Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:47 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Sculptor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
Once again [compelled or not] you miss my point. And the point of this thread would seem to be aimed at discussing and debating whether you were able to freely opt to furnish me with something else. Or if, instead, you furnished me only with what nature compelled you to furnish me with.

It is the SAME thing.
You are NOT making a distinction here.
When you get that you will be home and dry.


Again, let's bring this down to earth with Mary's abortion above. Given my understanding of your understanding of free will/determinism, there is no distinction to be made between Mary freely opting of her own subjective volition to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells and her aborting it because her brain matter wholly in sync with nature's laws of matter could only have compelled her to do what she did because all reality -- human or otherwise -- is only as it ever could have been. Period as it were.

It is in the nature of Mary at this juncture to choose an abortion, rather than keep the foetus.
Her choice is fully determined by all antecedant conditions.

Suppose Mary had a particularly vivid dream that she aborted her fetus. She wakes up in a cold sweat because she is intent on giving birth. What is the definitive relationship between the chemical and neurological reality the brain creates in the dream and the chemical and neurological interactions that occur in her brain while awake.


So what?
It is in the nature of Mary at this juncture to choose an abortion, rather than keep the foetus.
Her choice is fully determined by all antecedant conditions.

What "secret ingredient" that scientists and philosophers each continue to probe in their own way will explain why the dream reality and waking world reality are very, very different?

I think you are in a world of your onw here.

That ingredient which many religious folks attribute to God.

Science has no interest is this fantasy.

Also, given your understanding of free will/determinism how is this...

Sculptor wrote: I'd take exception to your langauge. There is no "complusion" here, only determination.
Your distinction only makes sense if you think yourself unnatural or supernatural.
We are our nature.


...applicable to Mary choosing an abortion?


Of course!

It is in the nature of Mary at this juncture to choose an abortion, rather than keep the foetus.
Her choice is fully determined by all antecedant conditions.
Events might change her mind. But we are all at the mercy of causative agents, as we too are also the causative agents of other's choices.


Sculptor wrote: Like I said. Maybe you should read Hume rather than dance?


And, like I said, given my own "here and now" understanding of determinism, I will read or not read Hume [again] only in accordance with what nature compels me to.

You are making the mistake of distinguishing yourself from nature. Nature is what it is; it does not compel.

Explain then how it all works when you read Hume. Do you "read" him, read him or, as with peacegirl, "read" him.


Read him for yourself.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:48 pm

Meno_ wrote:Sculptor says:

"Your distinction only makes sense if you think yourself unnatural or supernatural.
We are our nature."




Including our unnatural and supernatural aspects.


Of which there are NONE.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:42 pm

iambiguous wrote:

Once again [compelled or not] you miss my point. And the point of this thread would seem to be aimed at discussing and debating whether you were able to freely opt to furnish me with something else. Or if, instead, you furnished me only with what nature compelled you to furnish me with.


Sculptor wrote:
It is the SAME thing.
You are NOT making a distinction here.
When you get that you will be home and dry.


iambiguous wrote:Again, let's bring this down to earth with Mary's abortion above. Given my understanding of your understanding of free will/determinism, there is no distinction to be made between Mary freely opting of her own subjective volition to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells and her aborting it because her brain matter wholly in sync with nature's laws of matter could only have compelled her to do what she did because all reality -- human or otherwise -- is only as it ever could have been. Period as it were.


Sculptor wrote: It is in the nature of Mary at this juncture to choose an abortion, rather than keep the foetus.
Her choice is fully determined by all antecedant conditions.


Again, upfront I'm admitting that you and/or peacegirl and/or obsrvr524 might be construing free will/determinism in a manner that is more reasonable than I am. The main difference from my frame of mind [compelled or not] is the arrogance that I "perceive"/perceive from objectivists of your ilk. The way in which you seem to mock those who dare not to share your own assessment. The scoffing sarcasm. As though with folks of your ilk the gap between what you think you know about it and all that there is to be known about it either does not exist or it does exist but is irrelevant.

What I call the psychology of objectivism:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life that revolves around an assessment of free will.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective about free will expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about free will; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy of free will with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about free will with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own about free will as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom about free will has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


Whereas those of my ilk recognize that this gap is really everything...in the end. Why does something exist and not nothing? Why this something and not something else. The staggering mystery embedded in things like this:

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe." nasa

How on earth are we to understand, explain, assess and then judge the "human condition" given the possibility of a multiverse...an infinite number of universes.

iambiguous wrote: Suppose Mary had a particularly vivid dream that she aborted her fetus. She wakes up in a cold sweat because she is intent on giving birth. What is the definitive relationship between the chemical and neurological reality the brain creates in the dream and the chemical and neurological interactions that occur in her brain while awake.


Sculptor wrote: So what?
It is in the nature of Mary at this juncture to choose an abortion, rather than keep the foetus.
Her choice is fully determined by all antecedant conditions.


Right, like this actually addresses the point that I am raising. And what of the fierce battles unfolding in the political arena. In, for example, the Supreme Court. Is all of this embedded in turn in the only possible reality?

"So what?" meaning that even in saying "so what?" there was never any possibility of you not saying it? Whether in a dream or while wide awake. Same difference there too? Just shrug off the implications of that in regard to human interactions that do come to revolve around conflicting goods?

iambiguous wrote: What "secret ingredient" that scientists and philosophers each continue to probe in their own way will explain why the dream reality and waking world reality are very, very different?

