Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon May 17, 2021 7:17 pm

peacegirl wrote:Why do people make this so difficult? Just read the preface. It’s as simple as that. And you don’t have to download.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf


Of course simpler still [perhaps] is in just assuming that, if you do "read" it, it was only because you were never able to not read it.

More comforting still [perhaps] is in assuming that, however you react to it, it was the only way that you were ever able to react to it.

Thus [perhaps] the best of all possible worlds: we're all off the hook!!
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: 41665
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 17, 2021 7:18 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:This thread has gone off the rails. This has turned into a dumping ground for everybody’s ideas. My purpose here has gotten lost. So sad!


Note to nature:

Just to let you know, I'm flcking the switch "here and now" to the real deal free will world.

Pick one:

1] the thread was never able not to have gone off the rails because the rails themselves are but an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality

2] peacegirl "created" both the thread and the rail in such a way that, in combining free will and no free will, it remains a mind-boggling "intellectual contraption" that [up to now] makes sense only to her

Peacegirl: It is not an intellectual contraption to correctly define determinism which has heretofore confused the entire issue and prevented a reconciliation between the inability to do otherwise and making choices of one’s own accord.

Iambiguous: In other words, not unlike my own. Only I acknowledge right from the start that given "the gap" above, no one seems able to actually grasp the whole truth here.

Peacegirl: You won’t give this author any of your time. You never opened a page. Nothing you conclude therefore holds any weight.

Iambiguous: It's just that with nature, in configuring lifeless matter into the biological evolution of the stuff here on planet Earth, the result was minds needing merely to believe that something is true in order to make it true.

Peacegirl: You keep accusing me of this unfairly. This has nothing to do with “merely believing something is true in order to make it true.” Unfortunately not one person has actually desired to read these chapters. I’m surprised because most books are studied thoroughly before any conclusions (one way or the other) can be made. This tells me more about the audience than the author.
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: 1779
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon May 17, 2021 7:25 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Why do people make this so difficult? Just read the preface. It’s as simple as that. And you don’t have to download.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf


Of course simpler still [perhaps] is in just assuming that, if you do "read" it, it was only because you were never able to not read it.

More comforting still [perhaps] is in assuming that, however you react to it, it was the only way that you were ever able to react to it.

Thus [perhaps] the best of all possible worlds: we're all off the hook!!


This is not about being off the hook. You never have to read the book if you don’t want to. This is not about you Iambiguous. This is about knowledge that can change our world for the better. You may influence people to lose interest by your faulty analysis (of knowledge you know nothing about) if they count on you for your opinion. But if this discovery is legitimate (which it is), nothing will stop it from eventually being brought to light. When this will occur is anyone’s guess.
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: 1779
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Ecmandu » Mon May 17, 2021 7:48 pm

What you and iambiguous don’t understand is that consent is the self. Even in the dream world.

You have displeasures.

So. The goal of existence is to eradicate displeasures.

To be more precise:

We all live our desired experiences at nobodies expense.

Our desires and hurting them are proof of our self and freedom.

Since everyone is having their consent violated in one form or another, it’s easy to conclude that existence is one massive consent violation for all beings.

The task set before us is to fix that problem forever.

Let’s understand something though...

This life we’re all currently living is meaningless.

Take no pride in it:

You and iambiguous think you have the perfect plan to world peace through determinism.

The very act of abstracting the concept ‘determinism’, means that there’s something greater going on.

What are you going to do with your freedom?

It better be really good, otherwise you’ll lose your reputation.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11972
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Tue May 18, 2021 2:13 pm

I have wanted to help you two to three times peacegirl - help you get what you want - help you with your purpose.

How do you help someone that only wants to help?

peacegirl wrote:Why do people make this so difficult? Just read the preface. It’s as simple as that.

Why any of this is difficult is actually what I am interested in. I have read the preface. Is it honestly this simple?

I hope you don't mind me commenting on the following:

peacegirl wrote:You won’t give this author any of your time. You never opened a page. Nothing you conclude therefore holds any weight.

Unfortunately not one person has actually desired to read these chapters. I’m surprised because most books are studied thoroughly before any conclusions (one way or the other) can be made.

This tells me more about the audience than the author.

I gave the author some time. I opened a page. I have not actually concluded anything because right now my interest is not just with the book.

You see, I am trying to help you see why not one person actually has the desire you are pointing to. People are still reading/studying books and drawing their own conclusions.

The OP already says something about the audience as you see them but why not add something else about the target audience.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 18, 2021 4:47 pm

encode_decode wrote:I have wanted to help you two to three times peacegirl - help you get what you want - help you with your purpose.

How do you help someone that only wants to help?

peacegirl wrote:Why do people make this so difficult? Just read the preface. It’s as simple as that.

Why any of this is difficult is actually what I am interested in. I have read the preface. Is it honestly this simple?

I hope you don't mind me commenting on the following:

peacegirl wrote:You won’t give this author any of your time. You never opened a page. Nothing you conclude therefore holds any weight.

