Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:20 pm

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


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


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


Note to nature:

Straighten him out here.

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

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


Sculptor wrote: Is this word salad?


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

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


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

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


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to nature:

uh?!!!

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


uh


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

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


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to others:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


I'm sorry, but: HUH?!!

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

Yes. But I did not say "just" - you did.
Reality abides regardless of our codification.
And more's the point Nature is not a person. It's not a replacement foir god. It does not compel.

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

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

Again, are you one of them?

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


You are either A TROLL or just basically stupid.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:46 pm

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


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


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


Note to nature:

Straighten him out here.

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

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


Sculptor wrote: Is this word salad?


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

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


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

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


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to nature:

uh?!!!

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


uh


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

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


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to others:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


I'm sorry, but: HUH?!!

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

Yes. But I did not say "just" - you did.
Reality abides regardless of our codification.
And more's the point Nature is not a person. It's not a replacement foir god. It does not compel.

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

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

Again, are you one of them?

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


You are either A TROLL or just basically stupid.


Obsrvr524 meet Sculptor!!

Or, as nature suggests that I put it, "Like shooting fish in a barrel". :lol:
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:48 pm

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


Obsrvr524 meet Sculptor!!

Or, as nature suggests that I put it, "Like shooting fish in a barrel". :lol:


Okay Stupid will do.
You have no position.
No idea.
You like to chip in , but you vacillate from one postion to another. A waste of time and a waste of space.
Last edited by Sculptor on Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:49 pm

Sculptor wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Anything to distract from the catastrophic failures of the US socialist administration.


You are obsessed with a fantasy. You are making a damn fool of yourself
If you don't like "socialism" why don't you fuck off to Myanmar to see how far you get on in a countryt without a hint of it.


Note to nature:

So, bottom line, which side are you on? =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: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:51 pm

iambiguous wrote:
So, bottom line, which side are you on? =D>


My position is clear.
It is you that is fucking clueless.

State your position or fuck off
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:56 pm

Sculptor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
So, bottom line, which side are you on? =D>


My position is clear.
It is you that is fucking clueless


Note to Larry, Moe and Curly:

Another Stooge!!

What shall I call him?

I know! Shemp!!

Note to nature:

Thanks for the dispensation. I'm now back to being all yours. 8)
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: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Wed Jun 09, 2021 11:07 pm

iambiguous wrote:Thanks for the dispensation. I'm now back to being all yours. 8)



State your position or fuck off
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:47 am

Sculptor wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Thanks for the dispensation. I'm now back to being all yours. 8)



State your position or fuck off


Note to others:

I'm flicking the switch over to the "real deal free will world", okay?

So, what on earth do you suppose he means by this? I've been noting my position in regard to determinism [on this thread alone] for literally years now.

Much more to the point, what prompted him to flick the switch himself to sniveling Stooge mode of late rather than actually responding to the points that I have raised with him here:

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


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


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


Note to nature:

Straighten him out here.

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

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


Sculptor wrote: Is this word salad?


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

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


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

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


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to nature:

uh?!!!

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


uh


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

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


Sculptor wrote: uh


Note to others:

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


I'm sorry, but: HUH?!!

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

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

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

Again, are you one of them?

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


From all of that he gives me this:

Sculptor wrote: Yes. But I did not say "just" - you did.
Reality abides regardless of our codification.
And more's the point Nature is not a person. It's not a replacement foir god. It does not compel.


And this:

Sculptor wrote: You are either A TROLL or just basically stupid.


Let's try this:

Here is a list of all the ongoing threads that I sustain at ILP:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=170060
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=195930
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196100
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 8&t=196110
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195600
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175006
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=186929
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195614
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=195964
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

Most on the philosophy board.

Let him focus in on a few and make a more substantive argument that I am a TROLL or just basically stupid.

Or, sure, he can continue to make a fool out of himself as he has here of late. It's all the same to me.

And certainly all the same to nature.
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: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:01 am

Back to determinism ...

