Determinism

If that’s true, then …

Calling you a moron must also be in accordance with nature’s immutable laws.

So what’s the problem?

Why are you asking me? Ask nature’s immutable laws instead.

And while you are at it, explain to them why you sometimes write the word ‘free’ in quotes and sometimes in italics. Cause I have no idea what you mean by it.

Oh, the reaction to a context is the important part of the discussion. That being different from what? A description of what is happening in the context?

For example : I love this car. I think this car is ugly. I think this car is underpowered. Versus. This car is red. It seats 5. It accelerates to 60mph in 2.5 seconds.

Is that it? You want the subjective reaction to a context?

Science only deals with observable phenomena so cannot provide any satisfactory answer to such a question
Philosophy does not answer questions definitively but does however explore the nature of human existence

Ultimately though there is no single objectively true answer that will satisfy everyone
That is because any answer however grounded in logic it is will always be subjective

Stating an obvious truth is not an assertion - namely that you cannot apply an objective metric to the human condition
Because there are no objectively true answers to the question of our existence or of how we should live our lives
If you disagree then say what are the objectively true answers to them - ones that can actually be demonstrated

Precisely And if someone does not toe Iamb’s line then he or she is an objectivist or using existential contraptions. In a determinist universe neiter Iamb nor KT people can help this kind of labeling. In a universe with free will both are choosing to label the others with pejorative terms. Iamb’s term is certainly more polite.

I think it must be a politeness issue. He thinks they should more politely put him down. And then add, sometimes, that maybe it is wrong to give them that label.

It’s a culture clash. In Iamb’s culture one should use nice sounding put downs and then say maybe I am wrong after insulting someone. It KT’s culture it is OK to be blunt and not to qualify insults.

It’s a bit like a stereotypical American meeting a Japanse person and having an arguement. Both come away feeling superior about their own culture’s way of dealing with disagreement.

Yes, but in his version of determinism, they have no control over what they do, including how they react to his criticism. They can’t change to being more polite. The immutable laws of nature would have to change them.

That’s how he reacts to criticism … “I’m not able to change”. He only has a psychological illusion of choice to change or stay as he is. There is no agent there making a decision and acting on it. Right?

What sense does it make to expect something different from others?

But it doesn’t need to make sense … it’s all a game anyways.

I’m not sure what he means by the question.

Maybe it’s an admission that words are not the way to get at an answer. Although he is completely obsessed with words and arguments, to the exclusion of everything else.

Maybe he’s looking for something like this reaction:

Whatever that is.

Or maybe it’s just something to say so that the game goes on.

Yes. In a deterministic universe, a person could still change if something is pointed out or they experience something. Yes, they might not. But they might. When encountering something someone says, he will respond that he may be, for all we know, compelled. But without acknowledging that he is compelled, it seems, in such a way that nothing can effect him. This despite the dasein thing, which he bemoans because it means he might have his mind changed at any time.

I have seen this pattern a few times:
Phyllo or someone: Well, Iamb, you might be wrong because of X.
Iamb: perhaps I have been compelled to have the position I have.
Phyllo: OK, but now I have pointed out X.
Iamb: for all we know I have been compelled to only believe Y.

IOW the step where Iamb interacts with your presenting of X is skipped over as if determinism means, precisely as you say, ‘I am not able to change.’

When in fact these are two different things, as his repeated stories about how dasein affected him indicate. But in practice he is not malleable if determinism is the case (in his mind).

But that is not a consequence of determinism.

Now, of course, X might only change some minds. He might retain his belief in Y despite having chewed on X.

But he presents it as if minds cannot be affected as a rule.

And this is confused.

But I notice how this is a part of his metaphorically throwing up his arms and saying ‘How can we…’ know, change, understand, decide, find (for example what could be called more authentic in the self).

It is ever increasing the throwing up the hands gesture in his posts.

Which would be great if he said ‘I give up.’

But that would eliminate the process.

In fact, his “I” appears much less fractured and unstable than he makes it out to be. And compared to many people, it’s practically ossified.

And around and around he goes…

Thus it is just assumed that [somehow or another] the laws of matter embedded in the human brain work differently from the laws of matter in the stone.

Back to peacegirl’s point…

The stone doesn’t choose to roll down the hill but I do choose to roll down the hill myself in order to retrieve it.

I’m not just “choosing” to do so as the embodiment of the psychological illusion of volition, but am in fact able to weigh various options and really, really choose to of my own free will.

But how do I then demonstrate that the matter in my brain [in sync with the laws of nature] is not compelling me to choose only that which I was ever able to choose? Such that, in the end, both the stone and “I” were never going to not roll down the hill.

Well, I just assume that part. I just know it to be true. Just as I assume there is no God or other worldly entities “behind” my choice.

I don’t have to ever fully demonstrate any of this. I merely have to believe what I do. I merely have to mock all those who refuse to believe precisely what I do as morons.