Unfortunately not one person has actually desired to read these chapters. I’m surprised because most books are studied thoroughly before any conclusions (one way or the other) can be made.

This tells me more about the audience than the author.


Encode: I gave the author some time. I opened a page. I have not actually concluded anything because right now my interest is not just with the book.

Peacegirl: That’s fine, but you’re right. You cannot conclude anything.

Encode: You see, I am trying to help you see why not one person actually has the desire you are pointing to. People are still reading/studying books and drawing their own conclusions.

Peacegirl: That’s fine too. I’m not depending on anyone.

Encode: The OP already says something about the audience as you see them but why not add something else about the target audience.

Peacegirl: There is no specific target audience: only people who may be interested in a discovery that can impact the way we live in a beneficial way.
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: 1779
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 18, 2021 5:57 pm

peacegirl wrote:

This thread has gone off the rails. This has turned into a dumping ground for everybody’s ideas. My purpose here has gotten lost. So sad!


iambiguous wrote: Note to nature:

Just to let you know, I'm flicking the switch "here and now" to the real deal free will world.

Pick one:

1] the thread was never able not to have gone off the rails because the rails themselves are but an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality

2] peacegirl "created" both the thread and the rail in such a way that, in combining free will and no free will, it remains a mind-boggling "intellectual contraption" that [up to now] makes sense only to her


peacegirl wrote: It is not an intellectual contraption to correctly define determinism which has heretofore confused the entire issue and prevented a reconciliation between the inability to do otherwise and making choices of one’s own accord.


Not many definitions that are not part of an intellectual contraption in turn though, right? Here though my interest is still in the distinction you make between 1] someone who "defines" determinism given but the psychological illusion of freely defining it 2] someone who does in fact opt to define it of their own volition given an ontological understanding of how the human brain came to acquire this capacity given the evolution of biological life on planet Earth and 3] your own free will/no free will frame of mind that somehow combines both given the manner in which [in my view here and now] nature has compelled you to understand, among other things, "greater satisfaction".

And, again, we are back to the author being able or not able to demonstrate the "for all practical purposes" workings of free will and evil in the manner in which a scientist can demonstrate the workings of a light bulb.

iambiguous wrote: In other words, not unlike my own. Only I acknowledge right from the start that given "the gap" above, no one seems able to actually grasp the whole truth here.


peacegirl wrote: You won’t give this author any of your time. You never opened a page. Nothing you conclude therefore holds any weight.


First of all, compelled or not, I have read many of the excerpts that you provide us, right? Or is that different from reading the actual pages in his book?

Besides, you still don't get it. But then am I not compelled by nature to note that you are in turn compelled by nature to not get it? I can only give or not give the author the time that the laws of nature compel me to. And, in fact, you will even agree with this. But still...

But still what? Damned if I know.

It's just that, unlike you and your author, I am more than willing to admit upfront that given "the gap" above the odds are staggeringly remote that I am even come close to grasping the whole truth here. What you refuse to broach given the real deal free will world is that your own fierce certainty about all of this is just another humdrum rendition of my OP on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

You simply have too much invested in the psychological defense mechanism that is your own and his own TOE. Again, here, the James S. Saint Syndrome.

Look, as I've pointed out a number of times, I know what is at stake for you here because I've been where you are myself. Twice. Once when I was convinced that the TOE was God, and then again when I was convinced it was Marxism.

Objectivism. The psychological balm of actually believing that you are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. Why? Because you've got the TOE to prove it!

Then around and around you go. Just another more or less intelligent and articulate fulminating fanatic to me.

Just like I used to be.

Twice.

Only, sure, I can only acknowledge in turn that my own current frame mind is just the third one.

Then back to "the gap" above.
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: 41665
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue May 18, 2021 6:48 pm

peacegirl wrote: Why do people make this so difficult? Just read the preface. It’s as simple as that. And you don’t have to download.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf


iambiguous wrote:Of course simpler still [perhaps] is in just assuming that, if you do "read" it, it was only because you were never able to not read it.

More comforting still [perhaps] is in assuming that, however you react to it, it was the only way that you were ever able to react to it.

Thus [perhaps] the best of all possible worlds: we're all off the hook!!


peacegirl wrote: This is not about being off the hook. You never have to read the book if you don’t want to.


From quora:

"This is a quote by Arthur Schopenhauer "A man can do what he will, but not will as he will" . What is the meaning of this quotation?"

Terry Li

"Schopenhauer is commenting on the illusory nature of free will.

As human beings capable of rational thought and self-reflection, we imagine ourselves to have "free will," which makes us distinct from inanimate objects and animals. We believe we are masters of our own destinies, because we can choose to conform our actions to our desires (we can "do what we want").

However, if our choices are determined by our desires, then the freedom of our choices really depends on whether our desires are "free" in the first place, doesn't it? If we follow the origin of our desires to its base level, we inevitably end up at a source of action that is external to our conscious self, i.e. something we do not choose. For example, I choose to eat this sandwich because I'm hungry. But why am I hungry? Because a lack of nutrients in my body has sent a chemical signal to my brain, triggering it to want to eat. Is my choice to eat this sandwich a free one, if it is ultimately caused by biochemical events outside of my control?