Sculptor wrote: I think you are in a world of your onw here.


Huh? Like scientists and philosophers are not struggling to grasp the nature of human consciousness as that most peculiar of matter? As though establishing whether this barb of yours is either something that you freely opted for among many alternatives or was beyond your capacity not to to have posted here is, what, the same difference in turn?

Also, given your understanding of free will/determinism how is this...


Sculptor wrote: I'd take exception to your langauge. There is no "complusion" here, only determination.
Your distinction only makes sense if you think yourself unnatural or supernatural.
We are our nature.


...applicable to Mary choosing an abortion?



Sculptor wrote: Of course!

It is in the nature of Mary at this juncture to choose an abortion, rather than keep the foetus.
Her choice is fully determined by all antecedant conditions.
Events might change her mind. But we are all at the mercy of causative agents, as we too are also the causative agents of other's choices.



So, this back and forth between those who condemn abortion as the immoral killing of a human baby and those who support it as a political right of all pregnant women...that is all merely in turn inherently, necessarily embedded in the psychological illusion of free will manifested in the only possible reality.

Thus we are both on the same page here. But with you nature has compelled you or determined you to be an objectivist.

Sculptor wrote: Like I said. Maybe you should read Hume rather than dance?


And, like I said, given my own "here and now" understanding of determinism, I will read or not read Hume [again] only in accordance with what nature compels me to.


Sculptor wrote: You are making the mistake of distinguishing yourself from nature. Nature is what it is; it does not compel.


But that is only the case when we make a crucial distinction between Nature and God. Teleology in other words. With God [as most seem to understand Him] there is a transcending Purpose and Meaning given to and embedded in human interactions. With Nature it is but the "brute facticity" of "what it is". I use the word compelled only because nature being what it is I was never able not to.

Do you agree?

Explain then how it all works when you read Hume. Do you "read" him, read him or, as with peacegirl, "read" him.


Sculptor wrote: Read him for yourself.


Back again to you completely missing my point. And whether it can be determined that you do in fact have the option to think it through further and not miss it. And then, even if we can both agree on what my point is, whether it can be established further that, given the gap between this exchange and the complete understanding of existence itself, my point comes the closest to the final explanation itself.

Come on, given just this one startling fact...

"Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.
The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.
So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.
To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years."
nasa

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

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

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:14 pm

Sculptor wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Sculptor says:

"Your distinction only makes sense if you think yourself unnatural or supernatural.
We are our nature."




Including our unnatural and supernatural aspects.


Of which there are NONE.




That'a hypothetical. What is or isn't evident belongs to the level of exclusive argument, that involves a kind of inner directed evolutionary, cognitive progress, a kind if jump over what is currently known , and the batting averige is better for it , then supposing the contrary: vis.


: that deconstructive processes more significantly imply , and are more prone to degrade quantum derived energy ( atomic, electric, neuron related) as they degrade toward classical forms attributed to Newton)the superconscious- supernatural forms, despite exhibiting atyrition to less mass ive observable forms, may attract the most basic forms of gravitation-but who knows what the most ethereal forms, sight unseen, may have the most acute energy forms.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:24 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:

Once again [compelled or not] you miss my point. And the point of this thread would seem to be aimed at discussing and debating whether you were able to freely opt to furnish me with something else. Or if, instead, you furnished me only with what nature compelled you to furnish me with.


Sculptor wrote:
It is the SAME thing.
You are NOT making a distinction here.
When you get that you will be home and dry.


iambiguous wrote:Again, let's bring this down to earth with Mary's abortion above. Given my understanding of your understanding of free will/determinism, there is no distinction to be made between Mary freely opting of her own subjective volition to abort her unborn baby/clump of cells and her aborting it because her brain matter wholly in sync with nature's laws of matter could only have compelled her to do what she did because all reality -- human or otherwise -- is only as it ever could have been. Period as it were.


Sculptor wrote: It is in the nature of Mary at this juncture to choose an abortion, rather than keep the foetus.
Her choice is fully determined by all antecedant conditions.


Again, upfront I'm admitting that you and/or peacegirl and/or obsrvr524 might be construing free will/determinism in a manner that is more reasonable than I am. The main difference from my frame of mind [compelled or not] is the arrogance that I "perceive"/perceive from objectivists of your ilk. The way in which you seem to mock those who dare not to share your own assessment. The scoffing sarcasm. As though with folks of your ilk the gap between what you think you know about it and all that there is to be known about it either does not exist or it does exist but is irrelevant.

What I call the psychology of objectivism:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], you are taught or come into contact with [through your upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life that revolves around an assessment of free will.

2] Over time, you become convinced that this perspective about free will expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to you as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, for some, they begin to bump into others who feel the same way about free will; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way.

4] Some begin to share this philosophy of free will with family, friends, colleagues, associates, Internet denizens; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of their life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in their personal relationships with others...it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, they start to feel increasingly compelled not only to share their Truth about free will with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, it can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own about free will as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity....on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom about free will has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with "logic".


