Determinism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:57 pm

phyllo wrote:
given human autonomy,
:-k
What does autonomy have to do with it?


autonomy: 1 : the quality or state of being self-governing especially : the right of self-government 2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence personal autonomy.

Then the endless "technical" squabbles that revolve around differentiating autonomy from volition from free will.

phyllo wrote: If a free-will person doesn't understand something, he can't will himself into understanding it.


But he can will himself to think through all of the variables in his life that prompted him to think what he does here and now. And he can will himself to proactively seek out the understandings of those who think other than as he does.

I merely make the distinction in a free will/autonomous world between understanding all that is needed to be known about performing Mary's abortion and all that is needed to be known in order to judge her choice as either moral or immoral.

phyllo wrote: Confusion, misunderstanding, ignorance and stupidity must work the same way in free-will and determined worlds. Why would it be any different?


This is such a preposterous question given my own understanding of this issue, I won't even attempt to rejoin. I mean what are the odds that we will ever really understand each other given a gap this wide?

It's just that, again, given the way in which I do understand this issue here and now, we are both wholly embedded in the only possible exchange.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Thu Jun 10, 2021 8:22 pm

But he can will himself to think through all of the variables in his life that prompted him to think what he does here and now. And he can will himself to proactively seek out the understandings of those who think other than as he does.
No he can't do that. It would mean that he had greater understanding "of the variables" than an identical person in a determined world. Where would this understanding come from?

Similarly, where would the motivation to "seek out the understandings" come from?

Logically, the abilities of a free-will person are as limited as the abilities of an identical determined person.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12403
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:39 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Fuck you!! 8)


If you were more of a listener and less of an arrogant prick we might still be having a conversation.
Your trouble is that you don't see to be able to hold an argument, whilst you have learned to attack others' points of view. You are basically an empty vessel with nothing to offer.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:23 pm

Sculptor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Fuck you!! 8)


If you were more of a listener and less of an arrogant prick we might still be having a conversation.
Your trouble is that you don't see to be able to hold an argument, whilst you have learned to attack others' points of view. You are basically an empty vessel with nothing to offer.


Are you still here? :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Fri Jun 11, 2021 1:48 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Sculptor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Fuck you!! 8)


If you were more of a listener and less of an arrogant prick we might still be having a conversation.
Your trouble is that you don't see to be able to hold an argument, whilst you have learned to attack others' points of view. You are basically an empty vessel with nothing to offer.


Are you still here? :lol:


Yes I shall continue until you try to make a point.
I am not holding my breath.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:10 pm

phyllo wrote:
But he can will himself to think through all of the variables in his life that prompted him to think what he does here and now. And he can will himself to proactively seek out the understandings of those who think other than as he does.
No he can't do that. It would mean that he had greater understanding "of the variables" than an identical person in a determined world. Where would this understanding come from?

Similarly, where would the motivation to "seek out the understandings" come from?


Okay, you came to ILP to post this. Now, given the manner in which I understand determinism, the laws of matter are such that there was never any possibility that you would not have -- could not have -- come here to post it.

And the way in which I understand free will, you may or may not have come here given any number of variable combinations in your life that pull and tug you in different directions. Variables that you are only more or less able to understand and control.

Thus your "understanding" of the variables in a wholly determined universe is entirely fated by all that we still don't know about how mindless matter evolved into living matter...evolving here and now into us on planet Earth.

Same with "motivation".

phyllo wrote: Logically, the abilities of a free-will person are as limited as the abilities of an identical determined person.


Same with "logic"? What does logic mean in a universe where all matter -- including us -- can never interact beyond the parameters of what the laws of matter sustain.

Then the mystery that revolves around whether the laws of matter are derived from a God/the God; or whether a God/the God was derived from the laws of matter. And then whether one and/or both have always existed or came into existence out of nothing at all.

And then the part where we fit our moral and political prejudices regarding Mary's abortion into that.

My guess: that here your guess is as good as mine.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:26 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Yes I shall continue until you try to make a point.
I am not holding my breath.


What recourse do I have here [in the real deal free world] but to come back to this:

Sculptor wrote: I can be full of shit or not full of shit. I might be full of shit today, or full of shit tomorrow. Whether I can help it to be or not to be full of shit may or not be my choice but which ever it is; it is determined that way.
As Schoppenhauer used to say:
I can do as I will, but I cannot will as I will.


Yeah, that's my point to peacegirl in regard to greater satisfaction. You can feel satisfaction...but you could never have not felt satisfied given determinism as I construe it.


