Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:19 pm

Sculptor wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Sculptor wrote:Antinomy?

There is no antinomy between the will and determinism. The only thing that throws a spanner in the works in the word "FREE".
But you have to ask what is the word free doing in the phrase "free will", free of what? free from what? free by what measure? Free how?

When you answer those questions you realise how fake absolute freedom is. And when you arrive at the other end you are the inevitable compatibilist - a species of a determinist.


Again, it’s back to definition. Free will is the ability to choose otherwise, but that’s impossible. You can define free will as anything you want to make it appear compatible, but it’s only because of a semantic sleight of hand.


I think the meaning of free, is clear enough. What is important is what can it mean in the context of the will.
What motivates the will? What informs the will? Can you command your will? How? Is Schoppenhaur correct that the buck stops at the will?


The meaning of free is not clear from what you posted. The term “free will” in the context of the free will/determinism discussion has a very specific meaning. You don’t get to bring a meaning of “free” that isn’t even related. It’s incoherent.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:02 pm

peacegirl wrote:
The meaning of free is not clear from what you posted. The term “free will” in the context of the free will/determinism discussion has a very specific meaning. You don’t get to bring a meaning of “free” that isn’t even related. It’s incoherent.


What do YOU think "free" means?
And have you actually and properly been reading my posts?

Maybe you could be coherent by telling us what is the " very specific meaning. " in the context of the free will determinism argument, before we go on.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:23 pm

Sculptor wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
The meaning of free is not clear from what you posted. The term “free will” in the context of the free will/determinism discussion has a very specific meaning. You don’t get to bring a meaning of “free” that isn’t even related. It’s incoherent.


What do YOU think "free" means?
And have you actually and properly been reading my posts?

Maybe you could be coherent by telling us what is the " very specific meaning. " in the context of the free will determinism argument, before we go on.


I’m going to define free for everyone on these boards.

Free: being able to do whatever you want when you want without consequence (including the consequence to others)

By that definition, none of us are free (yet).
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11708
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:37 pm

Nobody is saying that you can do anything that you want. Obviously the present situation places limits on what you can do - physical and mental limits.

Even the free will advocates don't believe that you can will yourself to fly to Mars or to suddenly speak Swahili without first learning how to speak Swahili.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Apr 08, 2021 7:43 pm

Sculptor wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
The meaning of free is not clear from what you posted. The term “free will” in the context of the free will/determinism discussion has a very specific meaning. You don’t get to bring a meaning of “free” that isn’t even related. It’s incoherent.


What do YOU think "free" means?
And have you actually and properly been reading my posts?

Maybe you could be coherent by telling us what is the " very specific meaning. " in the context of the free will determinism argument, before we go on.


I am being very coherent. Free will, as the opposite of determinism, means that you could have chosen otherwise given your set of circumstances. Determinism, as the opposite of free will, means that you could NOT have chosen otherwise given your set of circumstances. They are polar opposites. You can't have both because of the law of contradiction. If you could not choose otherwise, could you choose otherwise? Before you make a choice you have options but that doesn't help "free will" since you cannot choose what gives you less satisfaction. Therefore FREE will is an illusion.

CHAPTER ONE:

We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.” So without any further ado, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of self-determination
regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do. These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception. Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice, consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc.; what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good. In this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed. But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:05 pm

phyllo wrote:Nobody is saying that you can do anything that you want. Obviously the present situation places limits on what you can do - physical and mental limits.

Even the free will advocates don't believe that you can will yourself to fly to Mars or to suddenly speak Swahili without first learning how to speak Swahili.


Obviously the present situation places limits on what we can and cannot do --- physical and mental limits --- but within those limits we don't have a free choice.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:27 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sculptor wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
The meaning of free is not clear from what you posted. The term “free will” in the context of the free will/determinism discussion has a very specific meaning. You don’t get to bring a meaning of “free” that isn’t even related. It’s incoherent.


What do YOU think "free" means?
And have you actually and properly been reading my posts?

Maybe you could be coherent by telling us what is the " very specific meaning. " in the context of the free will determinism argument, before we go on.


I am being very coherent. Free will, as the opposite of determinism, means that you could have chosen otherwise given your set of circumstances. Determinism, as the opposite of free will, means that you could NOT have chosen otherwise given your set of circumstances. They are polar opposites. You can't have both because of the law of contradiction. If you could not choose otherwise, could you choose otherwise? Before you make a choice you have options but that doesn't help "free will" since you cannot choose what gives you less satisfaction. Therefore FREE will is an illusion.


Which is basiically what I have already said.
I just do not think you are bright enough to waste my time on with this discussion.
Bye.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:30 pm

peacegirl wrote:
phyllo wrote:Nobody is saying that you can do anything that you want. Obviously the present situation places limits on what you can do - physical and mental limits.

Even the free will advocates don't believe that you can will yourself to fly to Mars or to suddenly speak Swahili without first learning how to speak Swahili.


Obviously the present situation places limits on what we can and cannot do --- physical and mental limits --- but within those limits we don't have a free choice.
I don't know what you think is different between someone acting with free will and someone acting without free will.

A free-will guy is driving on the highway. He's depressed because his girlfriend is cheating on him. He decides to end it all by driving off the road and hitting a tree.

He is making a decision based on his situation. If he's not depressed then he doesn't drive off the road.

How is a non-free-will guy thinking or acting differently from the free-will guy?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:30 am

peacegirl wrote:
Sculptor wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
The meaning of free is not clear from what you posted. The term “free will” in the context of the free will/determinism discussion has a very specific meaning. You don’t get to bring a meaning of “free” that isn’t even related. It’s incoherent.


What do YOU think "free" means?
And have you actually and properly been reading my posts?

Maybe you could be coherent by telling us what is the " very specific meaning. " in the context of the free will determinism argument, before we go on.


I am being very coherent. Free will, as the opposite of determinism, means that you could have chosen otherwise given your set of circumstances. Determinism, as the opposite of free will, means that you could NOT have chosen otherwise given your set of circumstances. They are polar opposites. You can't have both because of the law of contradiction. If you could not choose otherwise, could you choose otherwise? Before you make a choice you have options but that doesn't help "free will" since you cannot choose what gives you less satisfaction. Therefore FREE will is an illusion.


Sculptor: Which is basiically what I have already said.
I just do not think you are bright enough to waste my time on with this discussion.
Bye.

