Determinism

Our inveterate abstractionist brings out the big guns:

And that settles it, right? With this one particular assertion, Sartre has clearly demonstrated beyond all doubt that we choose of our own free will. Authentically as it were.

Unless of course this “general description intellectual contraption” from Weininger comes even closer to pinning it all down.

Or, sure, perhaps our very own hero here comes the closest of all:

On the other hand, I tried exercising my own free will in discussions with him in the agora. And, of his own free will, he dragged me to his dungeon.

Why? Well over there religion revolves solely around agreeing with the meaning and the definition that he gives to all the words that comprise his hopelessly abstract philosophical arguments.

The dungeon then becoming the equivalent of Hell?

And then of their own free-will, we are told, the Desperate Degenerates who [moronically of course] enslave themselves by embracing one or another religious dogma are magically transformed into…nihilists?

Go ahead, ask him.

Still, compelled as I am to say this, he is off the hook in being compelled by nature himself in turn.

Though he still seems intent on asserting that he actually does choose of his own free will to be, among other things, made a fool of. And not just by me.

Go get him, Magnus!! =D>

You don’t read my posts because of something KT wrote about you???

I wrote a bunch of stuff in several posts which you blatantly ignored and instead you are “going back to the OP”. I see.

No [as I point out over and over and over again], I don’t know for certain if nature compels me to read the posts of yours that I do “choose”/choose to read and the posts that I “choose”/choose not to read.

Just as nature either compelled me or did not compel me to “choose”/choose that aside regarding the disdain that nature either compels or does not compel KT to level on me here at ILP.

Okay, note the most blatant point of all that I ignored. Let’s start there.

Note to others:

And, of course [presuming at least some measure of autonomy here], he never – never ever – ignores any of the points that I raise with him in our exchange here.

I have no doubt that KT would change how he responds to you, if you changed how you interact with him. However, I don’t think that you would change how you respond to him, if he changed how he interacts with you. IOW, if he dropped his “disdain”, you would stay the same.

Over and over, I have tried to nail down the meaning of the word 'autonomy" and entirely without success. You use the word all the time. So what does it mean?

I use the dictionary definition. According to the dictionary, people have autonomy. And it’s impossible to lose autonomy to “natural laws”.

Autonomy has nothing to do with it. If we have autonomy, I don’t respond to all your points. If we don’t have autonomy, I don’t respond to all your points.

I don’t respond for several reasons:

1. I’m tired of many of your standard responses to my replies to your points. If I just keep getting those responses, then I might as well not bother at all. Responses like …

“You’re just asserting that.”
“It’s just in your head.”
“You’re compelled to write that.”
“You have to demonstrate that, beyond all doubt, for all reasonable men and women” (forever and ever)

2. Your points are very repetitive. I think that I have covered them in the previous posts.

3. I think that often your point is a way to try to avoid dealing with my point. It’s a distraction tactic.

AS in me or as in Satyr or Know Thyself in general.

It’s about you. He has brought you in the last couple of posts and I’m responsing to it.

No, what you have no doubt regarding is that here and now [b]of your own free will[/b] you are reading these words.

What I have doubts about, however, is the extent to which I am able to demonstrate [b]beyond all doubt[/b] that I either do or do not have autonomy here in typing new ones.

KT here and Satyr’s KT there are just more dominoes that nature is toppling over.

But: that is true only given my assumption that the human brain is but more matter necessarily in sync with the laws of nature.

The part that science seems far better equipped to explore than philosophy.

And, in particular, philosophers like Satyr who pump out endless intellectual contraptions that must be true because they are basically tautologies. Words defining and defending other words. And now he sees fit to quote other philosopners who accomplish much the same thing.

Then around and around we go.

“Individual autonomy is an idea that is generally understood to refer to the capacity to be one’s own person, to live one’s life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one’s own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.”

Now, if the capacity we have to think, feel, say and do anything – anything – is linked inherently to a brain that is matter linked inherently to the laws of nature, what aspect of the “human condition” would not be but embodied in the psychological illusion of free will?

Human psychology itself would certainly appear to be no exception.

Unless of course it is. Either through God or through an understanding of the human brain that science has yet to pin down.

I’m not arguing that free will does not exist, only that here and now, given the assumptions I make regarding a wholly determined universe, it does not seem reasonable to suppose that it does exist.

But this is no less a speculation on my part given the gap [enormous I suspect] between “I” and a complete understanding of existence itself. All those “unknown unknowns” that I haven’t even thought of. Just as with you.

If you have autonomy, you don’t respond to my points because, of your own free will, you choose not to. You actually have that option but do not choose to exercise it. That’s the part I link to “I” as an existential contraption – as dasein.

And how different is that from nature compelling you to respond or not to respond to anything.

But: How is it determined which assessment is the correct one?

Fair enough. No one [least of all me] is demanding that you are obligated to respond to anything I post. Assuming of course that I do have some measure of volition here in pointing that out.

