I’m looking for the Enchanted Castle and I come to a crossroad. I can go left, straight, right or I can go back the way I came. (I could also wait, in case someone who knows the way comes along to help me. I could go off the path, cross-country.)
How does “the psychological illusion of freedom” work in this case?
How does “an actual freedom embodied in brains of matter” work in this case?
How are they different from picking a path based on my understanding of the current situation?
They are both missing the point of the thread. And the point of the thread is to explore the extent to which nature may well have compelled them to miss the point. Given that their minds are but more matter necessarily in sync with the laws of nature.
And then the extent to which they believe that their own point of view here in an autonomous universe reflects that which all rational men and women are obligated to think.
The objectivist mind.
Finally, given whatever it is they believe, to what degree are they able to demonstrate using an actual collection of evidence and data that what they believe is in fact true?
Me, I’m the first to admit that my own ideas here are just the embodiment of “I” as an existential contraption ever and always subject to reevaluation given new experiences, new relationships and encounters with new information and knowledge.
You know, in a world “bursting at the seams with contingency chance and change.”
What I think is this: that it’s entirely possible the laws of nature compelled you to think this…and then to post it.
But it’s also entirely possible that in a universe that does allow for some measure of human autonomy, you think this is true merely because you are able to believe it is true.
You don’t have to actually demonstrate in a more substantive manner how and why he has my number. You simply assert it to be true.
And, given an autonomous universe, I think it is not a waste of your time that prompts you to avoid my antics. Or prompts you to avoid participating in this thread in a more substantive manner.
Instead, I think it’s that, as with Satyr, when the discussion actually does revolve around substance, you, as with him, are easily made to look foolish.
And that is because, in my own opinion, you are both objectivists. You are both able to convince yourself that all others are obligated to think like you do. About determinism, about Trump, about immigrants. About, well, everything. Why? Because, psychologically, it is more important that you believe [fiercely, dogmatically] what you do rather than whatever it happens to be that you do believe.
On the other hand, I’m always willing to acknowledge myself that, quite possibly, 1] nature compels me to note this in turn or 2] if not, it is but another subjective assessment rooted largely in dasein.
Why doesn’t she at least make the attempt to respond intelligently to the point I raised? This is, after all, the philosophy board.
Well, I have my own suspicions of course. And, so, I’ll leave it up to you, in turn, to make of it all what you wish.
And to think that in the past – ephilosopher, ponderer’s guild, yahoo groups, cafe philo etc. – there were objectivists who were actually able to both stimulate and to challenge my own thinking.
And I posted above the conclusion that I have come to embody regarding it:
[b]
[/b]
So, sure, I’m curious regarding your own conclusion to date:
If you don’t like the switch to Trump, choose any context that you wish.
But that is precisely my point! No one seems to know. At least not beyond all reasonable doubt. And yet some insist that their own subjective philosophical “assessment” of these relationships is such that, if others don’t share it, they become Morons and Desperate Degenerates. Axiomatcially as it were.
It is of those folks that I request a demonstration. Provide us with an accumulation of hard evidence that their will is free. Instead we get serial assertions that they concoct out of a world of words in their heads.
Now, if they seem “functionally equivalent” to you, then note actual functions from your life in which you describe the choices that you make as being autonomous and not compelled by nature. How can you or I or anyone grasp this wholly? Given the reasons that I note above.
Yes, but you’ve got your own rendition of God. That allows you to put nature in perspective. You presume [I presume] that mindless matter evolving into living matter evolving into human brains evolving into “I” are not wholly the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. Somehow God intercedes to make you autonomous. And, in turn, I’m sure you’ve got your own rendition of the argument that squares an omnsicient God [if yours is] with human freedom.
But Satyr eschews God. He seems to depict religious folks with the same sort of contempt he spews on the “modern” “nihilist” folks like me.
So, what does he have in the way of hard evidence that there is something going on in the human brain that evolved from mindless matter into an “I” that is autonomous. How does he actually go about demonstrating it?
Instead, we get serial assertions such as this:
And:
I challenge you or Wendy or anyone else here who generally subscribes to his view on free will, to note how these “intellectual contraption” assessments in any way, shape or form constitute an actual demonstration of the objective truth about human autonomy.