Sculptor wrote: Sadly no one really knows if, or how, exactly, you are construing anything.
I do not think you, yourself really know.


Note to nature:

Straighten him out here.

Besides, "sadly", "happily", it's all as one to the laws of nature. Right? Or are you just one more run of the mill compatibilist?

You can feel satisfied after aborting your fetus but you could never have not felt satisfied doing it. You can feel satisfied if a woman and her doctor go to prison for killing an unborn baby but you never have not felt satisfied.


Sculptor wrote: Is this word salad?


Okay, given your own understanding of determinism how is this word salad not relevant to the abortion wars?

Sculptor wrote: I never mentioned satisfaction. Why are you bring this into the discussion, if not to avoid facing the issue?


Well, the issue for me is in noting the satisfaction that you seem to accrue in configuring into just another one of my Stooges here... in a world that I have to acknowledge, given my own frame of mind "here and now", was never not going to be other than as it must be.

Some satisfaction. Reminds me somewhat of the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit". Rocky the crook is shot by the cops and he ends up in a place where he is always satisfied. Everything he does -- gambling, shooting pool, making it with the ladies -- finds him a winner. He thinks he's died and gone to Heaven. Until it begins to dawn on his that his satisfaction is all rigged. He can never not win. And, for him, that's Hell.


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to nature:

uh?!!!

It's like, hypothetically, you're watching a film unfold that you've seen many times. You're telling someone who has no idea what a movie is, what the characters will say and do. Here the screenwriter and the director become analogous to nature. Only given my own understanding of determinism the screenwriter and the director themselves are no less "characters" in the production that is nature itself unfolding only as it must, as it will.


uh


Wow, just like me, nature repeats itself!!!

It's one thing to tell someone they are full of shit in regard to determinism when there is in fact a way to know definitively whether human beings have free will. And that you grasp this because you are better able to think through -- of your own volition -- all of the intertwined variables in order to arrive at the most rational answer. This as opposed to nature wholly determining what you think that you have thought through yourself such that bullshit itself becomes just another inherent component of the only possible reality.


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to others:

So, given the real deal free will world, does "uh" cut it for you given the points I raised? Or, instead, have I managed to reduce yet another one here down to this "uh" mentality.

Sculptor wrote: Anti-abortionist are trying to deny those that wish to abort their free will. There is nothing more to be said here. They are both determined to have their say, of necessity. So-called prolifers are against liberty of the woman's right to chose.
What is it you do not understand here?


What I don't understand is how we can finally pin down once and for all if either side here was ever actually able to think, feel, say or do anything at all other than as the laws of nature command them. Given Saints, obsrvr524 and/or your own understanding of determinism. Because, given my own wild ass guess "here and now", nope, it is as though one of you confronted both sides spitting on each other in a dream: the brain fully on automatic pilot.

Only now awake. How is it not -- re nature -- on automatic pilot then?

Sculptor wrote: "Free will" to the ability to follow your determined will, regardless of the will of others. That is ordinary compulsion that I mention above.
This is a compatibilist position which is a subset or clarification of determinism.


Great, another hopelessly obtuse intellectual contraption. Again, how is this applicable to the abortion wars?

Also, to your "greater satisfaction", you posted it. Given your own understanding of determinism was there ever the possibility that you could have opted not to post it? Can you freely rethink it all through again and then come back here tomorrow and change your mind?

And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that.

But, again, only given my own wild ass guess here.


Sculptor wrote: Why are you beating around the bush?
What is your position here? Or are you just content to dance?


More to the point, was I ever able to have done otherwise given your own understanding of determinism?

Sculptor wrote: This waltz is the most absurd of your moves.: "And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that. "


Right, like that is not the conclusion any number of determinists come to.

Sculptor wrote: The laws of nature are codes written by humans, they have no volition, they are not any kind of mother, nor do they compel. They are just descriptions of and reductions of reality.

Nature as it is, simply acts to necessity. It is absurd to call that compulsion or to give it human characteristics. You seem to be living in a child's world of animism, to formulate such a question. I'd suggest you read some Spinoza, but I think you would simply miss the point. His "god" is necessity. "God" has no desire, need, volition, it is more like the structure of reality.


I'm sorry, but: HUH?!!

Physics, chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology, etc. etc. etc., are just codes written by us?

Or, if not that, we've been here before when you noted that nature doesn't compel us. It just is what it is. Only we have no idea going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself if there is a teleological component to nature. Something along the lines of, say, the No God Buddhist religion. Or the many pantheist narratives.