How is a free-will decision different from a determined decision?

A person using free-will is still living in the world ... acting within an environment, reacting to specific situations.

Free-will does not detach you from this time and place.

It doesn't give you any more knowledge, understanding or skills.

The decisions are based on exactly the same situation and your personal abilities are the same in both cases.

One expects that the decisions would be the same.

Obsrvr already mentioned this but I think it needs to be stated again since there is this idea that in the determined world there is a "compulsion" which doesn't exist in a free-will world.

Actually, there appears to be nothing different. No added compulsion.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12376
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Thu Jun 10, 2021 12:11 pm

phyllo wrote:Back to determinism ...

How is a free-will decision different from a determined decision?

They are both determined, except when you say you are doing it of your own free will, you are not being compelled by an outside force such as a gun at your head.

A person using free-will is still living in the world ... acting within an environment, reacting to specific situations.

True and therefore most decision are as a reaction to the conditions in which that person finds himself, such conditions may be limiting. More limiting are one's own capacities, needs and motivations, which each decision "respects", through necessity.

Free-will does not detach you from this time and place.

Indeed. Nor can it separate you from cause and effect. Each move is the necessary consequence of antcedent conditions, which define all effects throughout the universe.

It doesn't give you any more knowledge, understanding or skills.

The decisions are based on exactly the same situation and your personal abilities are the same in both cases.

One expects that the decisions would be the same.

Yes and were the clock turned back this "free" decision would be exactly the same each time.

Obsrvr already mentioned this but I think it needs to be stated again since there is this idea that in the determined world there is a "compulsion" which doesn't exist in a free-will world.

The world is not "free". Nothing is truly free in any sense.
But the universe has no motivation, so may not compel.
When you act you simply do so having made your choice from the available options and this is a determined outcome.

Actually, there appears to be nothing different. No added compulsion.


Given the state of the universe at position A, the outcome is B. To call this "compulsion" is an abuse of language.
Compulsion implies agency, as if the universe is making you do something. BUT, and this is a big but - you are part of the same universe NOT separate from it.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm


Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:24 pm

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: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:59 pm

:lol:


So much for serious discussion. :lol:
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: 2817
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:24 pm

phyllo wrote:Back to determinism ...

How is a free-will decision different from a determined decision?

A person using free-will is still living in the world ... acting within an environment, reacting to specific situations.

Free-will does not detach you from this time and place.

It doesn't give you any more knowledge, understanding or skills.

The decisions are based on exactly the same situation and your personal abilities are the same in both cases.

One expects that the decisions would be the same.

Obsrvr already mentioned this but I think it needs to be stated again since there is this idea that in the determined world there is a "compulsion" which doesn't exist in a free-will world.

Actually, there appears to be nothing different. No added compulsion.


Since there does not appear to exist that elusive definitive argument [from scientists and/or philosophers and/or theologians] to pin this down once and for all, let's try a hypothetical:

Imagine the universe where there are parts in which all matter [living or not] is wholly determined and parts where free will prevails. An advanced civilization from the autonomous zone is in a spaceship hovering above Earth. Earth is embedded in the wholly determined part. The advanced aliens are watching us go about the business of interacting. These folks have also acquired the capacity to grasp how our determined interactions will unfold -- must unfold -- in the future based on how they are unfolding now.

In other words, they have access to the exchanges unfolding on this thread a week from now because we were never able to post anything other than what nature had determined that we must post.

Same with Mary's abortion. Everything that led up to it was destined. Everything that happens after it -- including our fierce political conflagrations in reacting to it -- unfold like clockwork.

The aliens, on the other hand, are able to freely opt to post or not post something in their own exchanges. They are also able to change their minds and post something different down the road. They really can think through of their own volition whether to abort or not to abort their own unborn.

Unfortunately, this being just a hypothetical concocted from what I construe [given my own current wild ass guess] to be a determined universe, it's all subsumed in turn in the only possible reality.