Whereas those of my ilk recognize that this gap is really everything...in the end. Why does something exist and not nothing? Why this something and not something else. The staggering mystery embedded in things like this:

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe." nasa

How on earth are we to understand, explain, assess and then judge the "human condition" given the possibility of a multiverse...an infinite number of universes.

iambiguous wrote: Suppose Mary had a particularly vivid dream that she aborted her fetus. She wakes up in a cold sweat because she is intent on giving birth. What is the definitive relationship between the chemical and neurological reality the brain creates in the dream and the chemical and neurological interactions that occur in her brain while awake.


Sculptor wrote: So what?
It is in the nature of Mary at this juncture to choose an abortion, rather than keep the foetus.
Her choice is fully determined by all antecedant conditions.


Right, like this actually addresses the point that I am raising. And what of the fierce battles unfolding in the political arena. In, for example, the Supreme Court. Is all of this embedded in turn in the only possible reality?

"So what?" meaning that even in saying "so what?" there was never any possibility of you not saying it? Whether in a dream or while wide awake. Same difference there too? Just shrug off the implications of that in regard to human interactions that do come to revolve around conflicting goods?

iambiguous wrote: What "secret ingredient" that scientists and philosophers each continue to probe in their own way will explain why the dream reality and waking world reality are very, very different?

Sculptor wrote: I think you are in a world of your onw here.


Huh? Like scientists and philosophers are not struggling to grasp the nature of human consciousness as that most peculiar of matter? As though establishing whether this barb of yours is either something that you freely opted for among many alternatives or was beyond your capacity not to to have posted here is, what, the same difference in turn?

Also, given your understanding of free will/determinism how is this...


Sculptor wrote: I'd take exception to your langauge. There is no "complusion" here, only determination.
Your distinction only makes sense if you think yourself unnatural or supernatural.
We are our nature.


...applicable to Mary choosing an abortion?



Sculptor wrote: Of course!

It is in the nature of Mary at this juncture to choose an abortion, rather than keep the foetus.
Her choice is fully determined by all antecedant conditions.
Events might change her mind. But we are all at the mercy of causative agents, as we too are also the causative agents of other's choices.



So, this back and forth between those who condemn abortion as the immoral killing of a human baby and those who support it as a political right of all pregnant women...that is all merely in turn inherently, necessarily embedded in the psychological illusion of free will manifested in the only possible reality.

Thus we are both on the same page here. But with you nature has compelled you or determined you to be an objectivist.

Sculptor wrote: Like I said. Maybe you should read Hume rather than dance?


And, like I said, given my own "here and now" understanding of determinism, I will read or not read Hume [again] only in accordance with what nature compels me to.


Sculptor wrote: You are making the mistake of distinguishing yourself from nature. Nature is what it is; it does not compel.


But that is only the case when we make a crucial distinction between Nature and God. Teleology in other words. With God [as most seem to understand Him] there is a transcending Purpose and Meaning given to and embedded in human interactions. With Nature it is but the "brute facticity" of "what it is". I use the word compelled only because nature being what it is I was never able not to.

Do you agree?

Explain then how it all works when you read Hume. Do you "read" him, read him or, as with peacegirl, "read" him.


Sculptor wrote: Read him for yourself.


Back again to you completely missing my point. And whether it can be determined that you do in fact have the option to think it through further and not miss it. And then, even if we can both agree on what my point is, whether it can be established further that, given the gap between this exchange and the complete understanding of existence itself, my point comes the closest to the final explanation itself.

Come on, given just this one startling fact...

"Light travels at approximately 186,000 miles a second. That is about 6,000,000,000,000 miles a year.
The closest star to us is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.75 light-years away. 28,500,000,000,000 miles.
So, traveling at 186,000 miles a second, it would take us 4.75 years to reach it. The voyager spacecraft [just now exiting our solar system] will take 70,000 years to reach it.
To reach the center of the Milky Way galaxy it would take 100,000 light-years."
nasa

...what are the odds of that?





Odds improve parrallel to the increasing parabolic sum total of knowledge acquisition.
So velocity must keep in tune with such bell curve, and the curve's approach to almost identically slipped identifiable similitude is but a question of a timely arrival.

The odds increase exponentionally, with the temporal signification reversely proportional to it.

Therefore, at the level of absolute impercibility, the simultainty becomes , or it is perceived to become an absolute, as well.

Meaning : it has patterned it's self into a continuous creative force, indefinitely by eternally constant preexisted forms.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:48 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Just how far does Saint take "there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else"? No exceptions? Does it include his assessment of A God/The God? Does it include the reactions of those who disagree with him here? Does it include me typing these words and you reading them?

I think it does.


Okay, let's then take this assessment to that part of philosophy most intriguing to me: "how ought one to live"?

For example, you come in here all the time and get into what are often heated -- even scathing -- debates about many different subjects. Exchanges in which those like you have one moral and political agenda while those like Peter Kropotkin have quite another.

Are those debates also included in Saint's assessment above? And how is his/your assessment of determinism here different from mine?

Mine being that for reasons science and philosophy have yet to fully determine, mindless matter going back to the Big Band [some say] somehow managed through the evolution of biological life on earth to configure into mindful matter able to actually grapple with what that means.

But, for reasons I am certainly unable to fully explain, these at times fierce -- even scathing -- exchanges are only as they ever could have been. You night "argue" that Kropotkin is full of shit but given that there was never any possibility of you freely opting not to argue it, it basically comes down to the fact that being full of shit in and of itself from the perspective of the hard determinists is very different from being full of shit from the perspective of those who embrace free will. In other words, for the Libertarians the Commies really are full of shit because that can be freely determined rationally.

iambiguous wrote:In other words, is there anything that we do, given his own assessment of determinism above, that those who embrace free will would, in fact, claim as their own contention?


obsrvr524 wrote: I don't know what you mean by "their own contention".