We just don't know. Well, not counting the many metaphysical objectivists we've encountered here at ILP over the years.

Again, are you one of them?

And if you just shrug and say nature "is what it is" what does that tell us about the human condition given that it is clearly a part of nature.


Please explain to us how I have managed to not make a point of two above. After which I will try to explain why I am convinced that I reduced you [and obsrvr524] down to avoiding responding to them.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:37 pm

We don't respond to them because we know that they are merely diversions toward a different obsession you have. It is a shame that you cannot see how easily we can see that.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 11, 2021 6:57 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:We don't respond to them because we know that they are merely diversions toward a different obsession you have. It is a shame that you cannot see how easily we can see that.


Again, getting back to James S. Saint...

Given his own understanding of determinism, was there or was there not a possibility that our exchange here could have been other than as it has, in fact, "naturally"/naturally/"naturally" unfolded.

Also, was he able to invent/discover RM/AO only insofar as he was fated to given my own understanding of determinism...or is his understanding different?

And, if it is different, how does RM/AO function when human interactions revolve not around the either/or world of science and mathematics and logic but around the is/ought world pertaining to such things as conflicting moral and political value judgments in regard to Mary's abortion above.

I'm sorry but, apparently, nature now compels me to give you one more chance here to rise above petty retorts and Kidstuff huffing and puffing.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:04 pm

Okay, you came to ILP to post this. Now, given the manner in which I understand determinism, the laws of matter are such that there was never any possibility that you would not have -- could not have -- come here to post it.

And the way in which I understand free will, you may or may not have come here given any number of variable combinations in your life that pull and tug you in different directions. Variables that you are only more or less able to understand and control.
If I don't have free-will, then I either post or not post. If I had free-will, then I either post or not post.

The same possibilities exist in both cases. The same thing happens in both cases. The same variables are at play. But you assign a special meaning, a compulsion, to the 'determined' action.

Why?
phyllo wrote:
Logically, the abilities of a free-will person are as limited as the abilities of an identical determined person.



Same with "logic"? What does logic mean in a universe where all matter -- including us -- can never interact beyond the parameters of what the laws of matter sustain.

Then the mystery that revolves around whether the laws of matter are derived from a God/the God; or whether a God/the God was derived from the laws of matter. And then whether one and/or both have always existed or came into existence out of nothing at all.

And then the part where we fit our moral and political prejudices regarding Mary's abortion into that.

My guess: that here your guess is as good as mine.
Start with one question and briefly focus on it ... what abilities does a 'free-will' person have that a 'determined' person does not have?

Ignore gods, abortion and any other diversions for now.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12403
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:06 pm

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:We don't respond to them because we know that they are merely diversions toward a different obsession you have. It is a shame that you cannot see how easily we can see that.


Again, getting back to James S. Saint...

Given his own understanding of determinism, was there or was there not a possibility that our exchange here could have been other than as it has, in fact, "naturally"/naturally/"naturally" unfolded.

Also, was he able to invent/discover RM/AO only insofar as he was fated to given my own understanding of determinism...or is his understanding different?

I already answered all of that.

iambiguous wrote:And, if it is different, how does RM/AO function when human interactions revolve not around the either/or world of science and mathematics and logic but around the is/ought world pertaining to such things as conflicting moral and political value judgments in regard to Mary's abortion above.

He explained all of that - mostly with "PHT" and "MIJOT" and "CRH".

iambiguous wrote:I'm sorry but, apparently, nature now compels me to give you one more chance here to rise above petty retorts and Kidstuff huffing and puffing.

You should try to not talk to yourself out loud.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:33 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:We don't respond to them because we know that they are merely diversions toward a different obsession you have. It is a shame that you cannot see how easily we can see that.


Again, getting back to James S. Saint...

Given his own understanding of determinism, was there or was there not a possibility that our exchange here could have been other than as it has, in fact, "naturally"/naturally/"naturally" unfolded.

Also, was he able to invent/discover RM/AO only insofar as he was fated to given my own understanding of determinism...or is his understanding different?

I already answered all of that.


Well, let's just say that, compelled or not, we understand the meaning of "answer" here very differently

iambiguous wrote:And, if it is different, how does RM/AO function when human interactions revolve not around the either/or world of science and mathematics and logic but around the is/ought world pertaining to such things as conflicting moral and political value judgments in regard to Mary's abortion above.


obsrvr524 wrote:He explained all of that - mostly with "PHT" and "MIJOT" and "CRH".