Peacegirl: Why the put down Sculptor? Show me you said the same thing and I’ll give you credit for that. It’s really your loss if you are so sensitive that you can’t handle a tiny disagreement and I am sorry for that! :sad:
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:20 am

phyllo wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
phyllo wrote:Nobody is saying that you can do anything that you want. Obviously the present situation places limits on what you can do - physical and mental limits.

Even the free will advocates don't believe that you can will yourself to fly to Mars or to suddenly speak Swahili without first learning how to speak Swahili.


Obviously the present situation places limits on what we can and cannot do --- physical and mental limits --- but within those limits we don't have a free choice.
I don't know what you think is different between someone acting with free will and someone acting without free will.

A free-will guy is driving on the highway. He's depressed because his girlfriend is cheating on him. He decides to end it all by driving off the road and hitting a tree.

He is making a decision based on his situation. If he's not depressed then he doesn't drive off the road.

How is a non-free-will guy thinking or acting differently from the free-will guy?


The conditions that led the free will guy off the road will not be causative factors in the new world. It’s not a free will guy versus a no free will guy that is the key here. The key (no free will) unlocks the door of his discovery. Just the knowledge we have no free will is only part of the solution.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:32 am

Completely different because the causes that led the free will guy off the road will not be factors.
What? The causes are exactly the same.
It’s not a free will guy versus a no free will guy that is the key here.
You're right ... it's not one guy versus another guy.

It's an example to make people think about what is taking place for two people who are on polar opposites of free-will and non-free-will.
The key (no free will) unlocks the door of his discovery. Just the knowledge we have no free will is only part of the solution.
Well, then there is the chestnut that if we don't have free-will then we don't have the free-ability to unlock the door and free-go thru it to a solution. It's something out of our control. We're stuck wherever the laws of nature put us.

That's the stuff that Biggus keeps hammering on with you.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:45 am

phyllo wrote:
Completely different because the causes that led the free will guy off the road will not be factors.
What? The causes are exactly the same.
It’s not a free will guy versus a no free will guy that is the key here.
You're right ... it's not one guy versus another guy.

It's an example to make people think about what is taking place for two people who are on polar opposites of free-will and non-free-will.

Peacegirl: It’s the application of no blame that differentiates the two. How can the causes be the same when the no free will guy would have a completely different experience? Again, the difference between the two is the environment causing one to ride off the road out of desperation where the other doesn’t because his girlfriend didn’t hurt him.
The key (no free will) unlocks the door of his discovery. Just the knowledge we have no free will is only part of the solution.
Well, then there is the chestnut that if we don't have free-will then we don't have the free-ability to unlock the door and free-go thru it to a solution. It's something out of our control. We're stuck wherever the laws of nature put us.

That's the stuff that Biggus keeps hammering on with you.


Having no free will doesn’t mean we don’t have the ability to think and find solutions. We’ve been finding solutions since we walked the planet. I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that we’re stuck without free will unless you are defining determinism as something that restricts us from doing what we desire. Nature gives us the drive to search out answers but none of this requires free will.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:18 am

Have you ever thought about what free-will would look like?

It would be responsive to the situation. It would look exactly like non-free-will.

It wouldn't be random will... Half the time you go out on a balcony, you jump off and the other half you go back in. That wouldn't make any sense.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:13 pm

phyllo wrote:Have you ever thought about what free-will would look like?

It would be responsive to the situation. It would look exactly like non-free-will.

It wouldn't be random will... Half the time you go out on a balcony, you jump off and the other half you go back in. That wouldn't make any sense.


Phyllo, I dont understand what you’re getting at. We live in a world based on the belief in free will; that somehow this person could choose not to ride off the road in the same scenario because he had a free choice? Is that what you’re thinking?
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:28 pm

Phyllo, I dont understand what you’re getting at.
What I'm getting at is that the mechanics of decisions are the same for free-will and non-free-will.

Then the issues of blame and responsibility are separate from the decisions.

You can have free-will and also have reduced responsibility and blame.

For example, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, "love the sinner, hate the sin" ... in Christianity.

Compassion and detachment ... in Buddhism.

Wrong decisions and actions attributed to ignorance about what is "the good" and where your true interests are ... in ancient Greek philosophy.

In all those cases, you still ended up teaching "correct" behavior and enforcing it with punishments. There did not and does not appear to be any way around it.
We live in a world based on the belief in free will; that somehow this person could choose not to ride off the road in the same scenario because he had a free choice?
He's going to choose whatever he is going to choose. The reasons are not visible to outsiders except in the broadest terms.

If you look at suicide, you see a lot of well-off people killing themselves. Obviously economic security was not the factor that made them do it.

Sure, you take actions to improve people's lives but it's pretty arrogant to think that you can control the environment so perfectly that everyone will act in an ideal manner.

That's something I find very unrealistic about the book.

It's the idea that when there is no free-will, we have a complete understanding and control of human behavior.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:06 pm

phyllo wrote:
Phyllo, I dont understand what you’re getting at.
What I'm getting at is that the mechanics of decisions are the same for free-will and non-free-will.

Then the issues of blame and responsibility are separate from the decisions.

You can have free-will and also have reduced responsibility and blame.

For example, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, "love the sinner, hate the sin" ... in Christianity.

Compassion and detachment ... in Buddhism.

Wrong decisions and actions attributed to ignorance about what is "the good" and where your true interests are ... in ancient Greek philosophy.

In all those cases, you still ended up teaching "correct" behavior and enforcing it with punishments. There did not and does not appear to be any way around it.


All of these spiritual paths have the elements of forgiveness, love, turning the other cheek, compassion, etc. which have helped many cope with a hostile world, but none of these religions or spiritual paths have been able to prevent murder, crime, and war on a large scale, nor has any political regime. Obviously, there does not appear to be a way around it because law enforcement and punishment have been used for centuries and are known to be a deterrent, but all the punishment in the world has not stopped killers from killing, rapists from raping, cheaters from cheating, thieves from stealing, abusers from abusing, bombs from bombing, people from starving, and hatred destroying our humanity because of the idea of us versus them.

We live in a world based on the belief in free will; that somehow this person could choose not to ride off the road in the same scenario because he had a free choice?


phyllo wrote:He's going to choose whatever he is going to choose. The reasons are not visible to outsiders except in the broadest terms. If you look at suicide, you see a lot of well-off people killing themselves. Obviously economic security was not the factor that made them do it.