I mean that, given my understanding of what seems to be their understanding of human autonomy, volition, will, freedom etc., they would contend that Saint is challenging those who disagree with him in the manner in which they would as well. As though Saint is not stepping back and accepting that his arguments, like the arguments of those who disagree with him, are in fact merely at one with the only possible reality.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:50 pm

Meno_ wrote:
Odds improve parrallel to the increasing parabolic sum total of knowledge acquisition.
So velocity must keep in tune with such bell curve, and the curve's approach to almost identically slipped identifiable similitude is but a question of a timely arrival.

The odds increase exponentionally, with the temporal signification reversely proportional to it.

Therefore, at the level of absolute impercibility, the simultainty becomes , or it is perceived to become an absolute, as well.

Meaning : it has patterned it's self into a continuous creative force, indefinitely by eternally constant preexisted forms.


Note to nature:

Thanks. You keep me young!! =D>
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:17 pm

It's irrelevant whether Kropotkin is freely opting to be full of shit or he can't help being full of shit.

He is full of shit either way.

That's the problem at hand which has to be tackled.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12404
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:27 pm

phyllo wrote:It's irrelevant whether Kropotkin is freely opting to be full of shit or he can't help being full of shit.

He is full of shit either way.

That's the problem at hand which has to be tackled.


Right, like "calling" something a problem in a wholly determined universe is not in turn making it a "problem" only given the psychological illusion of "freely" calling it a problem when you could never have not called it a problem. Or, as peacegirl might put it, "it gave you a greater satisfaction to call it a problem". As though feeling satisfaction in and of itself was ever actually something you could freely opt not to feel.

Then around and around nature either spins us or not.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:32 pm

So we are going to have this discussion on two threads?
iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Just how far does Saint take "there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else"? No exceptions? Does it include his assessment of A God/The God? Does it include the reactions of those who disagree with him here? Does it include me typing these words and you reading them?

I think it does.


Okay, let's then take this assessAment to that part of philosophy most intriguing to me: "how ought one to live"?

For example, you come in here all the time and get into what are often heated -- even scathing -- debates about many different subjects. Exchanges in which those like you have one moral and political agenda while those like Peter Kropotkin have quite another.

Are those debates also included in Saint's assessment above? And how is his/your assessment of determinism here different from mine?

Mine being that for reasons science and philosophy have yet to fully determine, mindless matter going back to the Big Band [some say] somehow managed through the evolution of biological life on earth to configure into mindful matter able to actually grapple with what that means.

But, for reasons I am certainly unable to fully explain, these at times fierce -- even scathing -- exchanges are only as they ever could have been. You night "argue" that Kropotkin is full of shit but given that there was never any possibility of you freely opting not to argue it, it basically comes down to the fact that being full of shit in and of itself from the perspective of the hard determinists is very different from being full of shit from the perspective of those who embrace free will. In other words, for the Libertarians the Commies really are full of shit because that can be freely determined rationally.

I don't understand why any of that is in question. Determinism certainly proposes all of that.

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:In other words, is there anything that we do, given his own assessment of determinism above, that those who embrace free will would, in fact, claim as their own contention?


obsrvr524 wrote: I don't know what you mean by "their own contention".


I mean that, given my understanding of what seems to be their understanding of human autonomy, volition, will, freedom etc., they would contend that Saint is challenging those who disagree with him in the manner in which they would as well. As though Saint is not stepping back and accepting that his arguments, like the arguments of those who disagree with him, are in fact merely at one with the only possible reality.

And I don't understand why you are saying that James "is not stepping back and accepting" that the effect of determinism is causing them to argue with him. Of course it is causing that. Why does it seem to you that James wasn't accepting that? - Or me either?

What does believing in determinism have to do with disagreements? Are you thinking that if a person believes in determinism they will never argue with anyone?
iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:It's irrelevant whether Kropotkin is freely opting to be full of shit or he can't help being full of shit.

He is full of shit either way.

That's the problem at hand which has to be tackled.


Right, like "calling" something a problem in a wholly determined universe is not in turn making it a "problem" only given the psychological illusion of "freely" calling it a problem when you could never have not called it a problem. Or, as peacegirl might put it, "it gave you a greater satisfaction to call it a problem". As though feeling satisfaction in and of itself was ever actually something you could freely opt not to feel.

Then around and around nature either spins us or not.

Whether it is all determined or not - the effort to handle it must continue.

How is knowing that you had no choice in doing something evil going to stop me from locking you up before it happens again?

You know that your car had a reason for failing - so you are not going to lock it up and fix it?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

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

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:43 pm

Right, like "calling" something a problem in a wholly determined universe is not in turn making it a "problem" only given the psychological illusion of "freely" calling it a problem when you could never have not called it a problem. Or, as peacegirl might put it, "it gave you a greater satisfaction to call it a problem". As though feeling satisfaction in and of itself was ever actually something you could freely opt not to feel.
Nothing to do with determinism or free-will.

If I get a flat tire. The tire is not freely opting to be flat.