That in and of itself explains a lot to me. The Capital Letter intellectual contraptions. But, okay, take PHT to the abortion clinic and explain to us one more time how you would describe it to those protesting that abortion as immoral.

iambiguous wrote:I'm sorry but, apparently, nature now compels me to give you one more chance here to rise above petty retorts and Kidstuff huffing and puffing.


obsrvr524 wrote:You should try to not talk to yourself out loud.


Would James try to convince us that this either is or is not an actual option for mere mortals given his own understanding of the human condition.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:43 pm

Possibilities only exist in the present and future.

Once something actually happens, the possibilities are gone. There is only the one reality.

That has to be true for free-will and determinism. The nature of time is the same in both cases.

If I post this, free-will or not, I must have posted it.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12403
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:59 pm

Okay, you came to ILP to post this. Now, given the manner in which I understand determinism, the laws of matter are such that there was never any possibility that you would not have -- could not have -- come here to post it.

And the way in which I understand free will, you may or may not have come here given any number of variable combinations in your life that pull and tug you in different directions. Variables that you are only more or less able to understand and control.


phyllo wrote:If I don't have free-will, then I either post or not post. If I had free-will, then I either post or not post.


Imagine John is in court on trial for raping Jane. His defense: "if I don't have free will then I either rape or I don't rape her. If I have free will then I either rape or I don't rape her."

Are you telling me that if science and philosophy could in fact finally come to the definitive conclusion regarding whether we do or do not have free will, it's all the same to Jane?

Or, sure, I'm still the problem here. Your point trumps mine [given my current understanding of free will] but I just don't grasp it.


phyllo wrote: Logically, the abilities of a free-will person are as limited as the abilities of an identical determined person.


Same with "logic"? What does logic mean in a universe where all matter -- including us -- can never interact beyond the parameters of what the laws of matter sustain.

Then the mystery that revolves around whether the laws of matter are derived from a God/the God; or whether a God/the God was derived from the laws of matter. And then whether one and/or both have always existed or came into existence out of nothing at all.

And then the part where we fit our moral and political prejudices regarding Mary's abortion into that.

My guess: that here your guess is as good as mine.


phyllo wrote:Start with one question and briefly focus on it ... what abilities does a 'free-will' person have that a 'determined' person does not have?

Ignore gods, abortion and any other diversions for now.


But my whole point is that, given the manner in which I understand God/No God in regard to conflicting goods, focusing in on John raping Jane above could never be construed as a diversion. It's an actual behavior chosen in an actual set of circumstances.

And the ability a free will John would have is the capacity to opt not to rape Jane. After, say, a discussion with me in which I asked him to think back on his life experiences in order to probe how he came to want to. And why he might come to think instead that he shouldn't want to.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:24 pm

iambiguous wrote:okay, take PHT to the abortion clinic and explain to us one more time how you would describe it to those protesting that abortion as immoral.

As always - diversion to a different topic for a different thread in order to play your game by your rules - and insult anyone who won't go along with your nonsense rules -
    iambiguous contenes with - X
    iambiguous contends with - Y
    iambiguous contends with - Z
    iambiguous contends - and contends - and contends

We just don't want to play that way - try growing up and using adult rules - you might like it.
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:25 pm

Imagine John is in court on trial for raping Jane. His defense: "if I don't have free will then I either rape or I don't rape her. If I have free will then I either rape or I don't rape her."

Are you telling me that if science and philosophy could in fact finally come to the definitive conclusion regarding whether we do or do not have free will, it's all the same to Jane?
This is the thing ... I'm not talking about rape or not rape. And I'm not saying that rape is the same as not rape.

I'm talking about free-will and determinism.

The end result is that Jane got raped whether John has free-will or if he doesn't have free-will.

The factors that made John do it are there in both cases.

And if he did rape her, he has to be rehabilitated/jailed in both cases in order to keep other people safe and to discourage other rapists.
And the ability a free will John would have is the capacity to opt not to rape Jane.
What is this capacity and how does John use it?

Doesn't he have the same sexual, aggressive, domineering drives as 'determined' John?

Why don't those drives make him rape her?

Doesn't he rape her because of specific reasons in both the free-will and determined cases?

And what particular reason would make him opt not to rape her if he has free-will? No reason?
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12403
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:16 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Sculptor wrote:
Yes I shall continue until you try to make a point.
I am not holding my breath.


