Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:19 pm

iambiguous wrote: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: no one is keeping you here.

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


Iambiguous: 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.

Peacegirl: you are right unless you change your mind by something that captures your interest, but either way your will is not free

Iambiguous: 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.

Iambiguous: there are no oughts, only what is preferred from moment to moment. You don’t need to be in possession of free will to be rooted in daisen.

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


Exactly!!!!

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

Peacegirl: okay

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.


Iambiguous: 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.

Peacegirl: only in that the laws cannot force her to have an abortion if she chooses not to. It’s a semantic difference. This has been a problem in the debate because when discussing determinism it is interpreted to mean that there are prescribed set of actions that must be performed because it’s already been fated that you act in accordance.

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

Peacegirl: yes but there may come a day where one’s circumstances don’t consider abortion the preferable option.
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.

This is immaterial iambiguous

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


Iambiguous: 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?

Peacegirl: you can take it or leave it. It’s up to the reader to decide whether there is something to it

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?”


Iambiguous: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.

Peacegirl: based on your background, you may not want to learn any more. That’s your unfree choice in the direction of greater satisfaction

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

Peacegirl: this is not a theory number one, and number two, it’s not a theory about everything.

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

Peacegirl: Where have my intellectual contraptions as you call them refused to go where you accused me of not going?
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:39 am, edited 2 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

Postby peacegirl » Mon Feb 15, 2021 10:46 pm

Berkley Babes wrote:I get it. You want to abolish capital punishment. Very noble. No blame wheresoever. I get it.


It’s not abolishing capital punishment without the new conditions of the environment being in place which brings about an amazing change in human conduct.
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

Postby Berkley Babes » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:40 am

peacegirl wrote:
Berkley Babes wrote:I get it. You want to abolish capital punishment. Very noble. No blame wheresoever. I get it.


It’s not abolishing capital punishment without the new conditions of the environment being in place which bring about an amazing change in human conduct.


You called me wrongheaded for accusing you wanting to gain profit from the book, and yet I was rightheaded enough to figure out who you are. I used your relentless motivations as a clue. Typically editors aren't listed alongside the author, unless there was something in it for them.

You know you go tit-for-tat with every point people make in this thread, but when I accused you of promoting the book, you deflected by promoting a different book. What a joke that was.

You're calling for people to read the book in the name of Utopia seeking. I still say you just want people to buy a book that you won't admit you will profit somehow from. It's an overpriced piece of shit.


If you don't get money for the book, who does? The author is not alive, that leaves you. Face it I caught you. Good luck with utopia. Suffering is inherent in this damn place.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:58 am

Berkley Babes wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
Berkley Babes wrote:I get it. You want to abolish capital punishment. Very noble. No blame wheresoever. I get it.


It’s not abolishing capital punishment without the new conditions of the environment being in place which bring about an amazing change in human conduct.


You called me wrongheaded for accusing you wanting to gain profit from the book, and yet I was rightheaded enough to figure out who you are.

Peacegirl: what is that supposed to mean? Because you figured out who I was (which has never been a secret), you leap to the conclusion that I’m doing this only for a profit? That’s just not true.

Berkley: I used your relentless motivations as a clue. Typically editors aren't listed alongside the author, unless there was something in it for them.

Peacegirl: I’m motivated because I know the value of his work. I am a contributor. He is the author. I never claimed to be the author. He deserves the credit. I compiled seven of his books so they won’t be lost to future generations. My motivation is pure. Your cynicism is not!

Berkley: You know you go tit-for-tat with every point people make in this thread, but when I accused you of promoting the book, you deflected by promoting a different book. What a joke that was.

Peacegirl: the book I promoted was not a deflection. I was offering one of his books that has an audio attached to it. I thought people might like listening to him speak rather than reading. Sherlock Holmes you’re not, sorry!

Berkley: You're calling for people to read the book in the name of Utopia seeking. I still say you just want people to buy a book that you won't admit you will profit somehow from. It's an overpriced piece of shit.

Peacegirl: how sad! I will give you the password to hear the audios, but I believe it won’t help because you’ve already made up your mind that my motivation is greed.


Berkley: If you don't get money for the book, who does? The author is not alive, that leaves you. Face it I caught you. Good luck with utopia. Suffering is inherent in this damn place.