I don’t know how many different times I have already acknowleged I don’t have an answer to questions like these. Let alone being able to demonstrate that my answer reflects that which all rational men and women are obligated to embrace.
Instead, I note that “I” – “I” as an existential contraption – have come to believe “here and now” that if the human brain has evolved from matter wholly in sync with the laws of nature, then the human brain itself would seem to be wholly in sync with them as well.
Which means that human psychology would be no exception. It is somehow able to create mental states in which the self-conscious “I” is, in turn, able to convince itself it is not wholly in sync with the laws of nature. That – through God or through something entirely unique about living matter having evolved into the human brain – “I” is able to choose freely.
Just as in a dream state, “I” is convinced it is calling all the shots when in fact it is the brain itself that is creating its “reality”.
How then to explain the difference between a dream reality and a waking reality?
Again, I don’t know. All I can presume is that there are men and women – scientists – who are exploring all of this much less “speculatively”.
I’m going to select my “Road to the Enchanted Caste” context, because it’s simple and it shows what I’m trying to say.
No. If you thought that they were essentially the same then you would simply adopt the most useful one, you would not hesitate to switch when circumstances changed and you would not be concerned about others adopting a different one. Yet, these things appear to bother you. They are part of the reason for your “fractured I”.
Therefore, I come to the conclusion that you think that those two ideas about freedom are different in some critical way.
I’m autonomous in all my decisions. Nature is not some sort of external controller which can take away my autonomy. I am part of nature and separate from nature. My sensory input comes entirely from nature and my processing is entirely the product of nature.
One can grasp it adequately if not wholly.
I didn’t mention God in any of this. You can put nature in perspective without God.
He has contempt for the religious who are obsessed with an afterlife. They are nihilistic in the sense that they deny this life in favor of an afterlife.
On second thought, one could extend it those religious who are more concerned about the will of God than their own will. That could also be considered nihilistic.
The point is that they can only be rooted subjectively because the question of how to live ones life is a subjective one and absolutely so as well
You have no capacity to provide objective answers because none exist and any declaration of supposed objectivity will by default be subjective
Nope. I’m entirely the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. The only difference between me and a robot constructed in a factory and programmed, is that I’m aware of my own self.
Nope. Although He has loaded me(and humans and animals in general) with some pretty impressive programming and hardware.
Everything is the embodiment of nature because that is all there is . Evolution is an ongoing process and so mindless matter evolving into living matter and so on is simply evolution going from the simple to the complex - there is no mystery to this because it is what nature does . And when evolution finishes then entropy takes over for they are the two eternal states . A mind not understanding the more complex aspect of this process - such as free will for example - is an entirely separate matter . Nature simply does - it does not have to explain itself - that is not its function
You have religious people asking one to deny parts of one’s nature, even to go against one’s nature as a rule, (Satyr does this also but from a classical perspective rather than an Abrahamist one, but he doesn’t acknowledge this) and then also deny the importance of what is happening here and now. To disengage. Then you have nihilists who think life has no meaning and bemoan this as if this entails that one should disengage from life. Or in Iamb’s case that one must either find the meanings or have other people demonstrate them or remain disengaged. Now of course he would not say we should disengage, but it is part of the bemoaning, it is implicit in the nihilism. The ‘what could be more important’ implies it. I think that is unhealthy. IOW if it happened to a wolf of a cow - and thus the arguments would be out of sight and not articulatable by the animal - it would just look like a sick animal. Depressed, perhaps suffering some kind of virus.
If one decides it is more important to do some creative project or explore intimacy with someone, then this is seen as signs of existential contraptions or objectivism or a new should.
When it is merely not being stopped by meme that inhibits life.
Are you compelling him to avoid my point here more or less than you’re compelling me to suggest that this is precisely what he is doing?
My fractured “I” is only relevant in a world where human autonomy is the actual reality. Which it may well be. If I am free to choose whether abortion is moral or immoral, I am stymied by fact that here and now I have thought myself into believing that “I” here is the embodiment of dasein living in a world of conflicting goods that, sans God, comes down to who has the political and economic power to enforce a set of behaviors that sustain what they construe to be in their own best interest.