What recourse do I have here [in the real deal free world] but to come back to this:

Sculptor wrote: I can be full of shit or not full of shit. I might be full of shit today, or full of shit tomorrow. Whether I can help it to be or not to be full of shit may or not be my choice but which ever it is; it is determined that way.
As Schoppenhauer used to say:
I can do as I will, but I cannot will as I will.


Yeah, that's my point to peacegirl in regard to greater satisfaction. You can feel satisfaction...but you could never have not felt satisfied given determinism as I construe it.


Sculptor wrote: Sadly no one really knows if, or how, exactly, you are construing anything.
I do not think you, yourself really know.


Note to nature:

Straighten him out here.

Besides, "sadly", "happily", it's all as one to the laws of nature. Right? Or are you just one more run of the mill compatibilist?

You can feel satisfied after aborting your fetus but you could never have not felt satisfied doing it. You can feel satisfied if a woman and her doctor go to prison for killing an unborn baby but you never have not felt satisfied.


Sculptor wrote: Is this word salad?


Okay, given your own understanding of determinism how is this word salad not relevant to the abortion wars?

Sculptor wrote: I never mentioned satisfaction. Why are you bring this into the discussion, if not to avoid facing the issue?


Well, the issue for me is in noting the satisfaction that you seem to accrue in configuring into just another one of my Stooges here... in a world that I have to acknowledge, given my own frame of mind "here and now", was never not going to be other than as it must be.

Some satisfaction. Reminds me somewhat of the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit". Rocky the crook is shot by the cops and he ends up in a place where he is always satisfied. Everything he does -- gambling, shooting pool, making it with the ladies -- finds him a winner. He thinks he's died and gone to Heaven. Until it begins to dawn on his that his satisfaction is all rigged. He can never not win. And, for him, that's Hell.


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to nature:

uh?!!!

It's like, hypothetically, you're watching a film unfold that you've seen many times. You're telling someone who has no idea what a movie is, what the characters will say and do. Here the screenwriter and the director become analogous to nature. Only given my own understanding of determinism the screenwriter and the director themselves are no less "characters" in the production that is nature itself unfolding only as it must, as it will.


uh


Wow, just like me, nature repeats itself!!!

It's one thing to tell someone they are full of shit in regard to determinism when there is in fact a way to know definitively whether human beings have free will. And that you grasp this because you are better able to think through -- of your own volition -- all of the intertwined variables in order to arrive at the most rational answer. This as opposed to nature wholly determining what you think that you have thought through yourself such that bullshit itself becomes just another inherent component of the only possible reality.


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to others:

So, given the real deal free will world, does "uh" cut it for you given the points I raised? Or, instead, have I managed to reduce yet another one here down to this "uh" mentality.

Sculptor wrote: Anti-abortionist are trying to deny those that wish to abort their free will. There is nothing more to be said here. They are both determined to have their say, of necessity. So-called prolifers are against liberty of the woman's right to chose.
What is it you do not understand here?


What I don't understand is how we can finally pin down once and for all if either side here was ever actually able to think, feel, say or do anything at all other than as the laws of nature command them. Given Saints, obsrvr524 and/or your own understanding of determinism. Because, given my own wild ass guess "here and now", nope, it is as though one of you confronted both sides spitting on each other in a dream: the brain fully on automatic pilot.

Only now awake. How is it not -- re nature -- on automatic pilot then?

Sculptor wrote: "Free will" to the ability to follow your determined will, regardless of the will of others. That is ordinary compulsion that I mention above.
This is a compatibilist position which is a subset or clarification of determinism.


Great, another hopelessly obtuse intellectual contraption. Again, how is this applicable to the abortion wars?

Also, to your "greater satisfaction", you posted it. Given your own understanding of determinism was there ever the possibility that you could have opted not to post it? Can you freely rethink it all through again and then come back here tomorrow and change your mind?

And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that.

But, again, only given my own wild ass guess here.


Sculptor wrote: Why are you beating around the bush?
What is your position here? Or are you just content to dance?


More to the point, was I ever able to have done otherwise given your own understanding of determinism?

Sculptor wrote: This waltz is the most absurd of your moves.: "And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that. "


Right, like that is not the conclusion any number of determinists come to.

Sculptor wrote: The laws of nature are codes written by humans, they have no volition, they are not any kind of mother, nor do they compel. They are just descriptions of and reductions of reality.

