Completely false. Like I said, if the premises are sound, the conclusion will be sound. The principle that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction IS SOUND, and the principle that nothing in this world has the power to make us do what we make up our mind not to do, IS SOUND. He also showed how conscience works given a different environment based on the two sided equation which you have no understanding of.
But what peacegirl fails to provide [me] is the sort of empirical evidence that might encourage me to explore further the author’s discovery as it relates to this so-called “progressive” future. Is there anything at all that I can do [or an experiment that I can perform] in order fathom how the near future is both the embodiment of “no free will” and of “choice”?
You are using the word “choice” as if “free” is automatically assumed. We can have options iambiguous, and still not have free will. That’s why he said the word choice is misleading because that would indicate we are free to choose this option or that option equally, or without compulsion, which is false.
What on earth – in terms of the behaviors we choose – does she mean by that? In other words, “for all practical purposes.”
For all practical purposes, the fact that we are compelled to choose what gives us greater preference is the underpinning of his entire discovery, since under new conditions we can’t prefer (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to hurt others without justification. It’s the most practical knowledge of all!
After all, what are neuroscientists who explore this experientially doing but probing actual brains in the process of choosing. Are there chemical and neurological processes going on biologically in the brain such that it can finally be determined once and for all if any particular choice is only that which it ever could have been?
Exploring actual brains can do nothing to understand the behavioral aspect of what these brains do under environmental conditions. You believe that neuroscientists will have the answer when it’s right in front of you. You’re disrespecting him by saying it’s in his head, without understanding anything he wrote. How ironic!
That’s why I always come back to dreams. In my own dream states, “I” am utterly convinced the interactions are “in reality”. My own dreams in particular because they almost always revolve not around the fantastic but around contexts that I completely familiar with – childhood dreams, army dreams, war dreams, college dreams, political activist dreams, job dreams, family and friends dreams. They often involve people I once knew intimately. And “in the dreams” the events are unfolding not at all unlike they once did “in reality”. And they are astoundingly elaborate. I find myself reading things, hearing things, experiencing things in great detail.
How to explain that?
We know our dreams are not real but they serve a purpose. We also know we have no control over our dreams, just like we don’t have control over other autonomic systems. What does this have to do the discussion?
However the future will be progressive as this is how morality develops over time but it will never reach the absolute state he hoped it would
Moral advancement is similar to technological advancement in that it develops slowly and incrementally [ but sometimes not even this ]
From my frame of mind however this discussion is for another thread. When morality is discussed in terms of particular political prejudices, I can only assume that value judgments are embodied in autonomy.
No they aren’t autonomous. Of course there are prejudices. These prejudices are based on the culture, the political climate, and the history of that culture which is all in sync with the laws of matter (as you put it).
Otherwise “right” and “wrong”, “progressive” and “regressive” behaviors are all embedded only in the psychological illusion of good and bad behavior.
There is no good and bad objectively. We’re not talking about good and bad. We’re talking about hurt, which is a real thing. If someone shoots you, I would say this person hurt you. I don’t think you would want to get shot which you would call a hurt to you. That’s what will be prevented unless you want to get shot. Then you don’t have to become part of the new world.
If the brain is necessarily in sync with the laws of matter then anything it concludes about the is/ought world is merely another manifestation of the either/or world. The future will be only what in can be – only what it must be. You and I are just along for the inevitable ride. We are basically nature’s dominoes that “choose”.
We are just along for the ride. We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, and in that sense the future will be only what it can be – only what it must be. That’s true, but our choices are part of the necessary unfolding which will lead us in a direction that will bring sustenance and peace to the entire world.
But never choose in the sense that free will advocates are compelled to believe.
Or so it seems to me. And she simply refuses to explore the points I raise about dasein and conflicting goods and political economy. In part because, once again, these things would pertain only to a world in which at least some measure of human autonomy exists.
Iambiguous, you refuse to read the book. The economic chapter is filled with how conflicting goods and political conflict will be eliminated only because everyone will never be poverty stricken where they need to hurt others (whether it’s hurting individuals or countries) for self-preservation. I’m not going to spoon feed this knowledge to you. You’re the one that’s losing out because of your stubborn resistance to reading what you don’t believe is possible. That’s your problem, not mine. And, btw, I will answer posts that are between you and others. I don’t want to answer posts from you directly because you make false accusations about the author and you tell me these premises are assumptions, which they are anything but.