Again, that's why things like God are so important. A transcending point of view that can know how to explain these things.

Instead, we are like the inhabitants of Flatland grappling with a reality that includes other dimensions we simply have no access to. Up to and including the ultimate understanding of existence itself.
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: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:31 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:So much for serious discussion. :lol:



Right, like you yourself hadn't abandoned our own discussion above:

Me:

iambiguous wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote: 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.


iambiguous wrote:But it doesn't matter to them solely because up to now it was never even possible that it could matter to them. But, again, down the road nature's laws might turn it all around and it will matter to them. But either way -- Trump wins, Biden wins -- the only thing that does matter is that there are no winners and losers in this exchange in the manner in which those who reject determinism construe that.

And that will matter to some more than others.


obsrvr524 wrote: So I was right - you are having trouble understanding the issue.


Right in the sense that nature determined that you could never have thought to yourself that you were wrong.

That kind of "right"?

As for understanding the issue, again, from my frame of mind, you want your cake here and to eat it too. You want to argue for determinism but also to insist that you "win" here becasue you claim to understand the issue while I don't. As though either of us can grapple with the issue other than as nature compels us to.

obsrvr524 wrote: The issue is NOT about whether the person believes in determinism or free-will or even if he thinks it is an important issue - that is not what I meant by it not mattering.


Who cares about the way you mean that anything matters if the only way that you could ever have meant it matters is necessarily in sync with laws of matter?

And that would certainly include what you think matters about Trump and Biden.

Right?

Nature then continues your "narrative":

obsrvr524 wrote: What I meant was that whether he is concerned about determinism or not - his situation is the same - requiring the same priorities and the same consequences. If he believes in determinism he might make a different choice as to what to do - but either way he is still stuck with a flat tire and must choose between limited options. The best option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The worst option will be the same whether he had free-will or not. The only difference his belief makes is in offering confusion and delays. The tire isn't going to choose to inflate on its own regardless of his beliefs.


Okay, but, as I noted with Phyllo above, what about this part:

"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."

Determinism as you/Saint understand it and conflicting goods. Determinism and moral responsibility.

iambiguous wrote:the same time, even in accepting the reality of free will, my point is that political value judgments embraced by objectivists of your ilk are but political prejudices rooted subjectively in dasein. And the possibility of that is particularly disturbing to the fulminating fanatics.


obsrvr524 wrote: That is Your objectivist opinion about an irrelevant topic.


Right, given the real deal free will world, an "objectivist opinion"!!!

And, given Saint's/your own understanding of determinism, how could any topic be irrelevant when every topic is relevant given the assumption that in a wholly determined universe nothing is not going to unfold other than as it must.


You:

obsrvr524 wrote:So you are just so blinded by your bias and prejudice and emotional issues that you cannot understand the concepts at hand.

No point in arguing with a dog about color.
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: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:50 pm

The aliens, on the other hand, are able to freely opt to post or not post something in their own exchanges. They are also able to change their minds and post something different down the road. They really can think through of their own volition whether to abort or not to abort their own unborn.
Why would these "free-will" aliens opt to post something other than what "determined" aliens would post?

What induces them to do that?

Nothing.

"Think through of their own volition" based on what information which is different from the information that "determined" aliens have?

Their information is the same.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12376
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:53 pm

iambiguous wrote:we are like the inhabitants of Flatland grappling with a reality that includes other dimensions we simply have no access to. Up to and including the ultimate understanding of existence itself.

I think part of "understanding existence itself" is understanding that if we have no access to a dimension - that dimension doesn't - exist. It would have no deterministic role.

Your imagination exists. You have access to it. Fix it. :D
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: 2817
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:13 pm

The aliens, on the other hand, are able to freely opt to post or not post something in their own exchanges. They are also able to change their minds and post something different down the road. They really can think through of their own volition whether to abort or not to abort their own unborn.


phyllo wrote: Why would these "free-will" aliens opt to post something other than what "determined" aliens would post?