A similar analysis could be applied to any chain of action and desire a person could have. Man is not truly free because he is slave to desires he has no control over; he cannot will what he wills, and thus is no more special or different from any other object in the universe."


On the other hand, going back to "the gap" above that peacegirl simply shrugs off as irrelevant to the author's conclusions regarding free will and evil, what scientist or philosopher has finally pinned down the explanation that all rational men are obligated to accept as the whole truth here?

I'm not argung that there isn't one, only that if this argument does exist, it hasn't come to my own attention. On the other hand, there are any number of members here at ILP alone who will insist that their own TOE nails it. They can't all be right, of course, but I suspect that to a man or woman they will insist that they are.

And that's just regarding more or less intelligent life on this planet!

peacegirl wrote: This is not about you Iambiguous. This is about knowledge that can change our world for the better. You may influence people to lose interest by your faulty analysis (of knowledge you know nothing about) if they count on you for your opinion. But if this discovery is legitimate (which it is), nothing will stop it from eventually being brought to light. When this will occur is anyone’s guess.


Or:

Peacegirl can want to post this but she cannot want to want to post it.

Then, as someone was compelled to point out, it's turtles all the way down.
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: 41665
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 18, 2021 7:27 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:

This thread has gone off the rails. This has turned into a dumping ground for everybody’s ideas. My purpose here has gotten lost. So sad!


iambiguous wrote: Note to nature:

Just to let you know, I'm flicking the switch "here and now" to the real deal free will world.

Pick one:

1] the thread was never able not to have gone off the rails because the rails themselves are but an inherent/necessary manifestation of the only possible reality

Peacegirl: 1) That is true, but it is also true that my reaction was a necessary manifestation of the only possible reality and all subsequent reactions will also be part of the only possible reality. You keep bringing this up as if it’s some kind of revelation.

Iambiguous: 2] peacegirl "created" both the thread and the rail in such a way that, in combining free will and no free will, it remains a mind-boggling "intellectual contraption" that [up to now] makes sense only to her


Peacegirl: 2) I have explained it. You should know by now what he means by doing something of one’s own free will —- in a colloquial sense. It does not mean we actually have free will.

peacegirl wrote: It is not an intellectual contraption to correctly define determinism which has heretofore confused the entire issue and prevented a reconciliation between the inability to do otherwise and making choices of one’s own accord.


Iambiguous: Not many definitions that are not part of an intellectual contraption in turn though, right? Here though my interest is still in the distinction you make between 1] someone who "defines" determinism given but the psychological illusion of freely defining it 2] someone who does in fact opt to define it of their own volition given an ontological understanding of how the human brain came to acquire this capacity given the evolution of biological life on planet Earth and 3] your own free will/no free will frame of mind that somehow combines both given the manner in which [in my view here and now] nature has compelled you to understand, among other things, "greater satisfaction".

Peacegirl: There is no combination of free will/no free will IN REALITY. We are always moving from a position of some sort of dissatisfaction (no matter how imperceptible) with the present position to a more satisfying position. If we were satisfied we would never move from here to there. This is an immutable law of nature which means free will is an illusion because we cannot choose from among meaningful differences (under consideration) the choice that is the the least preferable. It cannot be done.

Iambiguous: And, again, we are back to the author being able or not able to demonstrate the "for all practical purposes" workings of free will and evil in the manner in which a scientist can demonstrate the workings of a light bulb.

Peacegirl: He did a good job explaining these concepts. He could not demonstrate in a physical way (as with a lightbulb) because the concepts are metaphysical but just as significant and valid.

iambiguous wrote: In other words, not unlike my own. Only I acknowledge right from the start that given "the gap" above, no one seems able to actually grasp the whole truth here.


Peacegirl: He was correct in his analysis as to why we have no free will. If you’re stuck on the idea that nobody can have any answers because they have to know everything going back to the Big Bang, your intellectual contraption will prevent any desire for further exploration.

peacegirl wrote: You won’t give this author any of your time. You never opened a page. Nothing you conclude therefore holds any weight.


Iambiguous: First of all, compelled or not, I have read many of the excerpts that you provide us, right? Or is that different from reading the actual pages in his book?

Peacegirl: There is no comparison trying to get a full understanding just by these posts. We are talking about a major discovery and it’s too hard for you to read three chapters?

Iambiguous: Besides, you still don't get it. But then am I not compelled by nature to note that you are in turn compelled by nature to not get it? I can only give or not give the author the time that the laws of nature compel me to. And, in fact, you will even agree with this. But still...

But still what? Damned if I know.

It's just that, unlike you and your author, I am more than willing to admit upfront that given "the gap" above the odds are staggeringly remote that I am even come close to grasping the whole truth here. What you refuse to broach given the real deal free will world is that your own fierce certainty about all of this is just another humdrum rendition of my OP on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

You simply have too much invested in the psychological defense mechanism that is your own and his own TOE. Again, here, the James S. Saint Syndrome.

