still around.
Evil is still around because people still prefer evil, for whatever reason. The only way peace can come about is if people don’t prefer evil in preference to good.
Of course evil is still around. We haven’t utilized this discovery or applied the principles!
What I wouldn’t give to be inside your head just long enough to understand this sort of thinking as you do. No free will but somehow evil is conquered by the principles that, in lacking free will himself, the author was compelled to discover.
What can I say? The author was compelled to make this discovery, not of his own free will, and by discovering this law and showing what occurs when applied globally, all evil (war, crime, poverty, etc.) can be eliminated.
Evil (hurt to others) is still around. If you want to omit the word evil, then do so, but I'm referring to a hurt. We still have hurt in this world even though everything had to be, but that doesn't mean that hurt and pain of this world has to continue.
If the human brain is matter entirely in sync with the laws of nature than saying that evil is still around is “for all practical purposes” the same as saying earthquakes are still around. The matter that comprises the shifting plates like the matter that comprises the human brain are just different configurations of matter compelled to unfold as matter – all matter – must. The fact that the plates don’t “choose” to shift while we do “choose” to be good or evil, doesn’t make the part about matter – all matter – being compelled go away.
I’m not disagreeing with you, but the fact that we have choice, although not free, is quite different than an earthquake where there is no choice.
Different in that matter seems capable of evolving in truly astounding ways down through the ages. Ways we still do not fully understand. It’s like the hard guys explaining how in the early universe there was hydrogen. Then helium. Then gigantic stars exploding and creating all the other elelments. And all these other elements evolved over billions of years into things like human brains and shifting tectonic plates.
But: what still applies are the laws of matter. Brains or tectonic plates or dinner plates. Matters does only what it it compelled to.
Yes, matter as human consciousness is a very, very different kind of matter. You, however, possess one of those conscious minds able to think itself into believing it understands all of this. Not only here and now, but into the future.
All the author did was to show where the knowledge that man’s will is not free and what this means, as we apply the principles that follow, can prevent the conflicts that lead to war and crime.
My own conscious mind however was compelled to go in a different direction. But only up to here and now.
Earthquakes don’t “choose” to create the environment that actually brings them into existence. And nature might one day actually compel us to “choose” to prevent them.
But if won’t be because we could have chosen autonomously not to prevent them and, of our own volition, freely decided to prevent them instead. Not given the manner in which I understand choice here in a determined universe.
I agree with you. When I use the phrase I did this of my own volition or of my own free will, which I’ve stated numerous times, it only means I did something of my own desire because that was my choice (in the direction of greater satisfaction), but it does not mean “I actually chose anything of my own free will” in the sense that I could have chosen otherwise.
And think about this part. There are actually folks who profit from earthquakes. Things fall apart and they are paid to rebuild them.
That is true, but if we can find a way to prevent earthquakes, we don’t allow them to occur just to keep people in business. In the new world, no one will be hurt economically if they lose their job. Many jobs are going to be displaced because there won’t be a need for them.
…my point is that different people hold behaviors in contempt as evil that others embrace as the embodiment of good. Abortion, gun control laws, animal rights, private property, gender roles, homosexuality…
Who decides which behaviors here reflect your “progressive” future?
No one decides which behaviors are allowed and which ones are not. Is that what you’re asking?
How can there be gun control when there will be no more guns? How can abortion be an issue when the causes that lead one to want to abort will no longer be an issue. When it comes to animal rights, people will be more humane because they won’t need to kill inhumanely to save money. Private property belongs to the individual who bought the property, just like someone who bought food or clothes or shelter. Your concerns are easily resolved once these principles are understood. Gender roles? Homosexuality? Who will be doing this judging? No one. You are coming from the vantage point of this world, which is why you can’t believe it’s possible.
I don’t really know where to start here. You make all of these assumptions about what constitutes “progressive” behavior, and then merely assume that after folks in the future are compelled by nature to embrace the author’s own political prejudices – now called principles – nature itself will finally “get it” and reconfigure all its old compulsions into the new ones.
These are not the author’s ideas that are made up of opinions and prejudices. This is a natural law, but no one has taken this knowledge far enough to see where it leads us.
From my frame of mind, this yanks objectivism up into a whole other category.
I’ve said this more than once: there is no standard of behavior except this hurting of others.