There are probably numerous reasons why a person chooses to commit suicide. Economic desperation is often one factor, it's not the only reason. Each case of suicide seems to stem from a feeling hopelessness for one's situation or even for the world. It drives people to do the unthinkable because living is just too hard and they don't feel there's a way out. So they choose this as their way of finding peace. It still is an effort to get away from a life not worth living (or dissatisfaction) to greater satisfaction, even though it's their last breath.

phyllo wrote:Sure, you take actions to improve people's lives but it's pretty arrogant to think that you can control the environment so perfectly that everyone will act in an ideal manner.

That's something I find very unrealistic about the book.

It's the idea that when there is no free-will, we have a complete understanding and control of human behavior.


Phyllo, it does sound impossible and I understand that. That's why you have to contain your skepticism all the more, otherwise you'll never see how this can be accomplished. It's not "no free will" that will cause this great change. It's the corollary of "no blame" that veers us in a completely different direction. The reason for this, as I explained, is the fact that when we are given total freedom and we remove all the hurt done to us (and there are too many to list here), we cannot find justification in striking a first blow, or taking advantage at anyone's expense. But in order for this to actually get off the ground a lot of changes have to occur such as the removal of anything that is suggestive of blame.

Chapter Two: As we follow the corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, which
will act as an infallible slide rule and standard as to what is right and
wrong while solving the many problems that lie ahead, we will be
obeying the mathematical wisdom of this universe which gives us no
choice when we see what is truly better for ourselves. By removing all
forms of blame which include this judging in advance of what is right
and wrong for others, we actually prevent the first blow of injustice
from being struck. This corollary is not only effective by your
realization that we (all mankind) will never blame you for any hurt
done to us, but also by our realization that any advance blame, this
judging of what is right for someone else strikes the first blow since it
is impossible to prevent your desire to hurt us by telling you we will
never blame this hurt when we blame the possibility by telling you in
advance that it is wrong. In other words, by judging that it is wrong
to do something, whatever it may be, we are blaming the possibility of
it being done which only incites a desire to challenge the authority of
this advance accusation that has already given justification.
Therefore, in order to prevent the very things we do not want which
hurt us, it is absolutely imperative that we never judge what is right
for someone else.
Last edited by peacegirl on Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:10 pm, edited 3 times in total.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Fri Apr 09, 2021 7:41 pm

Quoting the book doesn't strengthen your case. You need to find some other sources which confirm and support what the book says.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:13 pm

phyllo wrote:Quoting the book doesn't strengthen your case. You need to find some other sources which confirm and support what the book says.


I would like to do that. There are plenty of philosophers who would immediately confirm the two principles leading to his discovery are correct, but this is an original so finding sources are hard to come by. That’s why this knowledge needs exposure so it can be thoroughly investigated. Even is a person isn’t sure, it’s well worth seeing how much better the world could be if he’s right! :smile:
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:22 pm

peacegirl wrote: Even if you don't grasp it, you don't need to. Not everyone grasps how a light bulb works, but they get the benefits.


iambiguous wrote:Oh, so now the author's understanding of free will and evil is the equivalent of those who grasp how a light bulb works and those that don't?


peacegirl wrote: It's an analogy. It is not imperative that people understand why man's will is not free (although it's not that difficult) to benefit from this new way of life, once they become citizens.


Forget analogies. Note specifically how the author demonstrates why his understanding and conclusions about free will and evil are on par with those who are able to grasp and demonstrate how a light bulb works.

iambiguous wrote:Back again to the gap between those who are able to explain how a light bulb works and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to explain why it is able to work at all?


peacegirl wrote: They are two different questions: one is HOW something works and the other is WHY.


No, what you do [compelled or not] is to act as though HOW here and now and WHY ontologically something [or anything at all] is what it is -- here in regard to either light bulbs or free will/evil -- is of no importance at all to the conclusions the author arrives at.

That is simply ludicrous. Again, from my frame of mind, it speaks volumes regarding the extent to which the author's conclusions reflect your own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism" above.

But even here that is entirely moot in a wholly determined universe as I understand it.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:But, okay, where is the equivalent in the book of the author demonstrating how free will and evil work on par with someone able to demonstrate how a light bulb works.


...we are left only with [once again] you completely dodging this:

peacegirl wrote: I already answered you. His claims came from careful observations regarding human behavior. He understood how conscience works and how it can be raised to a level that will have a greater control over our actions. Conscience is God given ... however you think of God. It is not something we can lose although conscience can allow behaviors that humans deem "morally wrong" because they hurt people. The only way conscience allows these behaviors is because they can be justified. In the new world we are removing these justifications thereby preventing conscience from permitting anything close to striking a FIRST blow to another. It would be the worst possible choice given the option not to hurt anyone. We can only move in the direction of greater preference, remember?


Note to others:

You tell me: does this latest "general descripotion intellectual contraption" from her constitute anything like a demonstration from those able to explain how a light bulb works.

Where, in regard to free will and evil, is the author's equvialent of this: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2013 ... tbulb-work

iambiguous wrote:Or, when nature compelled him to stumble upon it, nature's laws then compelled him to move in the only possible direction such that he was never able to feel a greater satisfaction other than that which nature had embedded chemically and neurologically in his brain.


peacegirl wrote: I can accept that.


iambiguous wrote:Yes, you can accept many things that I post. Only you can't seem to accept that I can only be wrong about my reaction to the author because I was never able to not be wrong. And if I am never able to not be wrong then right and wrong reactions themselves are necessarily interchangeable in the only possible reality.


peacegirl wrote: I didn't say your reaction was wrong in the sense that you could have acted otherwise. That does not make you right when you accuse the author of intellectual dishonesty. These accusations by you are getting out of hand.


Note to nature:

Explain to peacegirl how any accusations made by any of us can never be out of hand if they can only ever be the accusations that, given the laws of matter, we are, in the only possible reality, ever able to make.

Also, when she accuses me of not reading her posts carefully, explain to her that I am entirely compelled to read them only as my brain, enitrely in sync with your laws of matter, has fated and destined me to read them.

Well, unless, of course, our brains have in fact acquired the capacity to opt to read posts here given the real deal free will. And, if that were the case, how as philosophers would we go about pinning down beyond all doubt that which constitutes the most careful reading of all.

iambiguous wrote:For me, though, I am interested in exploring the difference "for all practical purpose".