Look, as I've pointed out a number of times, I know what is at stake for you here because I've been where you are myself. Twice. Once when I was convinced that the TOE was God, and then again when I was convinced it was Marxism.

Objectivism. The psychological balm of actually believing that you are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. Why? Because you've got the TOE to prove it!

Then around and around you go. Just another more or less intelligent and articulate fulminating fanatic to me.

Just like I used to be.

Twice.

Only, sure, I can only acknowledge in turn that my own current frame mind is just the third one.

Then back to "the gap" above.

Peacegirl: This is not about the “right” thing to do; it is only what gives you greater satisfaction doing. To repeat: There is nothing in this book that dictates what is right or wrong to do. If anyone is interested here are the chapters again.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue May 18, 2021 7:45 pm, edited 4 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: 1779
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Tue May 18, 2021 7:28 pm

peacegirl wrote:Encode: I gave the author some time. I opened a page. I have not actually concluded anything because right now my interest is not just with the book.

Peacegirl: That’s fine, but you’re right. You cannot conclude anything.

Encode: You see, I am trying to help you see why not one person actually has the desire you are pointing to. People are still reading/studying books and drawing their own conclusions.

Peacegirl: That’s fine too. I’m not depending on anyone.

Encode: The OP already says something about the audience as you see them but why not add something else about the target audience.

Peacegirl: There is no specific target audience: only people who may be interested in a discovery that can impact the way we live in a beneficial way.

Fair enough. I guess I will just go back to what I was doing before I visited your thread then...and be none the wiser.

:-?
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 18, 2021 7:47 pm

encode_decode wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Encode: I gave the author some time. I opened a page. I have not actually concluded anything because right now my interest is not just with the book.

Peacegirl: That’s fine, but you’re right. You cannot conclude anything.

Encode: You see, I am trying to help you see why not one person actually has the desire you are pointing to. People are still reading/studying books and drawing their own conclusions.

Peacegirl: That’s fine too. I’m not depending on anyone.

Encode: The OP already says something about the audience as you see them but why not add something else about the target audience.

Peacegirl: There is no specific target audience: only people who may be interested in a discovery that can impact the way we live in a beneficial way.

Fair enough. I guess I will just go back to what I was doing before I visited your thread then...and be none the wiser.

:-?


I’m sorry I didn’t answer you to your satisfaction. Good luck in your endeavors.
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: 1779
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Tue May 18, 2021 8:30 pm

peacegirl wrote:I’m sorry I didn’t answer you to your satisfaction.

You're not sorry!

=;
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Tue May 18, 2021 9:49 pm

Then what is the sense of saying one has learned anything , excusively, as uf such meant anything to anyone, to call it an acquired, sensible knowledge?

How about the feral acquisition of the knowledge of those phenomenal digs ? There is still something to be said about them at any rate, they still are faithful to their author -e- ties.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9051
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue May 18, 2021 10:57 pm

encode_decode wrote:
peacegirl wrote:I’m sorry I didn’t answer you to your satisfaction.

You're not sorry!

=;


Yes I am. I’m sorry I could not get you interested.
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: 1779
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Wed May 19, 2021 3:25 am

Meno_ wrote:Then what is the sense of saying one has learned anything , excusively, as uf such meant anything to anyone, to call it an acquired, sensible knowledge?

How about the feral acquisition of the knowledge of those phenomenal digs ? There is still something to be said about them at any rate, they still are faithful to their author -e- ties.

I have learned something here. You seem to be waving the wand at wisdom...it is too soon for that.

Figuratively speaking, the dogs are still faithful, they just have different "owners".
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Wed May 19, 2021 4:08 am

I conclude that you are not asking anyone to logically follow what you say. It is clear that the book will have more answers than you.

peacegirl wrote:Yes I am. I’m sorry I could not get you interested.

Sorry may mean something else to you. You are making an assumption about my interest(this is a break in logic).

encode_decode wrote:Fair enough. I guess I will just go back to what I was doing before I visited your thread then...and be none the wiser.

This is the answer I gave you and it mentions nothing about interest.

If someone turns their back on you it may have nothing to do with interest - it could just as easily be something else - perhaps you are not aware of this.

So now that we appear to be in the land of the airy-fairy - let us go back to, I have read the preface. I am now going to read the introduction.

If your desire is to irritate me further, then respond to this post or the last line of this post(like so many people make a habit of with other posts).
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 20, 2021 11:10 pm

peacegirl wrote: You won’t give this author any of your time. You never opened a page. Nothing you conclude therefore holds any weight.


iambiguous wrote: First of all, compelled or not, I have read many of the excerpts that you provide us, right? Or is that different from reading the actual pages in his book?


peacegirl wrote: There is no comparison trying to get a full understanding just by these posts. We are talking about a major discovery and it’s too hard for you to read three chapters?


Sigh...

