## Determinism

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

### Re: Determinism

Berkley Babes wrote:I should just say I'm a compatibilist, when I really observe this subject.

But as to your question, peacegirl, I can only venture to guess that the executioner can't be blamed either.

Yes, threats of punishment are viewed as a strong deterrent, but for some the law isn't seen as strong enough to prevent everyone. Crimes of passion care nothing for logical threats, as example.

Threats of punishment have never been able to stop a person who thinks he can get away with his crime and doesn’t mind taking the risk, even if he knows the punishment would be severe, if caught. Crimes of passion are due to feelings of betrayal (whether real or imagined) which then lead to injury or death.

There is a way to prevent what threats of punishment could never accomplish. I hope you read the link I posted of the first three chapters. Then we can discuss more if you’re interested.
﻿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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

I suspect you are Janis Rafael, the editor of the book that you can't help but promote to every poster.

Peace out.

Berkley Babes

Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

### Re: Determinism

Google search of Janis Rafael, editor of The Decline And Fall Of Evil.

Janis Rafael is a graduate of the University of Maryland and holds a Bachelor degree in special education. Her program is aimed at helping children take a proactive approach to safety by helping them understand the nature of risk, and how to eliminate it wherever possible

Author died.
Looks self-published
Royalties to Janis?
Last edited by Berkley Babes on Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Berkley Babes

Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

### Re: Determinism

peacegirl wrote:
Oughtist wrote:
peacegirl wrote:Mental illness is a product of the environment in which we live. For all intense and purposes, it is not genetic. When the triggers are eliminated, virtually ALL mental illness will be a thing of the past.

Does this apply to conditions such as Autism and Down's Syndrome? FYI: I'm a special ed. teacher...

I am also a Special Ed graduate. This knowledge prevents those things that are caused by man's ignorance. If Down's syndrome is a genetic problem, then no, we need to continue to search for answers. But if Autism is caused by mercury in the vaccinations (which is an unknown at this point), then yes, it could have an effect. Once we are given free reign to do anything we want, we suddenly won't want to do anything that could lead to a situation that we would be responsible for.

Berkley Babes

Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

### Re: Determinism

Berkley Babes wrote:I suspect you are Janis Rafael, the editor of the book that you can't help but promote to every poster.

Peace out.

Don't worry Janis, I have a book to promote, too.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=195454

Berkley Babes

Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

### Re: Determinism

peacegirl wrote:
You’re wrong. How sad that you can’t open your mind iambiguous. It is YOU that is in a box where no one can penetrate. That is why we cannot communicate. I am not an objectivist but you wouldn’t know it because you have convinced yourself that I am and that it is my devotion that is skewed. I will let the reader decide who is being misled here. Btw, you are just as invested, if not more, in your ideology so please don’t put yourself on a pedestal.

Again:

...notice how she keeps this all up in the clouds of abstraction. How she avoids this part...

...all we need is for someone to describe what their own purpose in life is. And then to explain/demonstrate how they know that they arrived at this conclusion of their own free will.

And...

...if, as peacegirl contends, they have no free will, then how could that purpose have been anything other than the only possible purpose they could have described?

Starting with her own purpose.

And [of course] this part:

peacegirl wrote: We have no free will but that does not mean we are mindless robots.

Okay, so explain in some detail the difference between human beings inventing mindless robots and nature inventing human beings with minds that possess no free will. Insofar as distinctions are made here and elsewhere between the "evil Trump" and the "evil Biden".

How was the author's own distinction regarding Good and Evil behavior not but another example of how "I" make that distinction myself on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

She will take her "general description intellectual contraptions" above here or she won't.

Compelled to or otherwise.
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

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 40400
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Determinism

Berkley Babes wrote:Google search of Janis Rafael, editor of The Decline And Fall Of Evil.