Consider:

Mary is said to have the free will to choose an abortion. Now, if someone argues that, no, she does not have free will but only the power to choose, how is that power not entangled in this:

"Mary can do what she wills but she cannot will what she wills.
Or: "Mary can do what she wants, but not want what she wants."


peacegirl wrote: What she does with what she wills is the focus of this discovery. Based on her life experiences, Mary will do what she believes is best for herself, IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. There will be no more telling people what to do since no one is in another's shoes, though abortion will decline as unwanted pregnancies decline.


As per usual, we are in two different discussions here based on two very different sets of assumptions regarding what "for all practical purposes" constitutes a determined universe given human interactions.

We are all in the same shoes in that we are all compelled to think, feel, say and do what we "choose" wholly in sync with the laws of matter. And that includes the way you are compelled to reconfigure it into a "choice".

Only I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate myself that this is the case. Compelled or not.

What the author concludes about all of this is, given my own assumptions, no less an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality.

peacegirl wrote:Regardless of whether she can't will what she wants, she still is under a compulsion to act on what she wants.


iambiguous wrote:Back again to how you configure Mary "wanting" as embedded in the psychological illusion of free will and her wanting given free will as the real deal into her "wanting"...the free will/no free will Mary. The part that, compelled or not, ever and always escapes me.


peacegirl wrote: I can't help you here because you are still creating a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. There's no such thing as the free will Mary, therefore her wanting to either have an abortion or not comes from antecedent factors that are leading her to choose to do what is best for her, as I already mentioned.


Or...

Up to now, given the laws of matter, you are not able to help me because I am not able to not create a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. And how we understand, "Mary can do what she wills about aborting her fetus but she cannot will what she wills about it" is [compelled or not] just...different.

peacegirl wrote: We are not dominoes in the human brain.


iambigous wrote:This can only be confirmed when science is able to fully explain how and why the matter in the human brain is different from the matter in the dominoes that we play games with. Either through God or through a definitive understanding of existence itself.


peacegirl wrote: This author proved that the human brain is different from the dominoes. We have a say in what we choose. We are not puppets on a string. I think Sam Harris uses that analogy. We are controlled by laws that compel us to move toward greater satisfaction and we also have the power to say no to something we don't want to do. No puppet can do that.


Back again to "we have a say in what we choose but not a say in what we say". The part that your intellectual contraption "free will/no free will" human brain is compelled or not compelled by the laws of matter to sweep under the good/evil rug.

peacegirl wrote: Everything that happens to Mary could never have not happened, but you are disregarding the fact that nothing forced her against her will. Why do you never address this, which is a big part of the problem with the definition that you can't seem to give up, even temporarily.


iambiguous wrote:How then does anything that happens to Mary not include the fact that everything that happens to her can only reflect compulsions embedded in the laws of matter. If it is a fact. I think that it is here and now but I have no way in which to demonstrate that it is. And much of what you and the author provide in the way of "evidence" and "proof" is a "world of words" reality that, in my view, is more a relflection of the "psychology of objectivism" as noted by me above.


peacegirl wrote: I have no idea why you keep bringing up objectivism.


That's because your idea of a no free will world is different from mine. And that's because, given my idea of it, I am never able to not keep bringing it up. At least up until now. On the other hand, the laws of nature once compelled me to embrace my own free will as anything but a psychological illusion.

Note to nature:

What's up with that?

Then up you go, back into your intellectual contraption free will/no free will assessment:

peacegirl wrote: I never said that everything that happens to her does not reflect compulsions embedded in her psyche. She is compelled to do whatever she does based on what she believes is the best choice given that most of our knowledge regarding a choice is limited in scope.


Note to nature:

What gives with that?

iambiguous wrote:Thus Gandhi "can do what he wants, but still not want what he wants".

At least given my own assumptions about a wholly determined universe.

But when I ask this of you...

Again, take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

...all I get back [as per usual] is yet another general description intellectual contraption:


peacegirl wrote: I don't know what you want. Free will and volition in the context here are synonymous. They are terms that describe one's ability to choose. But that doesn't mean will is actually free, as you know.

Definition of volition
1: the power of choosing or determining : WILL
2: an act of making a choice or decision
also : a choice or decision made


Yep: Another intellectual contraption far removed from an attempt on your part to differentiate free will and volition in regard to, say, your posting here.

peacegirl wrote: I can't help you iambiguous. If you think everything he wrote is an intellectual contraption, then this book is obviously not for you!


That, but never quite this:

"Given the laws of matter embedded in the only possible reality, I can't help you. Nature compels me to insist that nature compels you to think what you do about the author and until nature compels otherwise the book is not for you".
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: 40749
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:34 pm

peacegirl wrote: Even if you don't grasp it, you don't need to. Not everyone grasps how a light bulb works, but they get the benefits.


iambiguous wrote:Oh, so now the author's understanding of free will and evil is the equivalent of those who grasp how a light bulb works and those that don't?


peacegirl wrote: It's an analogy. It is not imperative that people understand why man's will is not free (although it's not that difficult) to benefit from this new way of life, once they become citizens.


iambiguous wrote:Forget analogies. Note specifically how the author demonstrates why his understanding and conclusions about free will and evil are on par with those who are able to grasp and demonstrate how a light bulb works.


He explained how these principles work, once they are applied. Why they work --- by filling in the gap of existence itself --- is irrelevant.

iambiguous wrote:Back again to the gap between those who are able to explain how a light bulb works and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to explain why it is able to work at all?


peacegirl wrote: They are two different questions: one is HOW something works and the other is WHY.


iambiguous wrote:No, what you do [compelled or not] is to act as though HOW here and now and WHY ontologically something [or anything at all] is what it is -- here in regard to either light bulbs or free will/evil -- is of no importance at all to the conclusions the author arrives at.


Of course it is important because we can understand how we are able to accomplish something before we understand why it works or why humans have the capacity to make it work. We know how to build bridges and we know it works, but we don't need to have a discussion going back to the meaning of existence. Have you ever heard the saying: Y (why) is a crooked letter? It means it's irrelevant because it cannot easily be answered but doesn't change the benefit of knowing "how" to do something.