It is only as easy or as hard as nature compels it to be for me. Same with the part about "greater satisfaction". Either in the real deal free will world, I can weigh the pros and the cons of finding a greater satisfaction in reading the first three chapters, or this too is all embedded in the only possible reality nature provides for me given its immutable laws.

In my view, you're the one that always wants it both ways. You insist I have no free will here...but somehow really I do. Why? Because somehow I am still "wrong" not to have read them.

Note others:

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't there been at least one person here who did read the first three chapters? And, even then, isn't her reaction always the same: that only in reading them and agreeing with the author's points about about free will and evil have you really read them.

She is, after all, an objectivist in my view. You think like she does -- like the author does -- or you are necessarily wrong. It's just another rendition of...

How do we know the Bible is the word of God? Because it says so in the Bible.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because it's the word of God.

iambiguous wrote: Besides, you still don't get it. But then am I not compelled by nature to note that you are in turn compelled by nature to not get it? I can only give or not give the author the time that the laws of nature compel me to. And, in fact, you will even agree with this. But still...

But still what? Damned if I know.

It's just that, unlike you and your author, I am more than willing to admit upfront that given "the gap" above the odds are staggeringly remote that I am even come close to grasping the whole truth here. What you refuse to broach given the real deal free will world is that your own fierce certainty about all of this is just another humdrum rendition of my OP on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

You simply have too much invested in the psychological defense mechanism that is your own and his own TOE. Again, here, the James S. Saint Syndrome.

Look, as I've pointed out a number of times, I know what is at stake for you here because I've been where you are myself. Twice. Once when I was convinced that the TOE was God, and then again when I was convinced it was Marxism.

Objectivism. The psychological balm of actually believing that you are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. Why? Because you've got the TOE to prove it!

Then around and around you go. Just another more or less intelligent and articulate fulminating fanatic to me.

Just like I used to be.

Twice.

Only, sure, I can only acknowledge in turn that my own current frame mind is just the third one.

Then back to "the gap" above.


peacegirl wrote: This is not about the “right” thing to do; it is only what gives you greater satisfaction doing. To repeat: There is nothing in this book that dictates what is right or wrong to do.


Note this in regard to, among other things, the author's sheer speculation about the future.

Of course the author is now dead and gone. The book he wrote speaks of a time when he himself will [supposedly] never be around to either be exalted as a true visionary or mocked as a fool.

Unless, of course, you insist that his future might have been off. Instead of a thousand years from now, make it ten thousand years. Or one hundred thousand years. Or sometime between now and the time that the Sun swallows up the planet whole. In about 7.5 billion years.

Talk about 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: 41665
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri May 21, 2021 4:32 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote: You won’t give this author any of your time. You never opened a page. Nothing you conclude therefore holds any weight.


iambiguous wrote: First of all, compelled or not, I have read many of the excerpts that you provide us, right? Or is that different from reading the actual pages in his book?


peacegirl wrote: There is no comparison trying to get a full understanding just by these posts. We are talking about a major discovery and it’s too hard for you to read three chapters?


Iambiguous: Sigh...

Peacegirl: Why the sigh? You don’t want to read for whatever reason. That does not remove the validity or soundness of this knowledge Iambiguous.

Iambiguous: It is only as easy or as hard as nature compels it to be for me. Same with the part about "greater satisfaction". Either in the real deal free will world, I can weigh the pros and the cons of finding a greater satisfaction in reading the first three chapters, or this too is all embedded in the only possible reality nature provides for me given its immutable laws.

Peacegirl: You seem to inhibit any further progress in our interaction. You’re off the hook which we all know. That is unfortunate only because you never took the time to understand why the present definition of determinism is keeping you in the dark.

You allude to nature as something that is outside of yourself forcing you. You seem to have a block when it comes to this (not of your own free will).

Iambiguous: In my view, you're the one that always wants it both ways. You insist I have no free will here...but somehow really I do. Why? Because somehow I am still "wrong" not to have read them.

Note others:

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't there been at least one person here who did read the first three chapters? And, even then, isn't her reaction always the same: that only in reading them and agreeing with the author's points about about free will and evil have you really read them.

Peacegirl: How can you accurately analyze anything without careful scrutiny. You have done no such thing. I don’t think anyone has read the first three chapters CAREFULLY. And if anyone has, please come forward. Phyllo jumped to the third chapter. How would it make any sense without reading the first two which are the foundational building blocks for every chapter that follows?

Iambiguous: She is, after all, an objectivist in my view. You think like she does -- like the author does -- or you are necessarily wrong. It's just another rendition of...

How do we know the Bible is the word of God? Because it says so in the Bible.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because it's the word of God.

Peacegirl: You really need to stop comparing me to these other groups. It’s unfair and makes it easy for you to turn a blind eye.

iambiguous wrote: Besides, you still don't get it. But then am I not compelled by nature to note that you are in turn compelled by nature to not get it? I can only give or not give the author the time that the laws of nature compel me to. And, in fact, you will even agree with this. But still...

But still what? Damned if I know.