Janis Rafael is a graduate of the University of Maryland and holds a Bachelor degree in special education. Her program is aimed at helping children take a proactive approach to safety by helping them understand the nature of risk, and how to eliminate it wherever possible

Author died.
Looks self-published
Royalties to Janis?

Yes, I wrote a children’s book. The author who died was Seymour Lessans (1918-1991)
﻿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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
You’re wrong. How sad that you can’t open your mind iambiguous. It is YOU that is in a box where no one can penetrate. That is why we cannot communicate. I am not an objectivist but you wouldn’t know it because you have convinced yourself that I am and that it is my devotion that is skewed. I will let the reader decide who is being misled here. Btw, you are just as invested, if not more, in your ideology so please don’t put yourself on a pedestal.

Again:

...notice how she keeps this all up in the clouds of abstraction. How she avoids this part...

...all we need is for someone to describe what their own purpose in life is. And then to explain/demonstrate how they know that they arrived at this conclusion of their own free will.

And...

...if, as peacegirl contends, they have no free will, then how could that purpose have been anything other than the only possible purpose they could have described?

Starting with her own purpose.

And [of course] this part:

peacegirl wrote: We have no free will but that does not mean we are mindless robots.

Okay, so explain in some detail the difference between human beings inventing mindless robots and nature inventing human beings with minds that possess no free will. Insofar as distinctions are made here and elsewhere between the "evil Trump" and the "evil Biden".

How was the author's own distinction regarding Good and Evil behavior not but another example of how "I" make that distinction myself on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

She will take her "general description intellectual contraptions" above here or she won't.

Compelled to or otherwise.

If you had read the first chapter you would have your answer. Nothing is going to satisfy you because you don’t have a grasp of anything the author is conveying. My response regarding good and evil will only cause confusion. That is why I asked people to read the link I posted and from there a productive discussion can take place.
Last edited by peacegirl on Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
﻿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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
You’re wrong. How sad that you can’t open your mind iambiguous. It is YOU that is in a box where no one can penetrate. That is why we cannot communicate. I am not an objectivist but you wouldn’t know it because you have convinced yourself that I am and that it is my devotion that is skewed. I will let the reader decide who is being misled here. Btw, you are just as invested, if not more, in your ideology so please don’t put yourself on a pedestal.

Again:

...notice how she keeps this all up in the clouds of abstraction. How she avoids this part...

...all we need is for someone to describe what their own purpose in life is. And then to explain/demonstrate how they know that they arrived at this conclusion of their own free will.

And...

...if, as peacegirl contends, they have no free will, then how could that purpose have been anything other than the only possible purpose they could have described?

Starting with her own purpose.

And [of course] this part:

peacegirl wrote: We have no free will but that does not mean we are mindless robots.

Okay, so explain in some detail the difference between human beings inventing mindless robots and nature inventing human beings with minds that possess no free will. Insofar as distinctions are made here and elsewhere between the "evil Trump" and the "evil Biden".

How was the author's own distinction regarding Good and Evil behavior not but another example of how "I" make that distinction myself on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

She will take her "general description intellectual contraptions" above here or she won't.

Compelled to or otherwise.

I hate to stoop to this, but, really, what "choice"/choice do I have: she's chickenshit.
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

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 40400
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Determinism

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
You’re wrong. How sad that you can’t open your mind iambiguous. It is YOU that is in a box where no one can penetrate. That is why we cannot communicate. I am not an objectivist but you wouldn’t know it because you have convinced yourself that I am and that it is my devotion that is skewed. I will let the reader decide who is being misled here. Btw, you are just as invested, if not more, in your ideology so please don’t put yourself on a pedestal.

Again:

...notice how she keeps this all up in the clouds of abstraction. How she avoids this part...

...all we need is for someone to describe what their own purpose in life is. And then to explain/demonstrate how they know that they arrived at this conclusion of their own free will.

And...

...if, as peacegirl contends, they have no free will, then how could that purpose have been anything other than the only possible purpose they could have described?

Starting with her own purpose.