Peacegirl: War, crime, and poverty are not inevitable! You didn’t catch me Berkley because I wasn’t hiding! I spent a lot of money getting his tapes made into an mp3 and years to compile his work with careful stewardship that was assigned to me. Should I not want to break even at the very least? The ebook is 600 pages for $10.00. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. BTW, Amazon gets 70 percent.
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:25 am, edited 2 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

Postby Berkley Babes » Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:09 am

You did nothing wrong, oh no. You only acted like you had nothing do with the creation of a product. You acted like a reader who was simply passing along word of mouth praise. At no time, previous to being called out, did you say that you edited the work. Everything was indirect, until now.

And now you are saying you put in tons of effort and money into something that you don't expect to get anything back from, as long as it changes the world.

Yes, your motivations were a factor in figuring out who you are. You just want views at this point and probably consider bad press good press at this point.

It's not a big deal to promote something, even if you just love the ideas behind it, but you didn't admit your part. On purpose.

Of course you should want to get something back. My problem was you were acting tricky about it.

Amazon gets 30 percent.
Last edited by Berkley Babes on Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby Berkley Babes » Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:30 am

Don't call me sherlock holmes because I caught you slipping. You knew that promoting the book indirectly was a better way of presenting the work to a free will obsessed message board. I don't blame you. I've tried similar tactics. Sorry if you are embarrassed. Now the truth is out and you don't have to guilt trip everyone into reading the entire book just to make a counter point.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm over in a different thread trying to offer my work for free. And as far as I can tell, only one person has read my book fully. I can only say I'm thankful I didn't dump money into a book cover, because I would have lost money.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:33 am

Berkley Babes wrote:You did nothing wrong, oh no. You only acted like you had nothing do with the creation of a product. You acted like a reader who was simply passing along word of mouth praise. At no time, previous to be called out, did you say that you edited the work. Everything was indirect, until now.

Peacegirl: This is not my first rodeo. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Berkley: And now you are saying you put in tons of effort and money into something that you don't expect to get anything back from, as long as it changes the world.

Peacegirl: I would like to get some money back but this is not the motive Berkley.

Berkley: Yes, your motivations were a factor in figuring out who you are. You just want views at this point and probably consider bad press good press at this point.

Peacegirl: it’s a hard position for me to be in.
Berkley: It's not a big deal to promote something, even if you just love the ideas behind it, but you didn't admit your part. On purpose.

Peacegirl: because people have used it against me. As I said I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.

Berkley: Of course you should want to get something back. My problem was you were acting tricky about it.

Amazon gets 30 percent.


I didn’t mean to be tricky. Amazon gets 70 percent unless you do KDP which gives them a monopoly. I’ll be honest with you. He was my father. People have judged me because of that which I wanted to avoid. It was not to be secretive on purpose.
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

Postby Berkley Babes » Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:39 am

I'm sorry that you lost your father before he reached his audience.

There is a book called A Confederacy of Dunces that was published after the author killed himself. He couldn't get it published in his lifetime, then his mother was relentless about publishing it after his death. It then won a major award. So it can happen. Good luck. Seriously. I wont call you out on it anymore.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:10 pm

Berkley Babes wrote:I'm sorry that you lost your father before he reached his audience.

There is a book called A Confederacy of Dunces that was published after the author killed himself. He couldn't get it published in his lifetime, then his mother was relentless about publishing it after his death. It then won a major award. So it can happen. Good luck. Seriously. I wont call you out on it anymore.


The skepticism, although understandable given the claims, is the most difficult to overcome although whatever happens in this timeline could only be that which it is.
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

Postby Berkley Babes » Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:03 pm

Bring it back, go!
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:34 pm

iambiguous wrote: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: no one is keeping you here.


You mean other than the immutable law of nature itself?

The only difference between the two of us here though is that you insist that the author has pinned down precisely what this entails in regard to, among other things, Evil around the world; while I admit that it's all just still sheer speculation on my part given the gap here between "I" and a definitive understanding of existence itself.

Yet it never fails to astonish me how the author and you and so many other objectivists here are actually able to convince themselves that their own TOE is the TOE. That their own understanding of human interactions reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding that there is.

What else can it be but the "psychology of objectivism"? After all, I was once an objectivist myself. I understand the profound pull of it in what may well be an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence that tumbles over in the abyss that is oblivion.

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.


peacegirl wrote: you are right unless you change your mind by something that captures your interest, but either way your will is not free


In other words, unless the laws of matter embodied in "my" brain compel "me" to "choose" to change "my" mind by way of the psychological illusion of "free will".