There is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong
in human conduct except this hurting of others, and once this is
removed, once it becomes impossible to desire hurting another, then
whatever value existed in asking for and giving advice has been
permanently done away with.
Because volition still exists. Our agency is part of the causal process, which means we are not robots that are following a program like a domino.
Again: Bingo
How you understand this is not how I understand it given that human “volition” in my determined universe has no less compelled John to “choose” to set up the dominoes as it has compelled the domino to topple over.
We can agree on that, but you are failing to understanding that nature, as YOU, only chooses what you find preferable, not NATURE acting upon you as if to say regardless of what you want or choose is irrelevant because NATURE is forcing you due to a preset plan.
No, we are basically agreeing to disagree [so far] about how nature and its laws “work” insofar as we acquire these preferences and wants and degrees of satisfation. From my frame of mind these things are no less embodied autonomically. The human brain here is like the human heart or lungs or liver or kidneys. It’s an organ that is in sync with the evolution of matter into life into consciousness.
It is true that what we do is in sync with nature’s laws just as the heart and lungs, but to say that nature compelled you to do something is misleading. Nature compelled you to desire such and such, which is true. Your desire involves your permission to do such and such. IOW, your permission to perform an action means you are responsible for performing said action. It does not mean you are morally responsible (that’s not what I’m referring to) because we know you couldn’t help yourself since your will is not free. Let me know when we can move on, if you so desire. This thread is getting stale.
I am less in nature than I am a part of nature. It’s just the most mindboggling part of all. After all, how the fuck did matter manage to accomplish this?!! Most insist it is God of course. But I don’t believe in God. But I don’t know if I don’t believe in Him only because I was never actually able to choose freely to believe in Him.
It doesn’t matter for the purposes of this knowledge why we came to be the way we are. What matters is how we can use knowledge to better our world in ways that are hard to imagine. But you should never be that extremely skeptical that you refuse to listen.
John tells himself that he wants to go to bed instead of toppling the dominoes but he was no more able to not want to tell himself this than the domino is able to topple or not want to topple over. John either will or will not topple it in sync with the laws of matter compelling dominoes and brains to do what they must.
That’s fine as long as you stop using the excuse that nature made you do something when nature didn’t make you do anything. You did something because you wanted to, which is part of your nature to do. See the difference?
That’s fine if nature compels me to stop using it as an excuse. Or if nature compels you to understand that “for all practical purposes” there really is no difference.
Your nature is compelling you not to see the difference. There is no difference in the sense that we are compelled to do what we do. The only difference is that you are responsible for what you do, because nothing can compel you to do what you don’t want to do. It’s as simple as that.
Over and over again you insist [from my frame of mind] that we take what we want to do out of the loop. As though the laws of nature do not compel some to think that what they want to do they want to do of their own volition. While others are compelled to believe that they “choose” to want what they do.
How can a person choose to want what they do? They either want or they don’t want, which is not of their choosing.
Exactly. Well, at least until you attempt to explain how, when you take this “general description” out of your head, it is implicated in the actual choices/“choices” that we make.
Consequently…
…as though the things that we want and desire are somehow out of nature’s loop. Volition and desire being at one with nature but somehow just different enough to persuade enough people to embrace the author’s discovery and thus usher in the author’s own understanding of a progressive future.
People can believe anything they want. They can even believe that one plus one is three until they begin to build a bridge based on bad math and it collapses. If people know for a fact that will is not free and the benefits that can be derived from this knowledge, they will want to apply it to our world because we cannot choose what is worse for ourselves when the truth is known. There is nothing wrong with saying I did something of my own volition, AS LONG AS IT IS QUALIFIED IAMBIGUOUS. It does not mean I did something of my own free will, because there is no such thing.
You haven’t the slightest clue what this discovery is about.
Tell that to nature. And then have nature explain this…
I am asking YOU, not nature, to please be a better investigator rather than fight me tooth and nail, so that I can explain the two-sided equation. The knowledge that man does not have free will IS NOT THE DISCOVERY, it is the gateway to the discovery.
Volition and desire are out of our control, which means the choice of one’s own volition is not free, although in conversation it’s okay to say I did this of own volition or desire, which does not me[an] you had free will.
…to me. It’s like hearing something that I would say myself!
Only its meaning being basically the opposite of what I think I mean myself here and now.
That’s why defining terms is so important. We’re probably on the same page and don’t even know it.