Still, once the tire is flat, I have a problem which I need to resolve.

I can fix it, buy a new one, or stop driving the car, etc.

It doesn't matter whether I'm freely opting to resolve it or I can't help resolving it.

When the tire went flat, something changed and I had to respond. Determinism or free-will ... works out exactly the same.

Either case I'm going to act in some way. Time moves on and while I'm alive I'm moving along with it.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12404
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:47 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:It's irrelevant whether Kropotkin is freely opting to be full of shit or he can't help being full of shit.

He is full of shit either way.

That's the problem at hand which has to be tackled.


Right, like "calling" something a problem in a wholly determined universe is not in turn making it a "problem" only given the psychological illusion of "freely" calling it a problem when you could never have not called it a problem. Or, as peacegirl might put it, "it gave you a greater satisfaction to call it a problem". As though feeling satisfaction in and of itself was ever actually something you could freely opt not to feel.

Then around and around nature either spins us or not.


I can be full of shit or not full of shit. I might be full of shit today, or full of shit tomorrow. Whether I can help it to be or not to be full of shit may or not be my choice but which ever it is; it is determined that way.
As Schoppenhauer used to say:
I can do as I will, but I cannot will as I will.
I can make choices, but those choices are determined. THey can only be "free" if not externally compelled. Like it or not I cannot be free of my choices, because they are based upon who, and what I am.
At some point along the line we follow necessity regardless.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:48 pm

phyllo wrote:
Right, like "calling" something a problem in a wholly determined universe is not in turn making it a "problem" only given the psychological illusion of "freely" calling it a problem when you could never have not called it a problem. Or, as peacegirl might put it, "it gave you a greater satisfaction to call it a problem". As though feeling satisfaction in and of itself was ever actually something you could freely opt not to feel.
Nothing to do with determinism or free-will.

If I get a flat tire. The tire is not freely opting to be flat.

Still, once the tire is flat, I have a problem which I need to resolve.

I can fix it, buy a new one, or stop driving the car, etc.

It doesn't matter whether I'm freely opting to resolve it or I can't help resolving it.

When the tire went flat, something changed and I had to respond. Determinism or free-will ... works out exactly the same.

Either case I'm going to act in some way. Time moves on and while I'm alive I'm moving along with it.


Set fire to the car.
Call the AA.
Change the wheel
Commit suicide.
Whatever you chose you follow the necessity of cause and effect, and follow your volition to act.
If the day were to be repeated you would act in exactly the same way.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:02 pm

iambiguous wrote: Just how far does Saint take "there is nothing in the universe that is independent of everything else"? No exceptions? Does it include his assessment of A God/The God? Does it include the reactions of those who disagree with him here? Does it include me typing these words and you reading them?


obsrvr524 wrote: I think it does.


iambiguous wrote: Okay, let's then take this assessment to that part of philosophy most intriguing to me: "how ought one to live"?

For example, you come in here all the time and get into what are often heated -- even scathing -- debates about many different subjects. Exchanges in which those like you have one moral and political agenda while those like Peter Kropotkin have quite another.

Are those debates also included in Saint's assessment above? And how is his/your assessment of determinism here different from mine?

Mine being that for reasons science and philosophy have yet to fully determine, mindless matter going back to the Big Band [some say] somehow managed through the evolution of biological life on earth to configure into mindful matter able to actually grapple with what that means.

But, for reasons I am certainly unable to fully explain, these at times fierce -- even scathing -- exchanges are only as they ever could have been. You night "argue" that Kropotkin is full of shit but given that there was never any possibility of you freely opting not to argue it, it basically comes down to the fact that being full of shit in and of itself from the perspective of the hard determinists is very different from being full of shit from the perspective of those who embrace free will. In other words, for the Libertarians the Commies really are full of shit because that can be freely determined rationally.


obsrvr524 wrote: I don't understand why any of that is in question. Determinism certainly proposes all of that.


Then you understand that you don't understand only because nothing that any of us understand was ever not to be understood given that all understanding is an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

On the other hand, given a real deal free will world [not yet fully understood by either science or philosophy...to the best of my current knowledge], I contend that you argue this as an objectivist. Whereas I do not. I recognize that my own conclusions here are at best a wild ass guess on my part given the gap above.

Note to Kropotkin:

At least he's conceding that neither one of you are ever really right or wrong given the assumptions of free will advocates.

obsrvr524 wrote: I don't know what you mean by "their own contention".


iambiguous wrote: I mean that, given my understanding of what seems to be their understanding of human autonomy, volition, will, freedom etc., they would contend that Saint is challenging those who disagree with him in the manner in which they would as well. As though Saint is not stepping back and accepting that his arguments, like the arguments of those who disagree with him, are in fact merely at one with the only possible reality.


obsrvr524 wrote: And I don't understand why you are saying that James "is not stepping back and accepting" that the effect of determinism is causing them to argue with him. Of course it is causing that. Why does it seem to you that James wasn't accepting that? - Or me either?


Well, here's the thing...

Why, from time to time, did he not post something along the lines of this:

"What might be thought of as particularly surreal here is that RM:AO only exists because nature determined that I invent/discover it. Just as the laws of nature determined your own reactions to it. Whether it is true or not is moot. It exists. And it exists only because I was never able not to think it up. Which, of course, then puts it exactly on par with all of the other TOE we come across here at ILP."