And [of course] this part:

peacegirl wrote: We have no free will but that does not mean we are mindless robots.

Okay, so explain in some detail the difference between human beings inventing mindless robots and nature inventing human beings with minds that possess no free will. Insofar as distinctions are made here and elsewhere between the "evil Trump" and the "evil Biden".

How was the author's own distinction regarding Good and Evil behavior not but another example of how "I" make that distinction myself on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

She will take her "general description intellectual contraptions" above here or she won't.

Compelled to or otherwise.

iambiguous: I hate to stoop to this, but, really, what "choice"/choice do I have: she's chickenshit.

peacegirl: You have a choice to read it or not. If you choose not to, then that is more preferable to you than not reading it, in the direction of greater satisfaction, but that means I can’t engage with you because we have no basis for communication.
﻿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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
You’re wrong. How sad that you can’t open your mind iambiguous. It is YOU that is in a box where no one can penetrate. That is why we cannot communicate. I am not an objectivist but you wouldn’t know it because you have convinced yourself that I am and that it is my devotion that is skewed. I will let the reader decide who is being misled here. Btw, you are just as invested, if not more, in your ideology so please don’t put yourself on a pedestal.

Again:

...notice how she keeps this all up in the clouds of abstraction. How she avoids this part...

...all we need is for someone to describe what their own purpose in life is. And then to explain/demonstrate how they know that they arrived at this conclusion of their own free will.

And...

...if, as peacegirl contends, they have no free will, then how could that purpose have been anything other than the only possible purpose they could have described?

Starting with her own purpose.

And [of course] this part:

peacegirl wrote: We have no free will but that does not mean we are mindless robots.

Okay, so explain in some detail the difference between human beings inventing mindless robots and nature inventing human beings with minds that possess no free will. Insofar as distinctions are made here and elsewhere between the "evil Trump" and the "evil Biden".

How was the author's own distinction regarding Good and Evil behavior not but another example of how "I" make that distinction myself on this thread: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

She will take her "general description intellectual contraptions" above here or she won't.

Compelled to or otherwise.

If you had read the first chapter you would have your answer. Nothing is going to satisfy you because you don’t have a grasp of anything the author is conveying. My response regarding good and evil will only cause confusion. That is why I asked people to read the link I posted and from there a productive discussion can take place.

Evil only means doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

peacegirl wrote: You have a choice to read it or not. If you choose not to, then that is more preferable to you than not reading it, in the direction of greater satisfaction, but that means I can’t engage with you because we have no basis for communication.

You know, whatever, for all practical purposes, that means.

Me, I'll stick with speculating that if I am in possession of free will, then my preferences here are rooted more in dasein than in whatever philosophers can ascertain as to that which all rational men and women ought to prefer.

And, if I am not in possession of free will, then my preferences are only what they ever could have been given that they are derived from a mind derived from a brain that is matter no less inherently and necessarily "at one" with its own immutable laws.

And that the most profound mystery of all still revolves around explaining how, after the Big Bang [or whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself], mindless matter was able to configure into self-conscious mindful matter.

Given yet another gigantic assumption: that we live in a No God world.

Look, I don't have a Self here that comforts and consoles me. And I don't have a book to sell.

And I sure as shit recognize that, given the gap between "I" and "all there is", there is almost no possibility that what I argue here is anywhere near to being the best of all possible explanations.
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

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 40400
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Determinism

peacegirl wrote:
Berkley Babes wrote:Google search of Janis Rafael, editor of The Decline And Fall Of Evil.

Janis Rafael is a graduate of the University of Maryland and holds a Bachelor degree in special education. Her program is aimed at helping children take a proactive approach to safety by helping them understand the nature of risk, and how to eliminate it wherever possible

Author died.
Looks self-published
Royalties to Janis?