We can only agree to disagree about what it means to “cover” them.

Again, only if you are willing to cite examples of this, are any of us likely to gain a better understanding of this point.

But: If we live in a universe in which all matter – including brain matter – is but an inherent manifestation of what is often described as “the immutable laws of matter”, nothing is independent of the totality – the objective reality – that is matter unfolding entirely in sync with those laws.

Unless I am not thinking that part through correctly. And I am more than willing to concede this given all that I do not know about existence itself.

In other words how would this…

…not in turn be but a necessary component of the only possible reality given the only possible configuration of matter given the extant laws that govern it?

Also, this assessment is but another “general description” “intellectual contraption” in which words are connected only to other words that are defined and defended by you in a particular way.

Even assuming some degree of human autonomy, free will, volition, responsibility etc., how are we to link it to the behaviors that we choose in course of actually living our lives from day to day?

Don’t talk to me like that.

Unattributed quote.

So instead of talking about autonomy, you switch to free-will.

Autonomy is not free-will. People have autonomy in a determined universe.

Ditto.

Oh, I thought there was talk of dungeons and things. Beyond my powers. But now I know.

More “proof” that our will is free.

Nietzsche of course is no different from all the rest of us. He either makes the assumption as an advocate for human autonomy that he has freely opted to believe this or he suspects instead that he is compelled by nature only to think that he has freely opted to believe this.

As though the things we desire are not in turn merely components of brain matter necessarily intertwined in the laws that propel it into the future.

But my point is always the same: that both Nietzsche and his contemporaries as with all the rest of us today either had or have failed to actually demonstrate which one is it is.

Or:

1] the demonstration has been made and has not come to my attention
2] the demonstration has been made and I am unable to grasp it

As well he should.

Even if there is a demonstration unveiled to the world that human behaviors are in fact necessarily intertwined in free will, that will is in turn intertwined in contingency, chance and change; and, in regard to the is/ought world, ceaselessly reconfigured over time [from the cradle to the grave] given the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

As in other words, existential contraptions.

So, what particular social convictions and conventions in what particular context?

At best [for him] nature compels him not to go there.

But, perhaps, with enough encouragement, he might actually commit himself to taking these abstractions down out of the scholastic clouds and, given a particular context involving particular behaviors, make a clear[er] distinction between the Moderns and all the folks like him.

Stay tuned. If he does [compelled or otherwise] I’ll bring it here [compelled or otherwise].

Note to nature:

You heard him!

Compelled or not, I Googled “human autonomy”. That’s one of the descriptions that came up. Compelled or not, you try it. Pick the description that works best for you. Bring it on board.

Okay, this part:

[b]Autonomy vs. Free Will

Autonomy is often confused with free will, but actually they are slightly different ideas. Free will is a metaphysical idea, whereas autonomy is a moral/political idea.

Free Will

The ability to make choices “on your own”: a being without free will is forced to do whatever the physical world causes them to do, while a being that has free will can deal with these causes successfully and make unrestricted choices based on the being’s own desires. Free will is about metaphysics, meaning the basic rules governing existence in the physical world.

Autonomy

Most people who believe in autonomy do believe in free will, but actually the ideas are independent, and you can hold one without the other. All of the views in this table are logically viable. Which one do you like best?[/b]

From the “Philosophy Terms” webpage

So, technically, they have a “slightly different” meaning. Even though for all practical purposes in discussions like this they are often used interchangeably. Like the distinction that is made between being moral and being ethical. Technically…

Assuming my description above, how can nature not be the external force that compels “I” to make distinctions like this? It just gets very, very tricky here. Why? Because “I” am not really external to nature at all. Nature and “I” are as one given the assumption that the laws of matter don’t distinguish between living and nonliving matter. But how to explain the human brain’s capacity to actually become aware of that?

That is still the mystery of course. That’s the part that someday science will either pin to the mat or not. But: will they be compelled to pin or to not pin it? Then around and around the philosophers go.

Really, how does the mind wrap itself around that? And, as well, without going back to an explanation for existence itself.

You tell me: where does the part where free will as a metaphysical idea end and free will as moral/political idea begin? And how [for all practicl purposes] does that distinction change anything at all in a wholly determined universe?

In other words, with regard to the behaviors that you choose.

Give it a rest, dude.

You picked it and then you didn’t bother discussing the contents of the quote. You just launched directly into your usual script.

You treat them as identical. And again in this last post, you don’t talk about autonomy.

You can think of the universe as being without entities or you can think of it as being composed of entities. Once you identify entities, then they have certain characteristics … autonomy is one of them. Awareness is another.

It’s basically the same as when people say that everything in the universe is energy. That’s not wrong but it’s not useful in almost every situation. It’s more useful to identify specific patterns of energy. When you identify the energy pattern ‘cat’, it has certain characteristics. A cat is autonomous.