They would be essentially the same only in a world where human behaviors are wholly compelled by nature. Some may believe that they are free to choose what they do, others may believe that they are not. But what difference does that make for all practical purposes if, in the end, the laws of nature compel the matter that has evolved into the human brain, to line up – necessarily, inherently – with those laws?
Yes, but, once again, you have yet to demonstrate to me that you have reached this conclusion of your own free will. This is, after all, the whole point being raised by the hard determinists: that brain matter somehow evolved into a human psychology that compels you to believe that you are free existentially to conclude that, when, in fact, essentially, you are not.
The part that neuroscientists continue to explore experientially.
Instead, you merely assert things like this…
…as though asserting that they are true makes them true.
You could have a dream in which you assert the same thing, right? How autonomous is “I” then? And that’s always been where the mystery lies. Squaring the reality of “I” that seems clearly compelled physiologically [beating hearts, functioning organs, dreams, mental illnesses, psychopathic states, “I” on drugs etc.] and the “I” that intuitively seems within our grasp autonomously.
I’m not arguing that you are wrong so much as you are unable to actually demonstrate beyond all doubt that you are right. In other words, like all the rest of us.
And that if, one day, someone is able to demonstrate it conclusively, he or she is all everyone would be talking about.
But, in ny view, you can only take the perspective of any particular “I” up to that clearly existing gap between what “I” believe is true about all of this “in my head” “here and now”, and all that can be/must be believed about existence itself. With or without God.
The part objectivists of your ilk just shrug off because the whole point of believing that you really do understand these things is the psychological balm it allows you to wallow in.
Freely or not.
From my frame of mind it’s that you know, not what you know. And, in particular, regarding the is/ought world and questions like this. You intertwine this certainly into the “real, autonomous, me in touch with the right thing to do”.
At least until you bump into other objectivists who share your conviction that the right answers are within reach…but only if you accept that their answers [not yours] are the right answers.
Hasn’t he ever heard of the Protestant Reformation? But that’s what he does. He lumps all religious folks into the same “one of them”, “not one of us” compartment. And, on this side of the grave, it is hardly nihilistic to subscribe to the existence of a God, the God, my God. Quite the contrary. If you are looking for meaning and purpose in life, what could possibly be less nihilistic than to predicate all of the things you think, feel, say and do on one or another received Scripture?"
The irony then being that his own genes/memes dogma is but one of hundred and hundreds of secular narratives that have popped up down through the ages. Again, his whole point basically being to separate the Desperate Degenerates from the Ubermensch. Ironically enough, the sheep that follow him over at KT.
Okay, but, autonomously or not, I still await a description of your own behaviors that intertwine the manner in which you think of God and of objective morality in an actual context.
Still, on this thread the point revolves around the extent to which you are able to demonstrate that you either are or are not able to 1] freely think this up and 2] freely post it.
If you and I are wholly compelled by nature to think, feel, say and do all of the things that we choose…?
Well, would not everything in reality be necessarily subsumed in the laws of nature?
That’s where we all seem to be stuck: taking one or another existential leap to one or another conclusion regarding what “I” deems to be essentially true.
Again, unless there is in fact a demonstrable resolution to all of this that has yet to come to my attention. That’s always possible. Especially given the billions of planets that are suspected to harbor life in turn. Who among us really knows what is known about all of this “out there”? Does anyone here believe that human intelligence necessarily reflects the highest form of intelligence in the cosmos?
And that’s before we get to the part about God.
But: Assuming some measure of autonomy in a No God world, how, technically, do philosophers make that crucial distinction between the subjective “I” and all that exists objectively independent of matter having evovled into the conscious mind?
Has any philosopher actually pinned that down such that all other philosphers defer to him or her when this subject comes up?
Instead, there seem to be facts about reality [human or otherwise] embedded in what folks like me call the either/or world. Nature and it’s laws are all around us, in us, of us.
But: The leaps to a seeming certainty that we take in regard to those relationships explored using the “scientific method” are clearly on more solid ground than the leaps taken by, say, ethicists in regard to the behaviors we choose in the is/ought world. Or in regard to human beings expressing opinions about food or music or sports or art or beauty or political agendas. Or in speculating about the Big Questions like this.