It's just that, unlike you and your author, I am more than willing to admit upfront that given "the gap" above the odds are staggeringly remote that I am even come close to grasping the whole truth here. What you refuse to broach given the real deal free will world is that your own fierce certainty about all of this is just another humdrum rendition of my OP on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

You simply have too much invested in the psychological defense mechanism that is your own and his own TOE. Again, here, the James S. Saint Syndrome.

Look, as I've pointed out a number of times, I know what is at stake for you here because I've been where you are myself. Twice. Once when I was convinced that the TOE was God, and then again when I was convinced it was Marxism.

Objectivism. The psychological balm of actually believing that you are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. Why? Because you've got the TOE to prove it!

Then around and around you go. Just another more or less intelligent and articulate fulminating fanatic to me.

Just like I used to be.

Twice.

Only, sure, I can only acknowledge in turn that my own current frame mind is just the third one.

Then back to "the gap" above.


peacegirl wrote: This is not about the “right” thing to do; it is only what gives you greater satisfaction doing. To repeat: There is nothing in this book that dictates what is right or wrong to do.


Iambiguous: Note this in regard to, among other things, the author's sheer speculation about the future.

Of course the author is now dead and gone. The book he wrote speaks of a time when he himself will [supposedly] never be around to either be exalted as a true visionary or mocked as a fool.

Peacegirl: He was a visionary because he saw the future we could have with this knowledge. You can never take that away from him. He was a humble man. I’ve posted this before: he never said this was about him personally. He said this knowledge belongs to the world and without his learning from other predecessors, he could never have made this discovery.

Iambiguous: Unless, of course, you insist that his future might have been off. Instead of a thousand years from now, make it ten thousand years. Or one hundred thousand years. Or sometime between now and the time that the Sun swallows up the planet whole. In about 7.5 billion years.

Peacegirl: I hope not. That’s why this discovery has come at an important time in our history. Let’s not throw it in a scrap heap!
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: 1779
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 23, 2021 8:37 pm

satyr wrote:The variability of order/chaos, i.e., patterned/non-patterned energies, necessitates a constant, dynamic, adjustment to fluctuating circumstances.
Free-Will is necessary for this adjustment to be successful.


The latest "intellectual contraption" from him on the KT Free Will thread.

Again, all I can offer him is the opportunity to come here and "flesh out" this assessment given the real real free will world.

Or to console him in noting that, in a no real deal free will world, pedantic thingumajigs like this are "naturally" beyond his control.

It's all wholly derived from his genes.
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: 41665
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 23, 2021 8:46 pm

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote: You won’t give this author any of your time. You never opened a page. Nothing you conclude therefore holds any weight.


iambiguous wrote: First of all, compelled or not, I have read many of the excerpts that you provide us, right? Or is that different from reading the actual pages in his book?


peacegirl wrote: There is no comparison trying to get a full understanding just by these posts. We are talking about a major discovery and it’s too hard for you to read three chapters?


Iambiguous: Sigh...

Peacegirl: Why the sigh? You don’t want to read for whatever reason. That does not remove the validity or soundness of this knowledge Iambiguous.

Iambiguous: It is only as easy or as hard as nature compels it to be for me. Same with the part about "greater satisfaction". Either in the real deal free will world, I can weigh the pros and the cons of finding a greater satisfaction in reading the first three chapters, or this too is all embedded in the only possible reality nature provides for me given its immutable laws.

Peacegirl: You seem to inhibit any further progress in our interaction. You’re off the hook which we all know. That is unfortunate only because you never took the time to understand why the present definition of determinism is keeping you in the dark.

You allude to nature as something that is outside of yourself forcing you. You seem to have a block when it comes to this (not of your own free will).

Iambiguous: In my view, you're the one that always wants it both ways. You insist I have no free will here...but somehow really I do. Why? Because somehow I am still "wrong" not to have read them.

Note others:

Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't there been at least one person here who did read the first three chapters? And, even then, isn't her reaction always the same: that only in reading them and agreeing with the author's points about about free will and evil have you really read them.

Peacegirl: How can you accurately analyze anything without careful scrutiny. You have done no such thing. I don’t think anyone has read the first three chapters CAREFULLY. And if anyone has, please come forward. Phyllo jumped to the third chapter. How would it make any sense without reading the first two which are the foundational building blocks for every chapter that follows?

Iambiguous: She is, after all, an objectivist in my view. You think like she does -- like the author does -- or you are necessarily wrong. It's just another rendition of...

How do we know the Bible is the word of God? Because it says so in the Bible.
How do we know the Bible is true? Because it's the word of God.

Peacegirl: You really need to stop comparing me to these other groups. It’s unfair and makes it easy for you to turn a blind eye.

iambiguous wrote: Besides, you still don't get it. But then am I not compelled by nature to note that you are in turn compelled by nature to not get it? I can only give or not give the author the time that the laws of nature compel me to. And, in fact, you will even agree with this. But still...

But still what? Damned if I know.

