duplicate
On the contrary, you’ll repeat yourself if nature compels you to. On the other hand, how could you possibly know here and now what nature will compel you to do tomorrow or next week?
Yet, as is often the case here, you speak of yourself doing something in the same manner as those who embrace free will would!
Sure, just as I do. But that’s because I recognize how profoundly problematic my own understanding of all this must be. How on earth could I possibly know for sure that my arguments on this thread reflect some “final truth” about a conundrum that has baffled our species now for thousands of years?!
But, okay, what is your own rendition of cause and effect in regards to Einstein’s participation in the Manhattan Project? Was he or was he not determined by the laws of matter to write that letter to Roosevelt? What caused him to? Was there ever a possibility that he could have chosen not to? Was there ever the possibility that, given your own understanding of cause and effect in the human brain, the decisions made by all of those involved leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have resulted in a different outcome?
What on earth are you talking about here? Einstein’s knowledge or the author’s? Note an actual context involving human interactions that might allow others to actually substantiate your claims here
Yet more baldfaced assertions about him without a shred of documentation to back them up.
Let’s try this: Note what you construe to be his most convincing argument such that others do not have to fall back on either the intellectual assumptions he makes about free will or on the definitions that he gives to the words in the argument itself.
And note how cause and effect works inside human brains involved in interactions with others in which value judgments come into conflict. My own “thing” here. Imagine, for example, arguments before the Supreme Court in which it is being decided if Roe V. Wade is to be struck down. Here in America.
How might this…
“…an assessment that can in fact be brought down to earth and shown to be applicable to the behaviors that we really do ‘choose’”.
…be demonstrated in that courtroom to be true? In regard to behaviors being chosen by women who see themselves as burdened with unwanted pregnancies.
And I readily agree that human brains will be compelled by nature to “choose” particular thoughts and feelings and behaviors in that room. But will anyone there actually have chosen anything at all that is not entirely in sync with the laws of matter?
Is there something crucial about the matter that comprises the human brain begetting consciousness begetting “I” that makes it very, very different from all other matter?
That’s the part that still utterly stumps us. Or, rather, stumps those of us who haven’t concocted one or another intellectual contraption to neatly explain “everything”.
In my view, the author’s narrative is just another rendition of James Saint’s RA/AO TOE. Or the stuff being accumulated here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=195009
Or the dogmatic assumptions about how nature always trumps nurture embedded in Satyr’s declamations over at the Know Thyself clique/claque.
Objectivist mentalities of this sort are everywhere on philosophy boards.
It’s all about believing in some overarching human reality – it can be anything! – that allows you to anchor “I” into/onto one or another psychological foundation. It’s about how believing it in and of itself is the whole point.
That’s the font for whatever comfort and consolation it brings you. In my view, you’re just one of the few who don’t take the more standard leap to one or another denominational God.
Unless of course I’m wrong.
Note to nature:
Compel me to admit that I am wrong. That she is right. And soon please.
You’re wrong. Nature can’t compel me if I don’t want to repeat myself.
I don’t know what will give me greater satisfaction at every moment until that moment arrives.
Maybe so, because many philosophers believe if you have a choice, that is the definition of free will, although it’s not.
It’s a conundrum because you didn’t make a discovery. He did. Are you going to resent him for this and call his discovery an intellectual contraption because you can’t believe it’s possible?
I have always maintained that nothing could have been done any differently.
I told you that this knowledge can be substantiated when the bridge is built, so to speak. If people can still hurt others under the changed conditions, then this discovery would be false.
You’re right, it can’t be documented because we are not in the new world. We live in a free will society of blame and punishment. There could always be a simulation on a small scale, although it would be hard to set up since it would involve finding a community that would incorporate these principles. Applying the corollary, as well as removing the hurt and economic insecurity that now exists, will result in a new world based on an accurate blueprint, just like having the right mathematical equation to build a bridge, (even without the bridge having been built yet) will support the cars crossing it.
OMG, they are not assumptions. They are inferences based on astute observation. I’m sorry if you don’t like the fact that there is no autonomy if you mean by this word, FREE WILL.
Again, in the new world no one is going to tell you what to do. There is no right and wrong in many of these gray areas and, just like abortion, it will be be up to the mother because no one will tell her what she must do. There will be no Supreme Court run by a few humans that make these decisions. But like I said, people will not be in the same position they are today where abortion becomes the lesser of two evils.
You are projecting what you believe will be an issue in the new world based on what is happening today. You can’t do that.
No iambiguous. Please stop making it seem that I am describing anything other than determinism.
You still don’t get it and I’m tired of trying to get you to get it.
Just because he explains that nothing external can cause us to do anything against our will, and that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (which is why our will is not free), does not make it an intellectual contraption. You are trying to put him in some kind of box.
Who said nature always trumps nurture? I think it’s the other way around. We have a certain nature and when it’s nurtured, we get a healthier environment.
But this is more than a belief. The only overarching human reality that is important here is that man’s will is not free and what this means for our benefit.
It is definitely comforting to know that we are moving toward a world of peace, but that does not mean the discovery is false just because it makes me feel good.
You are!
You don’t have to admit you are wrong if you don’t think you’re wrong. If you read the chapters, you might prefer of your own free will or desire, to admit you were wrong after a better understanding of what this law can actually accomplish.
Thanks for shortening your post.
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!
Duplicate.
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.
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?
that nigga beet ain’t got shit on his majesty Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus and the Grand Wazoo
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6peaCMIFyI[/youtube]
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.
I have just read the third chapter and agree that there is absolutely nothing to fear in death
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[i]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.
[/i]
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