Nature as it is, simply acts to necessity. It is absurd to call that compulsion or to give it human characteristics. You seem to be living in a child's world of animism, to formulate such a question. I'd suggest you read some Spinoza, but I think you would simply miss the point. His "god" is necessity. "God" has no desire, need, volition, it is more like the structure of reality.


I'm sorry, but: HUH?!!

Physics, chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology, etc. etc. etc., are just codes written by us?

Or, if not that, we've been here before when you noted that nature doesn't compel us. It just is what it is. Only we have no idea going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself if there is a teleological component to nature. Something along the lines of, say, the No God Buddhist religion. Or the many pantheist narratives.

We just don't know. Well, not counting the many metaphysical objectivists we've encountered here at ILP over the years.

Again, are you one of them?

And if you just shrug and say nature "is what it is" what does that tell us about the human condition given that it is clearly a part of nature.


Please explain to us how I have managed to not make a point of two above. After which I will try to explain why I am convinced that I reduced you [and obsrvr524] down to avoiding responding to them.


You attempt a couple of strawman, but say basically fuck all for yourself.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:18 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:okay, take PHT to the abortion clinic and explain to us one more time how you would describe it to those protesting that abortion as immoral.

As always - diversion to a different topic for a different thread in order to play your game by your rules - and insult anyone who won't go along with your nonsense rules -
    iambiguous contenes with - X
    iambiguous contends with - Y
    iambiguous contends with - Z
    iambiguous contends - and contends - and contends

We just don't want to play that way - try growing up and using adult rules - you might like it.


Oh look I'm not the only one who thinks "iambiguous" is deliberately ambiguous. I wonder why s/he chose the name ambigious.
Iambigous likes to harp on and attack others positions; like to rewrite what they say; likes to misquote and misdirect, but has abolutely NOTHING to say where him/herself
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:20 pm

You were trying to make a point to me? :-?

Oh - nevermind - I misread. :oops:
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2924
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:33 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:okay, take PHT to the abortion clinic and explain to us one more time how you would describe it to those protesting that abortion as immoral.

As always - diversion to a different topic for a different thread in order to play your game by your rules - and insult anyone who won't go along with your nonsense rules -
    iambiguous contenes with - X
    iambiguous contends with - Y
    iambiguous contends with - Z
    iambiguous contends - and contends - and contends


On the contrary, the topic of this thread revolves precisely around our own understanding of determinism. And as I understand it "here and now" any attempt on your part to explain PHT to the protesters outside the abortion clinic is inherently/necessarily embedded in the only possible reality. Would Saint agree or not?

On the other hand, given my current understanding of free will, any argument presented to the protesters relating to conflicting moral and political prejudices, is rooted existentially in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Which you never address either because nature has never unfolded such that you would address them or you are free to address them but have no adequate rebuttals. So you steer clear of all arguments that are not intellectual contraptions by and large. Just as Saint did.

obsrvr524 wrote: We just don't want to play that way - try growing up and using adult rules - you might like it.


Again, given Saint's understanding of determinism, do you not want to play that way because nature has not unfolded so as to compel you to play that way? And am I free to opt to grow up and play by adult rules -- even like it -- or am I opting only for what I could only opt for given Saint's understanding of the laws of matter?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:38 pm

Sculptor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Sculptor wrote:
Yes I shall continue until you try to make a point.
I am not holding my breath.


What recourse do I have here [in the real deal free world] but to come back to this:

Sculptor wrote: I can be full of shit or not full of shit. I might be full of shit today, or full of shit tomorrow. Whether I can help it to be or not to be full of shit may or not be my choice but which ever it is; it is determined that way.
As Schoppenhauer used to say:
I can do as I will, but I cannot will as I will.


Yeah, that's my point to peacegirl in regard to greater satisfaction. You can feel satisfaction...but you could never have not felt satisfied given determinism as I construe it.


Sculptor wrote: Sadly no one really knows if, or how, exactly, you are construing anything.
I do not think you, yourself really know.


Note to nature:

Straighten him out here.

Besides, "sadly", "happily", it's all as one to the laws of nature. Right? Or are you just one more run of the mill compatibilist?

You can feel satisfied after aborting your fetus but you could never have not felt satisfied doing it. You can feel satisfied if a woman and her doctor go to prison for killing an unborn baby but you never have not felt satisfied.


Sculptor wrote: Is this word salad?


Okay, given your own understanding of determinism how is this word salad not relevant to the abortion wars?

Sculptor wrote: I never mentioned satisfaction. Why are you bring this into the discussion, if not to avoid facing the issue?