It's just that, unlike you and your author, I am more than willing to admit upfront that given "the gap" above the odds are staggeringly remote that I am even come close to grasping the whole truth here. What you refuse to broach given the real deal free will world is that your own fierce certainty about all of this is just another humdrum rendition of my OP on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

You simply have too much invested in the psychological defense mechanism that is your own and his own TOE. Again, here, the James S. Saint Syndrome.

Look, as I've pointed out a number of times, I know what is at stake for you here because I've been where you are myself. Twice. Once when I was convinced that the TOE was God, and then again when I was convinced it was Marxism.

Objectivism. The psychological balm of actually believing that you are in sync with the real me in sync with the right thing to do. Why? Because you've got the TOE to prove it!

Then around and around you go. Just another more or less intelligent and articulate fulminating fanatic to me.

Just like I used to be.

Twice.

Only, sure, I can only acknowledge in turn that my own current frame mind is just the third one.

Then back to "the gap" above.


peacegirl wrote: This is not about the “right” thing to do; it is only what gives you greater satisfaction doing. To repeat: There is nothing in this book that dictates what is right or wrong to do.


Iambiguous: Note this in regard to, among other things, the author's sheer speculation about the future.

Of course the author is now dead and gone. The book he wrote speaks of a time when he himself will [supposedly] never be around to either be exalted as a true visionary or mocked as a fool.

Peacegirl: He was a visionary because he saw the future we could have with this knowledge. You can never take that away from him. He was a humble man. I’ve posted this before: he never said this was about him personally. He said this knowledge belongs to the world and without his learning from other predecessors, he could never have made this discovery.

Iambiguous: Unless, of course, you insist that his future might have been off. Instead of a thousand years from now, make it ten thousand years. Or one hundred thousand years. Or sometime between now and the time that the Sun swallows up the planet whole. In about 7.5 billion years.

Peacegirl: I hope not. That’s why this discovery has come at an important time in our history. Let’s not throw it in a scrap heap!


Nothing new here. So, if nothing else, nature is consistent.

Note to others:

Or, perhaps, is there something new here? Something that nature compelled me to miss?

Or, okay, okay, something that, in the real deal free will world, I am totally responsible for having missed all on my own.
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: 41665
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue May 25, 2021 9:03 am

I just ran across this if anyone in this discussion is interested -
Proof Of Determinism. - James S Saint » Mon Apr 19, 2010 4:45 am wrote:Determinism proposes that there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else. This is necessarily true because existence is the ability to have affect upon something else which means that all things must also be affected by something else. The end result is determinism.

He is saying that "cause" (also called "affect") is the substance of all physical reality so nothing happens that isn't caused by something. And so the end result is total causation (or "determination") - no room for non-causation or non-determination.

He proves it in other more lengthy posts but probably too much for this discussion.
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: 2922
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Tue May 25, 2021 9:46 am

obsrvr524 wrote:He is saying that "cause" (also called "affect") is the substance of all physical reality so nothing happens that isn't caused by something. And so the end result is total causation (or "determination") - no room for non-causation or non-determination.

He proves it in other more lengthy posts but probably too much for this discussion.

Yes, that's right obsrvr524, everything does have a cause. When you think about it, determinism is actually a pretty small topic that does not require much discussion - it is the topic of free will that muddies the waters and causes a conversation to drag on much longer than it needs to. It is one thing to accept determinism and something completely different to accept that no single human mind can grasp the complexity that comes with changing the course of humanity, as it stands now, based on the extremely simple concept of determinism. The fact that there are more than seven billion people is only the tip of the iceberg.

Do you see what I mean? That is why I say this is a rabbit hole.

Google dictionary sums it up nicely: noun - PHILOSOPHY > the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

Where we have to tread carefully is in the last part of the definition marked in that dark reddish color.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Tue May 25, 2021 10:04 am

It's generally harmless enough to use the word 'determinism' to mean the antithesis of 'freewill', but 'causality' is a better idea because it doesn't cause any trouble. The dangerousness of the concept of 'determinism' is that it leads philosophers and theologists toward thinking the universe is rationally ordered and governed by some grand Will that gives it teleological design. This kind of reasoning can be used for nefarious purposes (e.g., Calvin's predestination) and abused by those in power who think that merely because they understand all this, they are enlightened and deserve to rule as they do. Remember, it wuz 'determined' by god that I become king and govern as I do.

In any case the use of the word 'determine' as a description of how causality works, doesn't make much sense. That is to say when used here, the word 'determine'' significantly alters its meaning and brings with it all kinds of suppositions; there is a god, this god is intelligent and intentional, this god is making things happen like they do either directly or through/by the 'laws of physics'.

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:This issue has always revolved around the use of terminology drawn from traditional philosophy (such as "determined", "will", "free", and the like), the use of which bears no relation to how these words are employed in ordinary speech.

For example, "determine" and its cognates are typically used in sentences like this "The rules determine what you can do in chess", "The time of the next train can be determined from the timetable", or "I am determined to go on the demonstration" and so on. Hence this word is normally used in relation to what human beings can do, can apply, or can bring about.