Someone wrote this and it's applicable here:

I always found this answer to be an odd response to a simple question. It was most used when the question had very little relevance to the overall situation at hand. When given a response of this type you are being told that the matter you are raising is not worth validation at the present time. Why is the sky blue? There has to be a scientific answer to that question. I am sure it is not because “Y is a crooked letter.”


iambiguous wrote:That is simply ludicrous. Again, from my frame of mind, it speaks volumes regarding the extent to which the author's conclusions reflect your own rendition of the "psychology of objectivism" above.

But even here that is entirely moot in a wholly determined universe as I understand it.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:But, okay, where is the equivalent in the book of the author demonstrating how free will and evil work on par with someone able to demonstrate how a light bulb works.


...we are left only with [once again] you completely dodging this:

peacegirl wrote: I already answered you. His claims came from careful observations regarding human behavior. He understood how conscience works and how it can be raised to a level that will have a greater control over our actions. Conscience is God given ... however you think of God. It is not something we can lose although conscience can allow behaviors that humans deem "morally wrong" because they hurt people. The only way conscience allows these behaviors is because they can be justified. In the new world we are removing these justifications thereby preventing conscience from permitting anything close to striking a FIRST blow to another. It would be the worst possible choice given the option not to hurt anyone. We can only move in the direction of greater preference, remember?


[quote=“iambiguous”]Note to others:

You tell me: does this latest "general description intellectual contraption" from her constitute anything like a demonstration from those able to explain how a light bulb works.

Where, in regard to free will and evil, is the author's equvialent of this: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2013 ... tbulb-work


It isn't the same because one is material and the other is not. This does not in any way negate the soundness of the author's observations which can be empirically proven.

iambiguous wrote:Or, when nature compelled him to stumble upon it, nature's laws then compelled him to move in the only possible direction such that he was never able to feel a greater satisfaction other than that which nature had embedded chemically and neurologically in his brain.


peacegirl wrote: I can accept that.


iambiguous wrote:Yes, you can accept many things that I post. Only you can't seem to accept that I can only be wrong about my reaction to the author because I was never able to not be wrong. And if I am never able to not be wrong then right and wrong reactions themselves are necessarily interchangeable in the only possible reality.


peacegirl wrote: I didn't say your reaction was wrong in the sense that you could have acted otherwise. That does not make you right when you accuse the author of intellectual dishonesty. These accusations by you are getting out of hand.


iambiguous wrote:Note to nature:

Explain to peacegirl how any accusations made by any of us can never be out of hand if they can only ever be the accusations that, given the laws of matter, we are, in the only possible reality, ever able to make.


From my perspective, when I said you are out of hand I meant that your response, although beyond your control after opting to accuse the author, couldn’t be helped nevertheless it is a false accusation. I am entitled to look at the things you opt to say and give you my thoughts, without you or me having any kind of free will. Just because your choices are beyond your control (note to iambiguous: after you've made them not before) does not mean I can't discuss why our interaction is either productive, unfair, or anything in between. #-o

iambiguous wrote:Also, when she accuses me of not reading her posts carefully, explain to her that I am entirely compelled to read them only as my brain, enitrely in sync with your laws of matter, has fated and destined me to read them.

Well, unless, of course, our brains have in fact acquired the capacity to opt to read posts here given the real deal free will. And, if that were the case, how as philosophers would we go about pinning down beyond all doubt that which constitutes the most careful reading of all.


By investigating this author's observations with a fine tooth comb. You seem to view him as someone who thinks he knows but doesn’t. Whatever is compelling you to think this way is your intellectual contraption. , You can opt differently if you want to (based on new information) and still have no free will.

iambiguous wrote:For me, though, I am interested in exploring the difference "for all practical purpose".

Consider:

Mary is said to have the free will to choose an abortion. Now, if someone argues that, no, she does not have free will but only the power to choose, how is that power not entangled in this:

"Mary can do what she wills but she cannot will what she wills.
Or: "Mary can do what she wants, but not want what she wants."


peacegirl wrote: What she does with what she wills is the focus of this discovery. Based on her life experiences, Mary will do what she believes is best for herself, IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. There will be no more telling people what to do since no one is in another's shoes, though abortion will decline as unwanted pregnancies decline.


iambiguous wrote:As per usual, we are in two different discussions here based on two very different sets of assumptions regarding what "for all practical purposes" constitutes a determined universe given human interactions.


Maybe that's the problem. There is no coming together if you think determinism means one thing and I am saying it means another. Definition means everything.

iambiguous wrote:We are all in the same shoes in that we are all compelled to think, feel, say and do what we "choose" wholly in sync with the laws of matter. And that includes the way you are compelled to reconfigure it into a "choice".


I am configuring it into a choice because we have options. We get to contemplate those options, all in sync with the laws of matter because the option we end up choosing could not be otherwise. As I've mentioned before, contemplation is an attribute we all have but it does not mean we have free will. Everything we think and do is biologically and chemically driven by our brains. In reality, because we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction (which is why will is not free), the word choice is somewhat misleading because we don't really have a choice to move against what we prefer. Free will is a psychological illusion because it appears that we can pick this or that freely, but we can't. It just appears that way superficially.

iambiguous wrote:Only I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate myself that this is the case. Compelled or not.

What the author concludes about all of this is, given my own assumptions, no less an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality.


That is true iambiguous, but does that mean that because everything each of us does is a necessary manifestation of the only thing we could ever do, that his proposition must be wrong? No it doesn’t.

peacegirl wrote:Regardless of whether she can't will what she wants, she still is under a compulsion to act on what she wants.


iambiguous wrote:Back again to how you configure Mary "wanting" as embedded in the psychological illusion of free will and her wanting given free will as the real deal into her "wanting"...the free will/no free will Mary. The part that, compelled or not, ever and always escapes me.


peacegirl wrote: I can't help you here because you are still creating a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. There's no such thing as the free will Mary, therefore her wanting to either have an abortion or not comes from antecedent factors that are leading her to choose to do what is best for her, as I already mentioned.


iambiguous wrote:Or...

Up to now, given the laws of matter, you are not able to help me because I am not able to not create a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. And how we understand, "Mary can do what she wills about aborting her fetus but she cannot will what she wills about it" is [compelled or not] just...different.


We all can see that I am not able to help you because you are not able to not create a false dichotomy between the free will and no free will Mary, which makes our communication that much more difficult. We are on a different page.

peacegirl wrote: We are not dominoes in the human brain.


iambigous wrote:This can only be confirmed when science is able to fully explain how and why the matter in the human brain is different from the matter in the dominoes that we play games with. Either through God or through a definitive understanding of existence itself.


peacegirl wrote: This author proved that the human brain is different from dominoes. We have a say in what we choose. We are not puppets on a string. I think Sam Harris uses that analogy. We are controlled by laws that compel us to move toward greater satisfaction and we also have the power to say no to something we don't want to do. No puppet can do that.


iambiguous wrote:Back again to "we have a say in what we choose but not a say in what we say".