Well, the issue for me is in noting the satisfaction that you seem to accrue in configuring into just another one of my Stooges here... in a world that I have to acknowledge, given my own frame of mind "here and now", was never not going to be other than as it must be.

Some satisfaction. Reminds me somewhat of the Twilight Zone episode "A Nice Place to Visit". Rocky the crook is shot by the cops and he ends up in a place where he is always satisfied. Everything he does -- gambling, shooting pool, making it with the ladies -- finds him a winner. He thinks he's died and gone to Heaven. Until it begins to dawn on his that his satisfaction is all rigged. He can never not win. And, for him, that's Hell.


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to nature:

uh?!!!

It's like, hypothetically, you're watching a film unfold that you've seen many times. You're telling someone who has no idea what a movie is, what the characters will say and do. Here the screenwriter and the director become analogous to nature. Only given my own understanding of determinism the screenwriter and the director themselves are no less "characters" in the production that is nature itself unfolding only as it must, as it will.


uh


Wow, just like me, nature repeats itself!!!

It's one thing to tell someone they are full of shit in regard to determinism when there is in fact a way to know definitively whether human beings have free will. And that you grasp this because you are better able to think through -- of your own volition -- all of the intertwined variables in order to arrive at the most rational answer. This as opposed to nature wholly determining what you think that you have thought through yourself such that bullshit itself becomes just another inherent component of the only possible reality.


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to others:

So, given the real deal free will world, does "uh" cut it for you given the points I raised? Or, instead, have I managed to reduce yet another one here down to this "uh" mentality.

Sculptor wrote: Anti-abortionist are trying to deny those that wish to abort their free will. There is nothing more to be said here. They are both determined to have their say, of necessity. So-called prolifers are against liberty of the woman's right to chose.
What is it you do not understand here?


What I don't understand is how we can finally pin down once and for all if either side here was ever actually able to think, feel, say or do anything at all other than as the laws of nature command them. Given Saints, obsrvr524 and/or your own understanding of determinism. Because, given my own wild ass guess "here and now", nope, it is as though one of you confronted both sides spitting on each other in a dream: the brain fully on automatic pilot.

Only now awake. How is it not -- re nature -- on automatic pilot then?

Sculptor wrote: "Free will" to the ability to follow your determined will, regardless of the will of others. That is ordinary compulsion that I mention above.
This is a compatibilist position which is a subset or clarification of determinism.


Great, another hopelessly obtuse intellectual contraption. Again, how is this applicable to the abortion wars?

Also, to your "greater satisfaction", you posted it. Given your own understanding of determinism was there ever the possibility that you could have opted not to post it? Can you freely rethink it all through again and then come back here tomorrow and change your mind?

And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that.

But, again, only given my own wild ass guess here.


Sculptor wrote: Why are you beating around the bush?
What is your position here? Or are you just content to dance?


More to the point, was I ever able to have done otherwise given your own understanding of determinism?

Sculptor wrote: This waltz is the most absurd of your moves.: "And how can the laws of nature themselves not be the mother of all compulsions? Nothing and no one is external to that. "


Right, like that is not the conclusion any number of determinists come to.

Sculptor wrote: The laws of nature are codes written by humans, they have no volition, they are not any kind of mother, nor do they compel. They are just descriptions of and reductions of reality.

Nature as it is, simply acts to necessity. It is absurd to call that compulsion or to give it human characteristics. You seem to be living in a child's world of animism, to formulate such a question. I'd suggest you read some Spinoza, but I think you would simply miss the point. His "god" is necessity. "God" has no desire, need, volition, it is more like the structure of reality.


I'm sorry, but: HUH?!!

Physics, chemistry, biology, geology, meteorology, etc. etc. etc., are just codes written by us?

Or, if not that, we've been here before when you noted that nature doesn't compel us. It just is what it is. Only we have no idea going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself if there is a teleological component to nature. Something along the lines of, say, the No God Buddhist religion. Or the many pantheist narratives.

We just don't know. Well, not counting the many metaphysical objectivists we've encountered here at ILP over the years.

Again, are you one of them?

And if you just shrug and say nature "is what it is" what does that tell us about the human condition given that it is clearly a part of nature.


Please explain to us how I have managed to not make a point of two above. After which I will try to explain why I am convinced that I reduced you [and obsrvr524] down to avoiding responding to them.


You attempt a couple of strawman, but say basically fuck all for yourself.


Really, thank your lucky stars that nature has reduced you down to puerile retorts like this. Otherwise, in the real deal free will world, your embarrassment might be, well, all but unbearable.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:57 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Determinism doesn't propose that there is nothing you can do about things.