If you think of the universe as being without entities, then there is no ‘I’, there is no choice, there is no free-will, there is no awareness, there is no autonomy … there is only one big mechanical process.

What matters is how you live your life within the existence you think exists regardless of how true such a perception is
What existence actually is is therefore of less consequence than the mental model you have of it within your own mind

Given that any knowledge is limited and will be compromised by philosophical considerations anyway one can never truly know existence
Your mind however is doing a wonderful job of making sure you pursue this question till death with as much energy as is humanly possible

From my own perspective my existence in the here and now is merely temporary so I see zero reason to question it anymore than is absolutely necessary
I suppose you could say we are at opposite ends of the spectrum - you want absolute definitive answers where as I just want a logically consistent model

I like your repeated use of the reference to all rational men and women - but why does it matter what anyone else thinks - it is your model of reality not anyone elses
And there can be many models of reality that are acceptable to rational men and women individually - logically all of them cannot be true but that is a separate issue

It would also make pretty much any discussion, as in these threads, rather moot. There would be no objectivists, no ‘way one ought to live’ - unless you meant the way who whole universe ought to live, no dasein as a useful concept, since it presumes some kind of entity with experiences, and so on.

Futility is the ultimate message here. You can’t do anything. Every pattern of interaction will come down to futility. Try to show me it isn’t futile (trying to understand, trying to act, trying to know oneself)

That is the message.

Any entity (illusory or not) that does not live like it is futile to live, is problematic, is bad. Is trying to control or judge. Is sinning by having contraptions or optimism or motion or social connection. It must have these things, because if it didn’t, then his pain might not be caused by his bravery in facing the truth.

And clarity of discussion, responding to points made, will be sacrificed at any opportunity when this leads to

getting to metaphorically throw up his hands and say we cannot know, we cannot act, we cannot find ourselves, we are not free, (maybe), he will add to show he is theoretically not making a claim to know anything).

The wins have to do with your frustration - since this confirms his position, it is a pyrrhic victory, it is revenge on anyone who can be optimistic who seems to think he or she knows him/herself.

It is a spreading of the virus.

Winning is when the hands get thrown up ‘we can never be sure, even of this’

and winning is if you get irritated…

He feels a tiny joy. And who could begrudge him that.

But why be part of it?

He’s even announced a number times the pleasure he takes in frustrating people or driving them away. After nearly everything has been taken away, he still has gloating.

Not asserting he’s aware of this, but noting the pattern. Is it determined?

Does it matter?

I actually don’t get the utter fascination with determinism and free will. I get it in the hobby sense and I do understand how emotionally unpleasant determinism sounds or the lack of free will.

But I wake up, and there are things I want and need to do, as far as I can tell.

There is no single universal answer to this question and the assumption that there is is a fundamental flaw

Everyone is free to live their life according to their philosophy or ideology or belief of choice as long as they dont impose it upon anyone else
You are asking the question in relation to all of humanity when ultimately only you can decide how to live your own life and not anyone elses

Also not everyone is going to consider the degree of human autonomy or free will in relation to how they actually live their everyday life
These things can be considered but equally so they can be entirely disregarded - for they are only important to those who deem them so

Even if you did find an answer to this question that would actually satisfy you and it was an objectively true one as well what then ?
Would it have any impact at all on how you would live your life from that point on or would you just go on living it as you are now ?

If you did have free will you would carry on having it and if you did not then you would not - so either way it would make precisely zero difference
You would not all of a sudden start exercising free will simply because you had finally discovered it existed - you would simply know for sure it did
Equally so if you finally discovered it did not exist then you would just simply know this - but you would still be acting exactly the same as before

So the only reason for asking the question is because you do not yet know the answer not because you will live a different life when you do discover what it is

iambiguous has free will
iambiguous does not have free will

iambiguous does not actually know which of these statements is true
but is going to devote his entire life to finding the answer - if he can

he has now found the answer but still carries on living his life exactly as he did before
this is objectively true whether or not he actually accepts it as being objectively true

this is also true for all of us regardless of whether or not we are looking for a definitive answer like he is

And since believing in determinism should also undermine one’s confidence that one has been objective even one of the answers leads to not having an answer again.

It might have an impact, since one might reaction emotionally to the answer, and the emotional reaction might color, even, the rest of a person’s life. But you’re question is a good one. It has no practical use. It cannot be applied now to decision making.

Following this, we could have the thought experiment:

Today you find out that the truth is we are

1. free
   or
2. determined

What would you as a result change, do differently?

and note, asking what would you do does not presume you would do this ‘freely’.

Were I to discover tomorrow that solipsism was true or I was a brain in a vat or I existed inside a matrix or any other significantly
different model of reality to this one it might surprise me but once I accepted it then I would probably carry on exactly as before
A deterministic or free will reality would not surprise me one bit for they are the only models ever accorded serious consideration