Huh?? We have a say in what we choose and what we say. We have to give ourselves permission for us to act on what we are contemplating. We also have the ability to not do or say what we make up our mind not to do or say which means that we cannot use the excuse that we were forced to kill someone without our consent. Puppets just do what the strings make them do. They can't say no because they're puppets being controlled by a puppeteer. You are trying to compare determinism and falling dominoes in the same vein.

iambiguous wrote: The part that your intellectual contraption "free will/no free will" human brain is compelled or not compelled by the laws of matter to sweep under the good/evil rug.


Where is the intellectual contraption and where am I sweeping anything regarding good and evil under the rug? I have been very clear that we are compelled to say and do according to the laws of nature. It appears that your resorting to the laws of matter make everything we discuss meaningless and interchangeable because everything we say and do is is fixed. Once we do and say something, it cannot be altered but we still get to contemplate. Tell me, did you contemplate today? Did you make decisions that involved your analysis and input? Yes, the laws of your nature are pushing you to choose one thing over another due to preference, but it is you that is doing the choosing. The laws of matter are not choosing for you. Here's how you sound, "I'm sorry but I am not interested in this book because the laws of matter aren't allowing me to." No, you are not interested in this book because of your experiences leading you to be extremely dubious that he has anything worth learning about. You are acting on your belief system, all beyond your control. Maybe you will become interested in the future if someone you respect tells you it has value.

peacegirl wrote: Everything that happens to Mary could never have not happened, but you are disregarding the fact that nothing forced her against her will. Why do you never address this, which is a big part of the problem with the definition that you can't seem to give up, even temporarily.


iambiguous wrote:How then does anything that happens to Mary not include the fact that everything that happens to her can only reflect compulsions embedded in the laws of matter. If it is a fact. I think that it is here and now but I have no way in which to demonstrate that it is. And much of what you and the author provide in the way of "evidence" and "proof" is a "world of words" reality that, in my view, is more a relflection of the "psychology of objectivism" as noted by me above.


peacegirl wrote: I have no idea why you keep bringing up objectivism.


iambiguous wrote:That's because your idea of a no free will world is different from mine. And that's because, given my idea of it, I am never able to not keep bringing it up.


Yes you are able to not keep bringing it up, IF YOU WANT TO NOT KEEP BRINGING IT UP, but you want to keep bringing it up as the more satisfying choice.

iambiguous wrote:At least up until now. On the other hand, the laws of nature once compelled me to embrace my own free will as anything but a psychological illusion.


That's what life is about. Changing our ideas when new ideas present themselves that appear more accurate.

iambiguous wrote:Note to nature:

What's up with that?

Then up you go, back into your intellectual contraption free will/no free will assessment:

peacegirl wrote: I never said that everything that happens to her does not reflect compulsions embedded in her psyche. She is compelled to do whatever she does based on what she believes is the best choice given that our choices are often limited in scope.


iambiguous wrote:Note to nature:

What gives with that?


What do you mean "what gives with that? She is a under a compulsion to choose the best possible option given her situation.

iambiguous wrote:Thus Gandhi "can do what he wants, but still not want what he wants".

iambiguous"'At least given my own assumptions about a wholly determined universe.

But when I ask this of you...

Again, take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

...all I get back [as per usual] is yet another general description intellectual contraption:


[quote="peacegirl wrote: I don't know what you want. Free will and volition in the context here are synonymous. They are terms that describe one's ability to choose. But that doesn't mean will is actually free, as you know.

Definition of volition
1: the power of choosing or determining : WILL
2: an act of making a choice or decision
also : a choice or decision made


iambiguous wrote:Yep: Another intellectual contraption far removed from an attempt on your part to differentiate free will and volition in regard to, say, your posting here.

peacegirl wrote: I can't help you iambiguous. If you think everything he wrote is an intellectual contraption, then this book is obviously not for you!


That, but never quite this:

"Given the laws of matter embedded in the only possible reality, I can't help you. Nature compels me to insist that nature compels you to think what you do about the author and until nature compels otherwise the book is not for you".


That's fine too, just a little wordy but it means the same thing. And, yes, if you don't desire (which you have no control over; you do or you don't) to learn more because you can't will what you will, then the laws of matter will compel you to find a more satisfying thread [in the direction of greater satisfaction]. :-?
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:38 am

iambiguous wrote:Forget analogies. Note specifically how the author demonstrates why his understanding and conclusions about free will and evil are on par with those who are able to grasp and demonstrate how a light bulb works.


peacegirl wrote:He explained how these principles work, once they are applied. Why they work --- by filling in the gap of existence itself --- is irrelevant.


Again, clicking over to a real deal free will world, you need to ask yourself why you keep avoiding the distinction between explaining free will and evil "in principle" in a "world of words" and demonstrating them in the manner in which a light bulb can be demonstrated.

Then this part...

iambiguous wrote:Back again to the gap between those who are able to explain how a light bulb works and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to explain why it is able to work at all?


peacegirl wrote: They are two different questions: one is HOW something works and the other is WHY.


iambiguous wrote:No, what you do [compelled or not] is to act as though HOW here and now and WHY ontologically something [or anything at all] is what it is -- here in regard to either light bulbs or free will/evil -- is of no importance at all to the conclusions the author arrives at.


peacegirl wrote:Of course it is important because we can understand how we are able to accomplish something before we understand why it works or why humans have the capacity to make it work. We know how to build bridges and we know it works, but we don't need to have a discussion going back to the meaning of existence. Have you ever heard the saying: Y (why) is a crooked letter? It means it's irrelevant because it cannot easily be answered but doesn't change the benefit of knowing "how" to do something.


Okay, okay. Continue to think yourself into believing that How and Why are related only in the manner in which the author construes them to be. Just tell yourself that, yeah, they must be profoundly intertwined in some manner "back then", but not enough to matter in regard to human interactions "right now".

From my frame of mind, compelled or not, you avoid this because you avoid any and all criticism of the author because you have anchored your own rendition of a "comforting and consoling" sense of reality to his own objectivist TOE.