Instead, based on my own exchanges with him, we went back and forth as though we both seemed convinced that free will was simply understood.

obsrvr524 wrote: What does believing in determinism have to do with disagreements? Are you thinking that if a person believes in determinism they will never argue with anyone?


Come on, as though the whole point of believing in free will was not this: that in arguing with others you do have the option to think things through and come to different conclusions. You can of your own volition think more rationally about Trump v. Biden than Kropotkin does.

If you come to conclude instead that whatever propels nature might have turned it all around and had you defending Biden what does that say about any of the arguments we make?

What does it say about such things as moral responsibility?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:26 pm

phyllo wrote:
Right, like "calling" something a problem in a wholly determined universe is not in turn making it a "problem" only given the psychological illusion of "freely" calling it a problem when you could never have not called it a problem. Or, as peacegirl might put it, "it gave you a greater satisfaction to call it a problem". As though feeling satisfaction in and of itself was ever actually something you could freely opt not to feel.
Nothing to do with determinism or free-will.

If I get a flat tire. The tire is not freely opting to be flat.


Okay, John punctures your tires. All four of them. But, unlike with the tires themselves, there is a discussion and debate among scientists and philosophers and others as to whether John could of his own volition have chosen not to puncture them. And whether the reason that John acted in this manner was derived from his capacity to think the situation through and freely opt to choose to do it. Or whether that reason too, in and of itself, was fated/destined given the laws of matter. The tire doesn't grapple with being inflated or flat as a "problem"/problem. You do.

phyllo wrote: It doesn't matter whether I'm freely opting to resolve it or I can't help resolving it.


Okay, does it not matter in turn whether John is caught, tried and convicted of the crime? Does it not matter if the crime he commits and is caught, tried and convicted of is rape or genocide?

Do you pull back, shrug, and say "what he did is only what could have been". That he was caught, tried and convicted is all just another manifestation of the only possible reality?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

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

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:32 pm

If my tire is flat, then I fix it or throw it away.

The same happens with thieves, rapists and murderers ... they are either rehabilitated or removed from society.

That's moral responsibility in a deterministic world.
User avatar
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12404
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:35 pm

phyllo wrote:If my tire is flat, then I fix it or throw it away.

The same happens with thieves, rapists and murderers ... they are either rehabilitated or removed from society.

That's moral responsibility in a deterministic world.


We could offer the tyre councelling. It could have a sit down with the nail that punctured it so that it could better understand the motivation of the nail
Maybe the nail was just trying to save face, having been discarded by a careless builder, dropped off the back of his truck?
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:37 pm

iambiguous wrote:Then you understand that you don't understand only because nothing that any of us understand was ever not to be understood given that all understanding is an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

On the other hand, given a real deal free will world [not yet fully understood by either science or philosophy...to the best of my current knowledge], I contend that you argue this as an objectivist. Whereas I do not. I recognize that my own conclusions here are at best a wild ass guess on my part given the gap above.

Note to Kropotkin:

At least he's conceding that neither one of you are ever really right or wrong given the assumptions of free will advocates.

:lol:

You fell for the trick that James explained years before he came to this board. He said that this freewill argument was "merely a mind game". And it seems that you are an excellent example.

What everyone seems to be saying to you is that it doesn't matter whether everything is determined - you have to go on just as if it wasn't determined (unless you are investigating causes). You seem to be having trouble understanding that issue. Determinism brought you to this point. Determinism brought you to be arguing. Determinism brought us to this point of trying to explain that it doesn't matter.

You are a part of the effort called living. Living IS handling whatever determinism has brought about. Either you handle or you don't. If you don't - you don't live. But determinism gave you impetus to live - so you (and we) continue to handle it the best way we know how. Determinism arranged what options we all think up to try. Determinism ensures that we pick one. Determinism inspires us to act on that choice. And determinism forms what comes of it.

If determinism wasn't there - why would be bother to calculate which choice to make?

We expect to be a part of that determinism. We are a part of it. We determine what comes next as much as others. That is the "freewill" - to make the decisions that cause determinism to function in our favor. That is our role in the grand scheme of reality regardless of it being determined.

And none of this has anything to do with objectivism or not.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

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

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:45 pm

iambiguous wrote:
Meno_ wrote:
Odds improve parrallel to the increasing parabolic sum total of knowledge acquisition.
So velocity must keep in tune with such bell curve, and the curve's approach to almost identically slipped identifiable similitude is but a question of a timely arrival.

The odds increase exponentionally, with the temporal signification reversely proportional to it.

Therefore, at the level of absolute impercibility, the simultainty becomes , or it is perceived to become an absolute, as well.

Meaning : it has patterned it's self into a continuous creative force, indefinitely by eternally constant preexisted forms.


Note to nature:

Thanks. You keep me young!! =D>



Don't worry if the tire is flat, You may need to have AAA or, walk maybe 20 miles and then? What can be the worst scenario? You could look at it from the point of view, that maybe You can use the excercise, or time to test Yourself again hoping it's sundown and?You don't have to have as much water and some other fear related issues.

Then if that looooooooooooooooooooooooong walk doesen't remind You of Your earlier strength still applicable to Your present state, then hope against hope that there is an internet connection and You have not forgotten Your phone back in the truck.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:29 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Then you understand that you don't understand only because nothing that any of us understand was ever not to be understood given that all understanding is an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

On the other hand, given a real deal free will world [not yet fully understood by either science or philosophy...to the best of my current knowledge], I contend that you argue this as an objectivist. Whereas I do not. I recognize that my own conclusions here are at best a wild ass guess on my part given the gap above.

