But: You still got to “choose” to type those words, right? So, even though your own particular “I” is but one more thing that nature is wholly responsible for, it’s not completely intertwined in…what?
Somehow “in your head” the relationship that nature compels you to believe in regard to this relationship with nature is different from that which nature compels me to believe about it “in my head”.
In other words, me “choosing” [anything] is no less a necessary component of nature. There is no being external to it because nature is, well, “all there is”.
So, when you say “we have no control over what we think up and what we choose” you are still able to “choose” to say that in a way that…
Well, damned if I know what you mean by it.
And every attempt on my part to yank that out of you…
…results in just more obfuscation.
Okay, but you can’t tell me that I’m not making only the “choice” that the laws of matter [embodied in my brain] compel me to make. Your clarification then being no less compelled by nature itself.
John rapes Jane. Jane becomes pregnant. Jane aborts the unborn baby. What part of this existential sequence is not essentially compelled by nature? Hurt abounds here. Make it all go away in the author’s “progressive future”. Only this time actually demonstrate how it can be made to go away [in a world of conflicting goods and conflicting hurts] without all of the theoretical assumptions about how the “discovery” itself makes it all go away in the author’s head.
In other words, you can’t. Instead just another “general description” “assessment” in which words define and defend the meaning of other words that go around and around and around in circles. If only as nature complels it to.
The only idea that I can have [in a determined universe] would seem to be the idea that nature compels me to have. Thus my “agency” is but another component of nature. And that is no less applicable to you. In other words, our choices change only because our brain matter is compelled to change in order to remain in sync with all of the other mindless/mindful matter it comes into contact with. The mystery is still mind. Matter like no other matter before it.
That’s what the hard guys and gals in the scientific community are still struggling to come to grips with. But, unlike with you and I and the author, it’s not all just a “world of words” for them.
Yes, some believe the choice that they make is a manifestation of their free will. Others believe there is no free will and they “choose” only what they could never have not chosen. But either way once the choice itself is made, it can’t be unmade.
I can only presume that I must be compelled by nature to misunderstand what nature compels you to believe here.
Luck? How, in a wholly determined universe that is unfolding only as it ever can unfold – re the laws of matter – does “luck” ever come into play? Something might seem to be luck to you and I but there was never any possibility that it would not seem that way.
All I can note once again is how fortunate you are that nature has compelled you to think this way. Thus providing you with a comforting peek into a future that only has to exist inside the head of you and the author to be true. In the interim however nature seems more content to let things unfold in an entirely more problematic manner.
Or: Nature compels you to believe that you are at a disadvantage because it compels me not to meet you halfway. It compels you to be stuck trying to explain to me something that it compels me not to do in regard to those chapters. In other words, it has yet to compel me to read them.
You will no doubt concur with this. And yet somehow I am still the one who is responsible for the impasse between us.
In other words [somehow]:
I am being compelled by nature to make the “choice” not to read the chapters by, in turn, being compelled by nature to shift the blame to nature.
Not to get too technical here, but…huh?!
Which I am now compelled by nature to bring back around to this:
Or it is probably eaisier for you because nature has necessarily paved the way for it to be only as it ever could have been for you. And only as it ever could have been for me.
Then what?
On the other hand:
Words are only another manifestation of nature embodied in the brains of matter able to become conscious of itself as matter able to define things. But: This doesn’t change the fact that the definitions [like our perceptions of reality itself] are only as they every could have been.
No less so than the manner in which you attempt to make “choice” here both of nature and not of nature. Whereas I don’t pretend that my own frame of mind is grasped as either wholly determined or autonomous.
I make certain assumptions [always subject to change] and…leap.
And, [b]again[/b]…
You simply duck the question. Another “general description” assessment that in no way brings us any closer to closing the gap between the author’s “world of words” future and the world we actually live in here and now. A world in which we are making choices over and over an over again.
Instead…
Ever and always you are stuck here. The only possible escape being that nature compels you to be stuck here.
You provide me with very, very little in the way of encouraging me to read the book from cover to cover.
What truly substantive points has he raised that might allow me or others to at least imagine a way in which evidence might be accumulated, experiements conducted, predictions made and results replicated.
Just one then. That which you deem to be the best example from the book.