Yes, I wrote a children’s book. The author who died was Seymour Lessans (1918-1991)

I figure you get $17.50 after amazon gets it 30 percent cut. I read the first chapter. Some of the arguements sound lifted straight out of Notes From the Underground, such as 2+2=4, so therefore no free will. Sorry that is not a new discovery. The man underground had already banged his head on the wall over such an idea. But you can gloss over the fact that you edited the book that won you over and changed your world. And you probably collect money on the new edition since he's not alive. Stop telling people to read the book, just tell them you stuff your pockets. Berkley Babes Posts: 485 Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm Location: The Virtuplex ### Re: Determinism peacegirl wrote: Evil only means doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves. http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf Back again then to why, if the minds of individual human beings do possess some measure of free will, they choose to do what they do. Why do some here insist that Trump is the incarnation of Evil, while others insists it is Biden? Why do some here insist that having an abortion is the incarnation of Evil, while others insist it is forcing women to give birth? So, even given human autonomy, my own "I" here remains fractured and fragmented. And if the minds of individual human beings do not possess free will? Then, from my frame of mind, what people prefer Evil to mean is what they were never able to not prefer it to mean. And what people "choose" to do is interchangeable with what others "choose" not to do. What they do or don't do is the only possible reality there can ever be if my own understanding of determinism is correct. Which I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate one way or the other. Compelled or not. In other words, just like you and everyone else here. Unless of course I'm wrong. But I'm figuring that if I am wrong, and this age-old predicament/quandary/paradox/antinomy has in fact finally been resolved it would be all over the media across the globe. And it's not, right? 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 iambiguous ILP Legend Posts: 40400 Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm Location: baltimore maryland ### Re: Determinism iambiguous wrote: peacegirl wrote: You have a choice to read it or not. If you choose not to, then that is more preferable to you than not reading it, in the direction of greater satisfaction, but that means I can’t engage with you because we have no basis for communication. You know, whatever, for all practical purposes, that means. Peacegirl: why don’t you try to understand rather than defend your position. Me, I'll stick with speculating that if I am in possession of free will, then my preferences here are rooted more in dasein than in whatever philosophers can ascertain as to that which all rational men and women ought to prefer. Peacegirl: There is no “what we ought to prefer.” There is only what we do, in fact, prefer based on our heredity and environment. Iambiguous: And, if I am not in possession of free will, then my preferences are only what they ever could have been given that they are derived from a mind derived from a brain that is matter no less inherently and necessarily "at one" with its own immutable laws. Peacegirl: we are controlled by immutable laws but that does not remove our ability to choose. We do it all day long but this does not grant us free will. Iambiguous: And that the most profound mystery of all still revolves around explaining how, after the Big Bang [or whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself], mindless matter was able to configure into self-conscious mindful matter. Peacegirl: it is a mystery but it doesn’t change the fact that we have NO FREE WILL. Iambiguous: Given yet another gigantic assumption: that we live in a No God world. Peacegirl: we live in a world that is controlled by mathematical laws, which include the laws of our nature. Iambiguous: Look, I don't have a Self here that comforts and consoles me. And I don't have a book to sell. Peacegirl: what are you implying? Iambiguous: And I sure as shit recognize that, given the gap between "I" and "all there is", there is almost no possibility that what I argue here is anywhere near to being the best of all possible explanations. Peacegirl: if you know this then why can’t you open your mind rather than accuse me of “intellectual contraptions, objectivism, and being in my head?” ﻿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: 1525 Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm ### Re: Determinism Berkley Babes wrote: peacegirl wrote: Berkley Babes wrote:Google search of Janis Rafael, editor of The Decline And Fall Of Evil. Janis Rafael is a graduate of the University of Maryland and holds a Bachelor degree in special education. Her program is aimed at helping children take a proactive approach to safety by helping them understand the nature of risk, and how to eliminate it wherever possible Author died. Looks self-published Royalties to Janis? Yes, I wrote a children’s book. The author who died was Seymour Lessans (1918-1991) I figure you get$17.50 after amazon gets it 30 percent cut.