As we will see, their use in traditional thought inverts this, making nature the agent and human beings the patient. No wonder then that the 'solution' to this artificial problem (i.e., 'determinism' and 'free will') has eluded us for over 2000 years.

To use an analogy, would we take seriously anyone who wondered when the King and Queen in chess got married, and then wanted to know who conducted the ceremony? Or, whether planning permission had been sought for that castle over in the corner? Such empty questions, of course, have no answer.

To be sure, this is more difficult to see in relation to the traditional question at hand, but it is nonetheless the result of similar confusions. So, it is my contention that this 'problem' has only arisen because ideologically-motivated theorists (from centuries ago) asked such empty questions, based on a misuse of language. [More on this below.]

When the details are worked out, 'determinism', for instance, can only be made to seem to work if nature is anthropomorphised, so that such things as 'natural law' 'determine' the course of events -- both in reality in general and in the central nervous system in particular -- thus 'controlling' what we do.

But, this is to take concepts that properly apply to what we do and can decide, and then impose them on natural events, suggesting that nature is controlled by a cosmic will of some sort. [Why this is so, I will outline presently.]

So, it's natural to ask: Where is this law written, and who passed it?

Of course, the answer to these questions is "No one" and "Nowhere", but then how can something that does not exist control anything?

It could be responded that natural law is just a summary of how things have so far gone up to now. In that case, such 'laws' are descriptive not prescriptive -- but it is the latter of these implications that determinists need.

Now, the introduction of modal notions here (such as 'must', or 'necessary') cannot be justified from this descriptive nature of 'law' without re-introducing the untoward anthropomorphic connotations mentioned above.

So, if we say that A has always followed B, we cannot now say A must follow B unless we attribute to B some form of control over A (and recall A has not yet happened, so what B is supposed to be controlling is somewhat obscure). And if we now try to say what we mean by 'control' (on lines such as 'could not be otherwise', or 'B made A happen') we need to explain how B prevented, say, C happening instead, and made sure that A, and only A took place.

The use of "obey" here would give the game away, since if this word is used with connotations that go beyond mere description, then this will imply that events like A understand the 'law' (like so many good citizens), and always do the same when B beckons, right across the entire universe --, and, indeed, that this 'law' must exist in some form to make things obey it. Of course, if it doesn't mean this, then what does it mean?

Now, I maintain that any attempt to fill in the details here will introduce notions of will and intelligence into the operation of B on A (and also on C) -- and that is why theorists have found they have had to drag in anthropomorphic concepts here (such as 'determine', 'obey' 'law' and 'control') to fill this gap, failing to note that the use of such words does indeed imply there is a will of some sort operating in nature. [But, note the qualification I introduce here, below. There were ideological reasons why these words were in fact used.]

If this is denied then 'determine' (etc.) can only be working descriptively, and we are back at square one.

Incidentally, the above problems are not to be avoided by the introduction of biochemical, neurological, and/or physiological objects and processes. The same questions apply here as elsewhere: how can, for example, a certain chemical 'control' what happens next unless it is intelligent in some way? Reducing this to physics is even worse; how can 'the field' (or whatever) control the future? 'The field' is a mathematical object and no more capable of controlling anything than a Hermite polynomial is. Of course, and once more, to argue otherwise would be to anthropomorphise such things -- which is why I made the argument above abstract, since it covers all bases.

This also explains why theorists (and particularly scientists who try to popularise their work) find they have to use 'scare quotes' and metaphor everywhere in this area.

As I noted earlier, this whole way of looking at 'the will' inverts things. We are denied a will (except formally) and nature is granted one. As many might now be able to see, this is yet another aspect of the alienating nature of traditional thought, where words are fetishised and we are dehumanised.

And this should not surprise us since such questions were originally posed theologically (and thus ideologically), where theorists were quite happy to alienate to 'god' such control over nature and our supposedly 'free' actions'. Hence, we too find that we have to appropriate such distorted terminology if we follow traditional patterns of thought in this area.

No wonder Marx argued:

The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life. [Marx and Engels (1970), p.118.]

And:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.' [Ibid., pp.64-65.]

These concepts "rule" us too if we are suitably uncritical.

Many of these ideas are not original to me (but the Marxist application of them is).
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4741
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue May 25, 2021 10:24 am

encode_decode wrote:Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

Where we have to tread carefully is in the last part of the definition marked in that dark reddish color.

I remember that James addressed and resolved that issue too - but on a different board maybe 10-15 years ago (a Christian board). Something like -
  • Corrective action is the goal regardless of original cause, and
  • Judges are also caused by influence and so are no more accountable for their choice to hold a person account than that person is

Between the two he seems to be saying - "so what - we have to act anyway".
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Tue May 25, 2021 10:31 am, edited 2 times 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: 2922
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby encode_decode » Tue May 25, 2021 10:27 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
encode_decode wrote:Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

Where we have to tread carefully is in the last part of the definition marked in that dark reddish color.

I remember that James addressed and resolved that issue too - but on a different board maybe 10-15 years ago (a Christian board).

For sure - he addressed it with me too - I caused him to, lol.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1713
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users