Note to nature:

Why is "Y" crooked?

peacegirl wrote: I didn't say your reaction was wrong in the sense that you could have acted otherwise. That does not make you right when you accuse the author of intellectual dishonesty. These accusations by you are getting out of hand.


iambiguous wrote:Note to nature:

Explain to peacegirl how any accusations made by any of us can never be out of hand if they can only ever be the accusations that, given the laws of matter, we are, in the only possible reality, ever able to make.


peacegirl wrote: From my perspective, when I said you are out of hand I meant that your response, although beyond your control after opting to accuse the author, couldn’t be helped nevertheless it is a false accusation. I am entitled to look at the things you opt to say and give you my thoughts, without you or me having any kind of free will.


Note to others:

Someone please make an attempt to explain to me how this is not complete nonsense. How on earth can an exchange between two people that could never have been other than what it was produce right and wrong, true or false accusations?

At least in the manner in which we think of this in a free will world.

iambiguous wrote:Also, when she accuses me of not reading her posts carefully, explain to her that I am entirely compelled to read them only as my brain, enitrely in sync with your laws of matter, has fated and destined me to read them.

Well, unless, of course, our brains have in fact acquired the capacity to opt to read posts here given the real deal free will. And, if that were the case, how as philosophers would we go about pinning down beyond all doubt that which constitutes the most careful reading of all.


peacegirl wrote: By investigating this author's observations with a fine tooth comb.


The only way I can respond to this at all is in assuming some measure of free will. Otherwise we are both posting only that which we could never have not posted. You seem to acknowledge that whether I do examine the author's observation with or without a fine tooth comb [or in fact not examine them at all] I am locked into a "choice" only as embodied in the psychological illusion of free will. But somehow I am still wrong unless I bring the comb.

iambiguous wrote:Back again to how you configure Mary "wanting" as embedded in the psychological illusion of free will and her wanting given free will as the real deal into her "wanting"...the free will/no free will Mary. The part that, compelled or not, ever and always escapes me.


peacegirl wrote: I can't help you here because you are still creating a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. There's no such thing as the free will Mary, therefore her wanting to either have an abortion or not comes from antecedent factors that are leading her to choose to do what is best for her, as I already mentioned.


iambiguous wrote:Or...

Up to now, given the laws of matter, you are not able to help me because I am not able to not create a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. And how we understand, "Mary can do what she wills about aborting her fetus but she cannot will what she wills about it" is [compelled or not] just...different.


peacegirl wrote: We all can see that I am not able to help you because you are not able to not create a false dichotomy between the free will and no free will Mary, which makes our communication that much more difficult. We are on a different page.


And this clarifies exactly...what? Other than you insisting that I am on the wrong page because, as with every objectivist out on the end of the metaphysical limb, others either share your own assumptions or they are wrong.

Only the way that works on other threads is in assuming that we all have the capacity to freely think through to our conclusions.

peacegirl wrote: This author proved that the human brain is different from dominoes. We have a say in what we choose. We are not puppets on a string. I think Sam Harris uses that analogy. We are controlled by laws that compel us to move toward greater satisfaction and we also have the power to say no to something we don't want to do. No puppet can do that.


iambiguous wrote:Back again to "we have a say in what we choose but not a say in what we say".


peacegirl wrote: Huh?? We have a say in what we choose and what we say.


Not if you subscribe to determinism as I do. Where is the actual hard evidence from brain scientists that we will what we will to say? On the contrary, if the human brain functions wholly in sync with the laws of matter you can't just pick and choose brain functions and say, "this I 'choose' but that I choose."

Except somehow nature compels you to create this no free will/free will brain that "chooses" things.
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: 40749
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Dan~ » Sun Apr 11, 2021 3:55 am

To be free one must enjoy or want to be a certain way, as they are actually existing in that way.
So, free will, is happy-will. It's as simple as that.
Craving happiness and not having it, is freedom which cannot be used or actuated.

Example:
I use my free will to want an ice cream cone,
but i have no money.
I willed it, freely, but it's not an option until i get money.
I can free-will to want to travel to mars.
Because i can't, and i really want to, i feel i am trapped on earth.

These are pretty cheap examples,
but it should be enough for now.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting my free game projects.
ImageImage
Truth is based in sensing, in vision. And we can only see when we are alive.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10553
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: Canada Alberta

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:06 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Forget analogies. Note specifically how the author demonstrates why his understanding and conclusions about free will and evil are on par with those who are able to grasp and demonstrate how a light bulb works.


Peacegirl: Read the book and you’ll find out.

peacegirl wrote:He explained how these principles work, once they are applied. Why they work --- by filling in the gap of existence itself --- is irrelevant.


Iambiguous: Again, clicking over to a real deal free will world, you need to ask yourself why you keep avoiding the distinction between explaining free will and evil "in principle" in a "world of words" and demonstrating them in the manner in which a light bulb can be demonstrated.

Peacegirl: It has been demonstrated just as accurately as a lightbulb demonstration. The only difference is that one involves a material object, the other astute observation and reasoning. That does not make it less accurate.

Iambiguous: Then this part...

iambiguous wrote:Back again to the gap between those who are able to explain how a light bulb works and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to explain why it is able to work at all?


peacegirl wrote: They are two different questions: one is HOW something works and the other is WHY.


iambiguous wrote:No, what you do [compelled or not] is to act as though HOW here and now and WHY ontologically something [or anything at all] is what it is -- here in regard to either light bulbs or free will/evil -- is of no importance at all to the conclusions the author arrives at.


peacegirl wrote:Of course it is important because we can understand how we are able to accomplish something before we understand why it works or why humans have the capacity to make it work. We know how to build bridges and we know it works, but we don't need to have a discussion going back to the meaning of existence. Have you ever heard the saying: Y (why) is a crooked letter? It means it's irrelevant because it cannot easily be answered but doesn't change the benefit of knowing "how" to do something.


Iambiguous: Okay, okay. Continue to think yourself into believing that How and Why are related only in the manner in which the author construes them to be. Just tell yourself that, yeah, they must be profoundly intertwined in some manner "back then", but not enough to matter in regard to human interactions "right now".

Peacegirl: Talk about a world of words; this is certainly an example of the pot calling the kettle black!

Iambiguous: From my frame of mind, compelled or not, you avoid this because you avoid any and all criticism of the author because you have anchored your own rendition of a "comforting and consoling" sense of reality to his own objectivist TOE.