I read the first chapter. Some of the arguements sound lifted straight out of Notes From the Underground, such as 2+2=4, so therefore no free will.

Peacegirl: what the hell! Did you just scroll and make a hasty judgment based on a few words?

Berkeley Babes: Sorry that is not a new discovery. The man underground had already banged his head on the wall over such an idea.

Peacegirl: what’s the idea Berkley?

Berkley: But you can gloss over the fact that you edited the book that won you over and changed your world. And you probably collect money on the new edition since he's not alive. Stop telling people to read the book, just tell them you stuff your pockets.

Peacegirl: how wrongheaded can someone be! This book is not for you.
﻿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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

Yes, it's not for me. It's absurd to tell people they have no free will, then to improve the world without a will to do so.

Berkley Babes

Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

### Re: Determinism

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Evil only means doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves.

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

Back again then to why, if the minds of individual human beings do possess some measure of free will, they choose to do what they do. Why do some here insist that Trump is the incarnation of Evil, while others insists it is Biden? Why do some here insist that having an abortion is the incarnation of Evil, while others insist it is forcing women to give birth?

Peacegirl: they don’t have any measure of free will because they cannot choose of alternatives what is the least preferable in comparison.

Iambiguous: So, even given human autonomy, my own "I" here remains fractured and fragmented.

Iambiguous: And if the minds of individual human beings do not possess free will? Then, from my frame of mind, what people prefer Evil to mean is what they were never able to not prefer it to mean. And what people "choose" to do is interchangeable with what others "choose" not to do. What they do or don't do is the only possible reality there can ever be if my own understanding of determinism is correct.

Peacegirl: you’re right that once something is done it is the only reality it could ever have been, and in keeping with that we are also able to veer in a new direction as new knowledge is introduced: that also being part of the causal chain of human interaction.

Iambiguous: Which I have absolutely no capacity to demonstrate one way or the other. Compelled or not.

In other words, just like you and everyone else here.

Unless of course I'm wrong.

But I'm figuring that if I am wrong, and this age-old predicament/quandary/paradox/antinomy has in fact finally been resolved it would be all over the media across the globe.

And it's not, right?

Peacegirl: It would have been but the timing wasn’t right. Mankind had to develop and part of that development was the need to believe man’s will was free which justified the punishment that followed, for without the belief that man could have done otherwise, how could we punish and incarcerate the perpetrators, which is the cornerstone of our civilization. But we have been given a solution which will change our world for the better. You have falsely concluded that because the knowledge of man’s true nature is not all over the media, it can’t be right.
﻿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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

Not every choice is based on what's preferable.

Sometimes choices are made against one's own best self interests, just to prove, at least to one self, that some agency was involved.

Berkley Babes

Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

### Re: Determinism

Berkley Babes wrote:Yes, it's not for me. It's absurd to tell people they have no free will, then to improve the world without a will to do so.

You must be new to the debate. Who said that no free will means we don’t have a will. That’s absurd. It’s just not a FREE will.
﻿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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

Berkley Babes wrote:Not every choice is based on what's preferable.

Sometimes choices are made against one's own best self interests, just to prove, at least to one self, that some agency was involved.

Don’t you see that trying to prove we have agency by doing something against our self interest only proves that we can make choices based on a new set of conditions which don’t follow the predictable path. If we are not being constrained by external forces, we can say we are free to make a choice (no gun to our head) but that does not mean we have freedom of the will. IOW, we can change our course at any time if we foresee a better outcome. Determinism does not mean there is a prescribed program that you are compelled to follow without your consent. Nothing can make you do anything against your will, which is an important principle.
Last edited by peacegirl on Mon Feb 15, 2021 9:09 pm, edited 5 times in total.
﻿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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

peacegirl wrote:
Berkley Babes wrote:Not every choice is based on what's preferable.