That's how it looks to me -- that he [iambiguous] thinks that determinism implies that we can do nothing about the future (fatalism.)
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:04 pm

phyllo wrote:
Imagine John is in court on trial for raping Jane. His defense: "if I don't have free will then I either rape or I don't rape her. If I have free will then I either rape or I don't rape her."

Are you telling me that if science and philosophy could in fact finally come to the definitive conclusion regarding whether we do or do not have free will, it's all the same to Jane?
This is the thing ... I'm not talking about rape or not rape. And I'm not saying that rape is the same as not rape.

I'm talking about free-will and determinism.

The end result is that Jane got raped whether John has free-will or if he doesn't have free-will.


Again, from my frame of mind, in a world where free will is an option, John may or may not rape Jane. Depending on, among other things, if a discussion he has with another about it results in his changing his mind. He was freely intending to rape Jane but Joe talks him out of it. Or something happens to him -- a new experience -- that prompts him to change his mind.

We can talk about free will/determinism in intellectual contraptions or we can bring our conclusions down out of the clouds and intertwine them in actual sets of circumstancers.

phyllo wrote: The factors that made John do it are there in both cases.


As though in a free will world there aren't factors that might stop him from doing it.

phyllo wrote: And if he did rape her, he has to be rehabilitated/jailed in both cases in order to keep other people safe and to discourage other rapists.


As though in a wholly determined universe all of this would not unfold in the only possible reality.

And the ability a free will John would have is the capacity to opt not to rape Jane.


phyllo wrote: What is this capacity and how does John use it?

Doesn't he have the same sexual, aggressive, domineering drives as 'determined' John?

Why don't those drives make him rape her?


We all come into the world with those drives. But we all don't rape. And that is either because nature compels some to rape and not others, or because the lives that we live in ever evolving historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts, given free will, allow for any number variable permutations allowing for any number of possible options.

phyllo wrote: Doesn't he rape her because of specific reasons in both the free-will and determined cases?


Reasons predicated entirely on the laws of matter in the only possible reality or reasons derived from a mind that for reasons we still do not fully understand allow for minds to be changed given any number of existential factors in any number of possible combinations.

phyllo wrote: And what particular reason would make him opt not to rape her if he has free-will? No reason?


I gave you reasons.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Sat Jun 12, 2021 12:41 am

Again, from my frame of mind, in a world where free will is an option, John may or may not rape Jane. Depending on, among other things, if a discussion he has with another about it results in his changing his mind. He was freely intending to rape Jane but Joe talks him out of it. Or something happens to him -- a new experience -- that prompts him to change his mind.
Yeah, that's exactly what happens in a 'determined' world.
We all come into the world with those drives. But we all don't rape. And that is either because nature compels some to rape and not others, or because the lives that we live in ever evolving historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts, given free will, allow for any number variable permutations allowing for any number of possible options.
Yeah, that's exactly what happens in a 'determined' world.
Reasons predicated entirely on the laws of matter in the only possible reality or reasons derived from a mind that for reasons we still do not fully understand allow for minds to be changed given any number of existential factors in any number of possible combinations.
Yeah, that's exactly what happens in a 'determined' world.

You're showing the similarities.

So where are the differences?
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12403
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:41 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Determinism doesn't propose that there is nothing you can do about things.


That's how it looks to me -- that he [iambiguous] thinks that determinism implies that we can do nothing about the future (fatalism.)


Okay, then explain exactly how the human brain composed of matter that evolved over billions of years from the Big Bang, acquired the capacity to shape and to control the chemical and neurological interactions intertwined in the mind in order to do what [seemingly] no other matter has ever done: to think freely of it's own volition in order to opt for one set of behaviors rather than another.

Note your own assessment of how these interactions in our dreams -- the brain creating a reality on automatic pilot -- reconfigures into a wide awake brain shaping the destiny of "I" in a way other than as the sleeping brain does.

And I'm always the very first one to note that my own wild ass guess here is just that. After all, how could it not be given the gap discussed above.

No, it is those like Saint and obsrvr524 who seemed/seem to argue that things like RM/OA and all the other alphabet soup assessments -- "PHT" and "MIJOT" and "CRH" -- are so on the money that it allows obsrvr524 to mock those who refuse to share his own non fatalistic assumptions about, among other things, Trump and the Commies.

What the hell kind of determinism is that?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41679
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users