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.


peacegirl wrote: only in that the laws cannot force her to have an abortion if she chooses not to. It’s a semantic difference. This has been a problem in the debate because when discussing determinism it is interpreted to mean that there are prescribed set of actions that must be performed because it’s already been fated that you act in accordance.


You mean if she "chooses" not to.

Semantics:

"Semantics is the study of meaning, reference, or truth. The term can be used to refer to subfields of several distinct disciplines including linguistics, philosophy, and computer science."

Okay, Mary "chooses"/chooses to have an abortion. Now, given the author's own understanding of free will and semantics, was there ever the possibility that Mary could have willfully opted not to have an abortion?

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


peacegirl wrote: yes but there may come a day where one’s circumstances don’t consider abortion the preferable option.


But: will there ever come a day when Mary is able to evaluate those new circumstances autonomously such that, of her own volition, she prefers not to abort the baby?

Or is the baby doomed because, given the laws of matter as I understand them pertaining to Mary's brain, she can "choose" only that which can ever be given those very laws of 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: This is immaterial iambiguous


No, it is immaterial only if in fact it is immaterial. If, in other words, we are talking about human consciousness linked somehow to a "soul" linked somehow to a "spiritual path" linked somehow to a God or to the Buddhist universe.

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?


peacegirl wrote: you can take it or leave it. It’s up to the reader to decide whether there is something to it


Come on, we can take or leave anything that anyone like the author insists is true about the human condition. But this is still no less you completely avoiding the point I make. And, in the absence of a complete understanding of existence itself, the author himself is just "taking" what he believes "is" true as true.

Only, in a manner I still do not understand, he took it because, then and there, he "preferred" to take it while acknowledging that he like everyone else is lacking in actual, substantial free will.

Again, whatever that means. Other than what he had come to believe that it meant "intellectually" "in his head".

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.

peacegirl wrote: based on your background, you may not want to learn any more. That’s your unfree choice in the direction of greater satisfaction


The part I call dasein. Only the parameters of dasein are no less a psychological illusion given the manner in which I construe the meaning of determinism. Like pursuing my "greater satisfaction" in my dreams. I think I am choosing it in the dream but it is only my brain calling the shots. All the shots...chemically and neurologically.
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: 40400
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:14 pm

Berkley Babes wrote:Bring it back, go!


Did you read the first three chapters? It would make my life soooo much easier. :)

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

Postby Berkley Babes » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:27 pm

I will someday.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:59 pm

iambiguous wrote: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: no one is keeping you here.


iambiguous wrote:You mean other than the immutable law of nature itself?


Stop using that as an excuse. The immutable law of nature itself is not keeping you here. You are keeping you here because you prefer being here over not leaving.

iambiguous wrote:The only difference between the two of us here though is that you insist that the author has pinned down precisely what this entails in regard to, among other things, Evil around the world; while I admit that it's all just still sheer speculation on my part given the gap here between "I" and a definitive understanding of existence itself.


You are at least being honest that you don't have the answer. That doesn't mean the author doesn't.

iambiguous wrote:Yet it never fails to astonish me how the author and you and so many other objectivists here are actually able to convince themselves that their own TOE is the TOE. That their own understanding of human interactions reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding that there is.

What else can it be but the "psychology of objectivism"? After all, I was once an objectivist myself. I understand the profound pull of it in what may well be an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence that tumbles over in the abyss that is oblivion.


I'm not an objectivist, so why do you keeping bringing it up?

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.


Once again, you are talking semantics. It is okay to say "I prefer not to understand" because I am free in the sense that I am not constrained other than by my preference, BUT THIS "FREE WILL" [used in a colloquial sense; we say it all the time: I was free to do this or that') DOES NOT MEAN WE ACTUALLY POSSESS FREEDOM OF THE WILL. I still don't think you get it.

peacegirl wrote: you are right unless you change your mind by something that captures your interest, but either way your will is not free


iambiguous wrote:In other words, unless the laws of matter embodied in "my" brain compel "me" to "choose" to change "my" mind by way of the psychological illusion of "free will".


Right

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.