Sometimes choices are made against one's own best self interests, just to prove, at least to one self, that some agency was involved.

Don’t you see that trying to prove that you have agency IS in the direction of what offers greater satisfaction, the reason will is not free. Determinism does not mean there is a prescribed program that you must follow without your consent. Nothing can make you do anything against your will.

I can see that. Free will is an illusion. But it is a convincing one.

Berkley Babes

Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

### Re: Determinism

Berkley Babes wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Berkley Babes wrote:Not every choice is based on what's preferable.

Sometimes choices are made against one's own best self interests, just to prove, at least to one self, that some agency was involved.

Don’t you see that trying to prove that you have agency IS in the direction of what offers greater satisfaction, the reason will is not free. Determinism does not mean there is a prescribed program that you must follow without your consent. Nothing can make you do anything against your will.

I can see that. Free will is an illusion. But it is a convincing one.

It is, but the knowledge that man’s will is not free has huge implications for the betterment of our world so it’s time people listen
﻿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: 1525
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

### Re: Determinism

Note to others:

Trust me: when you are waiting for godot -- compelled to or not -- engaging in utterly futile discussions like this is interchangeable with anything else that you might be doing.

That's why.

peacegirl wrote: why don’t you try to understand rather than defend your position.

Because, as with Bartleby, the scrivener, I prefer not to. Though, unlike him [perhaps], I prefer not to only because I do not possess the free will enabling me not to prefer not to.

Or something like that. These discussions can get, well, surreal at times.

For instance...

Me, I'll stick with speculating that if I am in possession of free will, then my preferences here are rooted more in dasein than in whatever philosophers can ascertain as to that which all rational men and women ought to prefer.

peacegirl wrote: There is no “what we ought to prefer.” There is only what we do, in fact, prefer based on our heredity and environment.

Exactly!!!!

Only, compelled or not, I prefer this to mean something other than you do.

And, if I am not in possession of free will, then my preferences are only what they ever could have been given that they are derived from a mind derived from a brain that is matter no less inherently and necessarily "at one" with its own immutable laws.

peacegirl wrote: we are controlled by immutable laws but that does not remove our ability to choose. We do it all day long but this does not grant us free will.

Yeah, and around and around and around you go...inside your head. We "choose" only what we "prefer" to "choose" but what we "prefer" to "choose" is the only thing that we can "choose". Or however you rationalize the distinction between Mary "choosing" to have an abortion and Mary choosing to have one.

Either way though the baby is shredded. Having no "choice"/choice at all in the matter.

And that the most profound mystery of all still revolves around explaining how, after the Big Bang [or whatever brought into existence the existence of existence itself], mindless matter was able to configure into self-conscious mindful matter.

peacegirl wrote: it is a mystery but it doesn’t change the fact that we have NO FREE WILL.

And you have thoroughly researched this going all the way back to the author's explanation for the existence of existence itself? Is that in the book? Or, in order for you to sustain the illusion of certainty, sustaining whatever comfort and consolation [and income?] the author provides you, is that part really just a trivial pursuit?

And I sure as shit recognize that, given the gap between "I" and "all there is", there is almost no possibility that what I argue here is anywhere near to being the best of all possible explanations.

peacegirl wrote: if you know this then why can’t you open your mind rather than accuse me of “intellectual contraptions, objectivism, and being in my head?”

Well, among other reasons, there have been any number of folks here in ILP [over the years] that insisted, in turn, that, if only I would open my mind and read their books or posts or arguments, I would be persuaded to go down their own TOE path.

But, as with you and the author, their arguments are almost always just that: theories of everything.

Truly elaborate and at times amazingly sophisticated intellectual contraptions that refuse to go where I accuse you above of not going.
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

iambiguous
ILP Legend

Posts: 40400
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

### Re: Determinism

I get it. You want to abolish capital punishment. Very noble. No blame wheresoever. I get it.

Berkley Babes

Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

PreviousNext