Note to Kropotkin:

At least he's conceding that neither one of you are ever really right or wrong given the assumptions of free will advocates.

:lol:

You fell for the trick that James explained years before he came to this board. He said that this freewill argument was "merely a mind game". And it seems that you are an excellent example.

What everyone seems to be saying to you is that it doesn't matter whether everything is determined - you have to go on just as if it wasn't determined (unless you are investigating causes). You seem to be having trouble understanding that issue. Determinism brought you to this point. Determinism brought you to be arguing. Determinism brought us to this point of trying to explain that it doesn't matter.

You are a part of the effort called living. Living IS handling whatever determinism has brought about. Either you handle or you don't. If you don't - you don't live. But determinism gave you impetus to live - so you (and we) continue to handle it the best way we know how. Determinism arranged what options we all think up to try. Determinism ensures that we pick one. Determinism inspires us to act on that choice. And determinism forms what comes of it.

If determinism wasn't there - why would be bother to calculate which choice to make?

We expect to be a part of that determinism. We are a part of it. We determine what comes next as much as others. That is the "freewill" - to make the decisions that cause determinism to function in our favor. That is our role in the grand scheme of reality regardless of it being determined.

And none of this has anything to do with objectivism or not.


That was very well said Obsrver524! The problem that remains (and will not disappear without a solution) is in regard to responsibility. It is a conundrum that has lasted thousands of years. I believe this author has solved this seemingly unsolvable puzzle that has huge benefits for our world.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf
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 Meno_ » Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:41 pm

peacegirl wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Then you understand that you don't understand only because nothing that any of us understand was ever not to be understood given that all understanding is an inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

On the other hand, given a real deal free will world [not yet fully understood by either science or philosophy...to the best of my current knowledge], I contend that you argue this as an objectivist. Whereas I do not. I recognize that my own conclusions here are at best a wild ass guess on my part given the gap above.

Note to Kropotkin:

At least he's conceding that neither one of you are ever really right or wrong given the assumptions of free will advocates.

:lol:

You fell for the trick that James explained years before he came to this board. He said that this freewill argument was "merely a mind game". And it seems that you are an excellent example.

What everyone seems to be saying to you is that it doesn't matter whether everything is determined - you have to go on just as if it wasn't determined (unless you are investigating causes). You seem to be having trouble understanding that issue. Determinism brought you to this point. Determinism brought you to be arguing. Determinism brought us to this point of trying to explain that it doesn't matter.

You are a part of the effort called living. Living IS handling whatever determinism has brought about. Either you handle or you don't. If you don't - you don't live. But determinism gave you impetus to live - so you (and we) continue to handle it the best way we know how. Determinism arranged what options we all think up to try. Determinism ensures that we pick one. Determinism inspires us to act on that choice. And determinism forms what comes of it.

If determinism wasn't there - why would be bother to calculate which choice to make?

We expect to be a part of that determinism. We are a part of it. We determine what comes next as much as others. That is the "freewill" - to make the decisions that cause determinism to function in our favor. That is our role in the grand scheme of reality regardless of it being determined.

And none of this has anything to do with objectivism or not.


That was very well said Obsrver524! The problem that remains (and will not disappear without a solution) is in regard to responsibility. It is a conundrum that has lasted thousands of years. I believe this author has solved this seemingly unsolvable puzzle that has huge benefits for our world.

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




obsrvr 524 says:


"We expect to be a part of that determinism. We are a part of it. We determine what comes next as much as others. That is the "freewill" - to make the decisions that cause determinism to function in our favor. That is our role in the grand scheme of reality regardless of it being determined."


We are taking responsibility on the low ring of cause and effect, nothwitstanding Hume. A mind game can reverse that by treating a new effect as a cause of something new , or, newer than the first appearent cause.

The confusion resulting can conflate responses of predicated notions with the accumulated partially derived response abilities.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 9054
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:14 am

peacegirl wrote:That was very well said Obsrver524! The problem that remains (and will not disappear without a solution) is in regard to responsibility. It is a conundrum that has lasted thousands of years. I believe this author has solved this seemingly unsolvable puzzle that has huge benefits for our world.

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

Thank you but I don't know that it changed anyone's mind. Once in a mind-game - it can be difficult to read or follow the instructions on how to get out of it. If a blind person has to read the instructions on the bottle of blindness-cure - the person stays blind.

As to Lessans proposed solution - I'm highly skeptical.

It appears as though he is proposing that IF people were smart enough - they would be more responsible people. A part of that being "smart" is understanding determinism. Actually focusing on real causes and effects is what makes for smart people - so to that degree he is right.

But there are two very significant other problems in getting people to be more responsible -
  • People are actually NOT smart enough - even after learning about determinism
  • There are very very powerful people who WANT people to not be smart and do all kinds of nasty things to ensure they don't become smart.

It reminds me of the ideal communism argument. IF people would actually do precisely what ideal communism proposes - that would be great. But people do NOT do those things. And further the state of communism disinspires people to even try. People act according to their perception of hope and threat - always. Communism eliminates their perception of hope so the only thing left is the use of threat to get people to obey. And that is exactly what the many efforts have shown - every time - an authoritarian regime takes over in an effort to force people to be as prescribed. But in doing that - using fear and threats - the people are no longer capable of being what ideal communism needs them to be.