It still comes down to those things that we are able to demonstrate are true for all of us and those things that are deemed true by us but not by others.
I realize that most Americans on both sides of the divide think that the universe revolves around Trump’s ass, but at this point, I have little interest in him.
I was presented with some data, I processed it and that was my conclusion.
Most of that is either straight from the dictionary or simple observations. Which parts do you dispute?
Am I not part of nature?
Am I also not a separate entity?
Where do inputs come from if not nature?
Am I not autonomous by the dictionary definition?
As far as I can tell, it’s demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. I don’t feel any need to demonstrate it “beyond all doubt”. (Whatever that even means.)
That’s your obsession, not mine.
People clearly understand some things, otherwise they would be dead - nature and evolution would squish them quickly. Nature constantly gives you feedback.
It’s nihilistic to live a life described in a book rather living your own life. It’s a denial of yourself in favor of a character like Jesus or Luke Skywalker or Robin Hood, etc. You are none of those people. You are a unique individual, so live your own life.
Right. Now all you have to do is to fully explain how mindless matter was able to evolve into this awareness.
Not only that but in regard to your own particular “I”, this transformation resulted in a capacity on your part to distinguish objectively moral from objectively immoral behavior.
Instead, in my view, you merely assume that it did because you believe that it did.
Really, I get this part. But: do you? Does peacegirl?
Same thing. You assert this to be true, but offer no actual hard evidence that He has in fact loaded you and everyone else with this impressive programming and hardware.
It is enough that, given human autonomy in sync with an omniscient God, it comforts and consoles you to believe that this is true.
I get that part too. If only because in the past I once believed it myself.
And, sure, it may still be true. And, if so, in an autonomous world, we can explore the implications of that in regard to, say, theodicy?
How can you possibly know if that is true or, perhaps, more importantly, what it means, without a complete understanding of nature itself?
What can you tell us definitively about God here? What can you tell us definitively about nature and “nothing at all”? What can you tell us definitively about the evolution of mindless matter into your own particular “I” able to assert things like this?
If evolving from the simple to the complex, from hydrogen and helium atoms to the human brain, from [possibly] nothing at all to everything there is, involves no mystery for you then, well, what can I possibly note here that would put even a dent in your own — ontological? – objectivism.
This sounds like an answer that one might expect from God. After all, there’s not much that He doesn’t know about everything, right?
How does moral and immoral behavior suddenly pop into this discussion of determinism and free-will? Seems not to be applicable to anything that I wrote.
Where did I write about morality??
You don’t agree. That’s life.
“What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so.”
“Defending Free Will & The Self”
Frank S. Robinson in Philosophy Now magazine
Think about that. All the crewmen are fighting over the wheel. But the fight itself cannot be reduced down to any particular one of them. There is no crewman # 1 ultimately calling the shots. Instead the crewmen are physiological interactions – chemical, neurological – that, in and of themselves, unfold in sync with the laws of nature. So the “winner” is merely the transaction that, naturally, could only have won. Unless, of course, there is an element of randomness that even nature itself is not entirely in command of.
The quantum world certainly hints at that. But how then, given some element of autonomy, does that randomness impact the choices that we do have some control over? Is this randomness able to mutate into chaos – a helter skelter, hit or miss world such that, in any particular context, no one and no thing is the final arbiter? Involving perhaps dimensions of reality intertwined in parallel universes that become intertwined in ways that we can’t even yet imagine?
Then cue God?
Okay, as an intellectual contraption, this way well be closer to reality than any of the ones that we encounter here. But if you are interacting with someone and he asks you to explain your behavior, how do you suppose he will react when you tell them that your behaviors reflect an “organization of all the competitive activity between a host of competences that my body has developed”?
Let alone be able to convince him that this settles the question of whether those behaviors were only ever what they could have been — given the relationship between this competitive activity in a human brain that has to confront dualism as one possible explanation. That or God.
If neither, than what does explain it?
Another example of “sheer speculation”. Does knowing we know something prove that we could have freely chosen to know something else instead?
Use the “layering of representation” conjecture to walk us through the behaviors that you choose.