Peacegirl: This is coming from someone who shows no interest, no questions about his proof, no reading what I offered. He just wants to believe there is a ghost in the machine and how dare the author burst his bubble.

Iambiguous: Note to nature:

Why is "Y" crooked?

peacegirl wrote: I didn't say your reaction was wrong in the sense that you could have acted otherwise. That does not make you right when you accuse the author of intellectual dishonesty. These accusations by you are getting out of hand.


iambiguous wrote:Note to nature:

Explain to peacegirl how any accusations made by any of us can never be out of hand if they can only ever be the accusations that, given the laws of matter, we are, in the only possible reality, ever able to make.


peacegirl wrote: From my perspective, when I said you are out of hand I meant that your response, although beyond your control after opting to accuse the author, couldn’t be helped nevertheless it is a false accusation. I am entitled to look at the things you opt to say and give you my thoughts, without you or me having any kind of free will.


Iambiguous: Note to others:

Someone please make an attempt to explain to me how this is not complete nonsense. How on earth can an exchange between two people that could never have been other than what it was produce right and wrong, true or false accusations?

At least in the manner in which we think of this in a free will world.

Peacegirl: I am not making you wrong in that way, but if you are wrong in your belief that 1+1 = 11, I will tell you you’re wrong.

iambiguous wrote:Also, when she accuses me of not reading her posts carefully, explain to her that I am entirely compelled to read them only as my brain, enitrely in sync with your laws of matter, has fated and destined me to read them.

Peacegirl: Yes, and I am compelled by the laws of matter to explain to you that you have not read carefully.

Iambiguous: Well, unless, of course, our brains have in fact acquired the capacity to opt to read posts here given the real deal free will. And, if that were the case, how as philosophers would we go about pinning down beyond all doubt that which constitutes the most careful reading of all.


peacegirl wrote: By investigating this author's observations with a fine tooth comb.


Iambiguous: The only way I can respond to this at all is in assuming some measure of free will. Otherwise we are both posting only that which we could never have not posted. You seem to acknowledge that whether I do examine the author's observation with or without a fine tooth comb [or in fact not examine them at all] I am locked into a "choice" only as embodied in the psychological illusion of free will. But somehow I am still wrong unless I bring the comb.

Peacegirl: You’re not wrong for not wanting to read anything yet still believing your refutation is not a world of words (only the author’s); and I’m not wrong for letting you know you’re accusations based on ignorance have not gone unnoticed. No blame. Just the recognition that we cannot move forward.

iambiguous wrote:Back again to how you configure Mary "wanting" as embedded in the psychological illusion of free will and her wanting given free will as the real deal into her "wanting"...the free will/no free will Mary. The part that, compelled or not, ever and always escapes me.


peacegirl wrote: I can't help you here because you are still creating a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. There's no such thing as the free will Mary, therefore her wanting to either have an abortion or not comes from antecedent factors that are leading her to choose to do what is best for her, as I already mentioned.


iambiguous wrote:Or...

Up to now, given the laws of matter, you are not able to help me because I am not able to not create a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. And how we understand, "Mary can do what she wills about aborting her fetus but she cannot will what she wills about it" is [compelled or not] just...different.


peacegirl wrote: We all can see that I am not able to help you because you are not able to not create a false dichotomy between the free will and no free will Mary, which makes our communication that much more difficult. We are on a different page.


Iambiguous: And this clarifies exactly...what? Other than you insisting that I am on the wrong page because, as with every objectivist out on the end of the metaphysical limb, others either share your own assumptions or they are wrong.

Only the way that works on other threads is in assuming that we all have the capacity to freely think through to our conclusions.

Peacegirl: I never said anyone is wrong in regard to what they could never not say or do, which is based on their particular circumstances. I have explained that the ability to think through to a conclusion does not involve free will in any way, although from a superficial perspective it feels free. That is why we say we did something or thought something of our own free will. It does not mean we were actually free to think or do otherwise.

peacegirl wrote: This author proved that the human brain is different from dominoes. We have a say in what we choose. We are not puppets on a string. I think Sam Harris uses that analogy. We are controlled by laws that compel us to move toward greater satisfaction and we also have the power to say no to something we don't want to do. No puppet can do that.


iambiguous wrote:Back again to "we have a say in what we choose but not a say in what we say".


peacegirl wrote: Huh?? We have a say in what we choose and what we say.


Iambiguous: Not if you subscribe to determinism as I do. Where is the actual hard evidence from brain scientists that we will what we will to say? On the contrary, if the human brain functions wholly in sync with the laws of matter you can't just pick and choose brain functions and say, "this I 'choose' but that I choose."

Peacegirl: Where did I ever pick and choose brain functions? On the contrary, you are the one hoping that there is a ghost in the machine so we can opt freely yet still have no free will. Can’t you see how contradictory that is? Based on on your confused definition of determinism you want to believe in a mysterious free will that goes against every scientific finding thus far.

Iambiguous: Except somehow nature compels you to create this no free will/free will brain that "chooses" things.


No Iambiguous. You are misrepresenting what I said. This just shows me, once again, your complete lack of understanding. I know you have the capacity but you probably have a block. No blame.
Last edited by peacegirl on Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:45 pm

No Iambiguous. You are misrepresenting what I said. This just shows me, once again, your complete lack of understanding. I know you have the capacity but you probably have a block. No blame.
If you did blame him, then how would you act differently towards him specifically or in general?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:30 pm

phyllo wrote:
No Iambiguous. You are misrepresenting what I said. This just shows me, once again, your complete lack of understanding. I know you have the capacity but you probably have a block. No blame.


Phyllo: If you did blame him, then how would you act differently towards him specifically or in general?


Why would I blame him? Where is the hurt? We are only talking about a concrete hurt to another. In the new world, the knowledge that there would be no blame is the key that prevents the action. But we must remove any justification that would permit conscience from giving permission to retaliate. This is important for you to understand: scientists will determine what is a concrete hurt which no one under the changed conditions would desire to strike. There are thousands upon thousands of standards that try to force compliance. These standards will go by the wayside since there are no mathematical standards in human behavior other than this hurting of others. Remember, we are only talking about being hurt in a concrete way, not in an imaginary way. When all justification for hurting others is permanently removed, there is no way striking a first blow (an unprovoked act) would be considered a preferable choice in a “no blame” environment.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]