That is why communism doesn't work and never will.

Similarly - teaching everyone about determinism WILL cause a degree of insanity (as we can see from this thread and others) but more significantly the vastly greater majority of people cannot fully understand it anyway - people really are not all that bright - drawing very wrong conclusions from what they are taught. And then beyond that even if they did become more irresponsible - even by accident - the most powerful people running the world to the degree they can will instigate some extremely malicious and devious means to put them back to their far less responsibly acting condition - else they lose control - no more extreme wealth - no more luxuries - no more being protected from the potential dangers that everyone else faces.

Does/did Lessans ever address those very real issues in the effort to cause people to be more responsibly behaving? By what means would he propose that very powerful people - who already believe in determinism - give up their security and luxury in favor of altruism?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

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

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:35 am

obsrvr524 wrote:
peacegirl wrote:That was very well said Obsrver524! The problem that remains (and will not disappear without a solution) is in regard to responsibility. It is a conundrum that has lasted thousands of years. I believe this author has solved this seemingly unsolvable puzzle that has huge benefits for our world.

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


Observer: Thank you but I don't know that it changed anyone's mind. Once in a mind-game - it can be difficult to read or follow the instructions on how to get out of it. If a blind person has to read the instructions on the bottle of blindness-cure - the person stays blind.

Peacegirl: I agree that comprehension is key.

Obsrvr: As to Lessans proposed solution - I'm highly skeptical.

It appears as though he is proposing that IF people were smart enough - they would be more responsible people. A part of that being "smart" is understanding determinism. Actually focusing on real causes and effects is what makes for smart people - so to that degree he is right.

Peacegirl: You’re right that learning the truth will make for a better world.

Obsrvr: But there are two very significant other problems in getting people to be more responsible -
  • People are actually NOT smart enough - even after learning about determinism
  • There are very very powerful people who WANT people to not be smart and do all kinds of nasty things to ensure they don't become smart.

Peacegirl: That is true but you are basing your judgement coming from a free will environment. You need to keep an open mind to see how using these principles will change human conduct for the better.

Obsrvr: It reminds me of the ideal communism argument. IF people would actually do precisely what ideal communism proposes - that would be great. But people do NOT do those things. And further the state of communism disinspires people to even try. People act according to their perception of hope and threat - always. Communism eliminates their perception of hope so the only thing left is the use of threat to get people to obey. And that is exactly what the many efforts have shown - every time - an authoritarian regime takes over in an effort to force people to be as prescribed. But in doing that - using fear and threats - the people are no longer capable of being what ideal communism needs them to be.

That is why communism doesn't work and never will.

Peacegirl: I agree but where does this relate to what I’m sharing. This knowledge is not promoting despotism or authoritarian rule.

Obsrvr: Similarly - teaching everyone about determinism WILL cause a degree of insanity (as we can see from this thread and others) but more significantly the vastly greater majority of people cannot fully understand it anyway - people really are not all that bright - drawing very wrong conclusions from what they are taught. And then beyond that even if they did become more irresponsible - even by accident - the most powerful people running the world to the degree they can will instigate some extremely malicious and devious means to put them back to their far less responsibly acting condition - else they lose control - no more extreme wealth - no more luxuries - no more being protected from the potential dangers that everyone else faces.

Peacegirl: Once again, you are thinking in terms of the environment we are now living. When the change in environment (or the transition) takes place, the things you are concerned about won’t even enter the picture.

Obsrvr: Does/did Lessans ever address those very real issues in the effort to cause people to be more responsibly behaving? By what means would he propose that very powerful people - who already believe in determinism - give up their security and luxury in favor of altruism?


Peacegirl: No one is telling anyone to give up anything. Do you see how you are jumping to conclusions?
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 obsrvr524 » Wed Jun 09, 2021 12:59 am

peacegirl wrote:Obsrvr: But there are two very significant other problems in getting people to be more responsible -
  • People are actually NOT smart enough - even after learning about determinism
  • There are very very powerful people who WANT people to not be smart and do all kinds of nasty things to ensure they don't become smart.

Peacegirl: That is true but you are basing your judgement coming from a free will environment. You need to keep an open mind to see how using these principles will change human conduct for the better.

Two questions -
  • What kind of environment are we needing in order to make this work?
  • Since we always have to start from where we are - how do we get to that environment?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

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

Re: Determinism

Postby promethean75 » Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:08 am

The dangers of externalism, behaviorism and the social constructivism theory is that these can become authoritarian philosophies. Think about it. Once the concept of freewill is abolished, attention is focused on controlling environments to prevent disobedient behavior rather than dealing individually with those to be held accountable. This would involve sweeping socioeconomic and demographic changes in environments that produce the highest numbers in crime.

But this is philosophy-fiction. One cannot imagine a world in which during a court trial as a defendant is being reprimanded, the DA, jury and judge do so without placing blame and demanding culpability. It's logically impossible.

Instead there'll be a simultaneous gradual increase in tolerance in the civil and criminal courts, but that's about it.

The intuition of freewill, the feeling of having it, will always be part of human experience unless the brain significantly changes.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4743
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]