What induces them to do that?

Nothing.


Nothing? No, instead, the answer to this can only go back to all that we still do not understand about mindless matter evolving from the Big Bang [as some assume] into biological living matter on planet Earth evolving [so far] into biological living matter [us] able to possess conscious minds. Minds [re brains] that, while awake, are either qualitatively different from minds [re brains] that are asleep and dreaming or not.

phyllo wrote: "Think through of their own volition" based on what information which is different from the information that "determined" aliens have?

Their information is the same.


Again, admittedly, given the real deal free will world, your point here might be an important one that I keep missing. But if this exchange is only as it ever could have been in a fated universe, the laws of matter have determined that [so far] I could never have not missed it.

To think of a wholly determined Mary having the same information about abortion as a Mary able to freely opt to go further in seeking out additional information, well, that is a very different "reality"/reality to me.

And, given human autonomy, there is always the possibility that one of us might succeed in making the other understand things differently. Whereas if everything we have ever understood, understand now or ever will understand in the future is subsumed wholly, inevitably in the immutable laws of matter, well, you tell me.
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: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:16 pm

iambiguous wrote:And, given human autonomy, there is always the possibility that one of us might succeed in making the other understand things differently. Whereas if everything we have ever understood, understand now or ever will understand in the future is subsumed wholly, inevitably in the immutable laws of matter, well, you tell me.

Determinism doesn't propose that there is nothing you can do about things. It proposes that you are a part of those things that are influencing outcomes - determining the future.
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: 2817
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:19 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:we are like the inhabitants of Flatland grappling with a reality that includes other dimensions we simply have no access to. Up to and including the ultimate understanding of existence itself.

I think part of "understanding existence itself" is understanding that if we have no access to a dimension - that dimension doesn't - exist. It would have no deterministic role.

Your imagination exists. You have access to it. Fix it. :D


On the other hand, you, being an inhabitant of Saintland, note things like this all the time.

And, thus, when you are determined by nature to advise others to "fix" their imagination, you somehow flick the switch to compatibilism in order to convince yourself that in order to "fix" it, they must put it wholly in sync with your own.

Something along the lines of peacegirl's own "no free will/greater satisfaction" intellectual contraption.
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: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:28 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:And, given human autonomy, there is always the possibility that one of us might succeed in making the other understand things differently. Whereas if everything we have ever understood, understand now or ever will understand in the future is subsumed wholly, inevitably in the immutable laws of matter, well, you tell me.

Determinism doesn't propose that there is nothing you can do about things. It proposes that you are a part of those things that are influencing outcomes - determining the future.


Okay, in regard to what I [compelled or not] construe to be your own "fulminating fanatic" harangues regarding all things Trump on the Society, Government, and Economics board, how, more specifically, is this applicable?

In regard further to a particular context...immigration policy for example.

How are you yourself a part of those things influencing outcomes here? What are you able to determine given the manner in which, say, Libertarians construe human freedom, or, instead, given the manner in which Saint construes determinism 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: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:30 pm

Endless fake strawman deflection arguments to defend your fanatical bubble.
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: 2817
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:34 pm

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

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

Confusion, misunderstanding, ignorance and stupidity must work the same way in free-will and determined worlds. Why would it be any different?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12376
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:36 pm

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

Because in one case it is my fault and in the other it is his fault. 8-[
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: 2817
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:41 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Endless fake strawman deflection arguments to defend your fanatical bubble.


Note to others:

Given that our exchanges here are at least on some level able to be shaped and molded by autonomous minds, let me point out yet again how I seem able to bring "metaphysical" objectivists of his ilk down to "retorts" like this.

As with Sculptor, he will participate in a discussion that qualifies [in my view] as an actual exchange of philosophy. But eventually I press him with arguments and with questions he is unable to respond to in an intelligent and civil manner. He's completely stumped and the only recourse he seems to have access to then is either "retorts" or "huffing and puffing".
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41491
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users