Then back up into the clouds of abstraction…

How else but “by definition” is any of this demonstrated to be true? A world of words that merely expresses his very own “absolute order”. And it’s all “in his head”.

Compelled or not. A proper place for every word and every word in its proper place.

The concept of free will? Indeed, where would he be here without that part?

separate morality from free will
by Phil Goetz
at the lesswrong website

I actually do make an effort to make sense of arguments like this. And it either does not make sense or I am simply unable [up to now] to make sense of it myself.

From my own perspective [compelled or not], without free will any objections raised by any of us about anything at all – as with anything that might interest any of us at all – are necessarily embedded in the only possible reality.

Seriously, if morality does not require free will, would that not make morality as embodied in human interactions just another set of nature’s dominoes toppling over only as they must.

Those hypothetical autonomous aliens really do choose of their own free will to make note of human existential interactions in which morality comes up…but it is only to note how we are not aware that these interactions are not really of our own choosing as autonomous beings. And that’s because they know that we are not autonomous being.

Thus any terms that we “choose” to use in discussions like this are no less wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

And yet if Kant was unable to freely choose his view then any problems that are derived by anyone of us in regard to the value judgments that we are in turn not free to choose gets subsumed in whatever is finally discovered to be true about the human brain/mind/consciousness by those scientists who are actually grappling with that experientially/experimentally even as I, compelled or not, post this.

yes, there has been incredible stability for years.
What does the question

How ought I live?

mean if one cannot tell if there are morals, one does not experience an I, and one seems to be utterly determined?

It seems to me that such an entity would not set such Quixotian tasks for itself. Though I suppose it would answer that it is compelled to.

Those actions are to accrue view counts while playing the clever card.

The problem of course is that my current thinking is not compelled by nature and that in fact we do have some measure of autonomy in this exchange.

Clearly, if my thinking and your thinking and his thinking are in fact compelled by nature then so is your reaction to my reaction to his reaction to me.

I become a moron only because he was not able to not call me one.

But, again, if I am wrong, we can in fact autonomously explore the extent to which, in referring to others who do not share our own value judgments or do not share our own assessment of the Big Questions, as morons, they really may well be morons. That, in other words, we do have a way in which to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to think as we do.

I am asking you because it gives me yet another opportunity to note how you will continue to avoid answering it.

And “free” is meant to suggest that, in a determined world, it reflects only the psychological illusion of freedom. Whereas free is meant to convey an actual freedom embodied in the brains of matter that evolved into life that evolved into “I”.

How? Well, scientists are still working on that

Again, we’ll need an actual context in which to explore the meaning of those words more descriptively. There is an actual Mary who had an actual abortion in an actual context that triggered actual conflicting reactions.

But: Was any of this embodied in autonomous beings? Or are all Marys and all abortions in all contexts merely the embodiment of nature’s mechanical laws.

Note to others:

Get back to me on this, please. What really, really important point is it meant to convey?

Biggie, you are unwilling to balance your inner subjective reality with the greater outer objective reality so you are always wrong in every example and context you try to disagree about.

I hadn’t thought of that, but I think I hadn’t thought of it because I am incredulous. Do you really think he gets pleasure out of view counts?

Of course, that the reason KT’s Satyr keeps biggie in the dungeon where nobody can see his nonsense.

He decided to put him in the dungeon because he thinks biggie is posting for views? Did he say that somewhere? How do you know this? Not saying your wrong, but I would have thought he would do that because he found his posts wanting in some way, not because of what he thinks the motivation for the posts is.

It’s for both reasons, manipulative nonsense posts and count seeking. At KT, Satyr has commented on biggie’s need for attention and yes, the view counts. Go to KT and ask Satyr if you doubt me. Has biggie ever posted in the rant house where no one would read his stuff? I can’t recall ever seeing him post there, but I’m going to stop my personal commentary about biggie and stop derailing this thread.

Need for attention I tend to agree with, though that’s a bit different from post views. If people just viewed his posts but did not respond, I think he would stop posting outside his two or three collection threads.

I think argument about the Rant House is an odd one. What reason is there for anyone to post in the rant threads if they don’t want anyone to read their posts. I mean, they could just type it into a word document.

You may be right about the view count, but it seems unlikely to me. Attention, or really a dynamic that includes attention and the failure to convince him and solve his problems, sure.

The rant house is like KT’s dungeon, both are only visible to members. But Biggie wants non-member views to elicit a high view count for him to continue posting to continue his game. His collection threads have high view counts which feed his ego. He has tried to get Satyr to publish all his KT threads in the KT Agora numerous times to no avail (cuz Satyr don’t play). By not allowing all of his posts to be seen by non-member views, he is not interested in the content material of the rant house for it doesn’t fuel his ego in represented high view counts.