There is a distinction in the way you define "natural law" as if this law compels you to choose things that you didn't agree to. Yes, natural law compels you to prefer one thing over another when contemplating, but you are the one doing the choosing. Natural law, heredity, environment, God, or anything else cannot choose for YOU as if to say something other than you made the choice. IOW, you can't say "natural law made me do it, my heredity made me do it, my environment made me do it, unless you wanted to do it. To repeat: in order for the choice to be made to do it, it needs your okay. Nothing in this world can make you do something unless you want to, for over this you have absolute control. This is a very important point.

peacegirl wrote: only in that the laws cannot force her to have an abortion if she chooses not to. It’s a semantic difference. This has been a problem in the debate because when discussing determinism it is interpreted to mean that there are prescribed set of actions that must be performed because it’s already been fated that you act in accordance.


iambiguous wrote:You mean if she "chooses" not to.

Semantics:

"Semantics is the study of meaning, reference, or truth. The term can be used to refer to subfields of several distinct disciplines including linguistics, philosophy, and computer science."

Okay, Mary "chooses"/chooses to have an abortion. Now, given the author's own understanding of free will and semantics, was there ever the possibility that Mary could have willfully opted not to have an abortion?


Not at that moment since her choice was already made.

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


peacegirl wrote: yes but there may come a day where one’s circumstances don’t consider abortion the preferable option.


iambiguous wrote:But: will there ever come a day when Mary is able to evaluate those new circumstances autonomously such that, of her own volition, she prefers not to abort the baby?


Yes, if you mean by autonomous, acting alone without being persuaded by others. But having autonomy is not the same thing as having freedom of the will.

iambiguous wrote:Or is the baby doomed because, given the laws of matter as I understand them pertaining to Mary's brain, she can "choose" only that which can ever be given those very laws of matter.


She can only choose what she believes is the best choice for her at that exact moment in time. If the conditions change, she may change her preference accordingly. It may give her greater satisfaction under the new circumstances not to get an abortion.

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: This is immaterial iambiguous


iambiguous wrote:No, it is immaterial only if in fact it is immaterial. If, in other words, we are talking about human consciousness linked somehow to a "soul" linked somehow to a "spiritual path" linked somehow to a God or to the Buddhist universe.


That is not what I'm talking about. Huh? #-o

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?


peacegirl wrote: you can take it or leave it. It’s up to the reader to decide whether there is something to it


iambiguous wrote:Come on, we can take or leave anything that anyone like the author insists is true about the human condition. But this is still no less you completely avoiding the point I make. And, in the absence of a complete understanding of existence itself, the author himself is just "taking" what he believes "is" true as true.


You are off base. I don't need to understand the entire universe to understand how to build a bridge, so to speak. It's a non-sequitur.

iambiguous wrote:Only, in a manner I still do not understand, he took it because, then and there, he "preferred" to take it while acknowledging that he like everyone else is lacking in actual, substantial free will.


That is correct. Being able to choose to take it or not to take it does not mean will is free. The free will you think you have (or hope to have) is not negated because we have this ability. But this does not mean in actual reality we have free will because every movement from the slightest reflex to the most difficult decisions are movements away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, and they can only go in one direction.

iambiguous wrote:Again, whatever that means. Other than what he had come to believe that it meant "intellectually" "in his head".


It's not a belief.

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.

peacegirl wrote: based on your background, you may not want to learn any more. That’s your unfree choice in the direction of greater satisfaction


iambiguous wrote:The part I call dasein. Only the parameters of dasein are no less a psychological illusion given the manner in which I construe the meaning of determinism. Like pursuing my "greater satisfaction" in my dreams. I think I am choosing it in the dream but it is only my brain calling the shots. All the shots...chemically and neurologically.


Your brain is calling the shots, but you are your brain therefore you cannot, once again, get off the hook by saying my brain made me do it, as if you are a separate entity. Reality is not a dream though, and although we are all products of our physical and psychological make-up, we are still the agents making the choice based on those influences.
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:28 pm, edited 7 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

Postby peacegirl » Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:01 pm

Berkley Babes wrote:I will someday.


I hope soon so I can answer any questions you may have while I'm here. I promise it will be worth it, even if it just gives you food for thought. ;)
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

Postby Berkley Babes » Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:07 pm

Confucious say maybe
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby Berkley Babes » Wed Feb 17, 2021 3:25 pm

Reading Celine right now.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:35 pm

Trees die and fall, buried and for billions of years the pressure eventually is released by their surfaceing by miners, who freely form facets: of free formed light reflecting not their consistency, but the light their depth mutually reflect.

Without that , freedom from the blinders can not even scratch it's surface.


They have to be cut, along natural lines beween resisting vectors.

An alchemy of that art has risen since it's inception. Everything else enimates frim it's depth, as if. its reflection could meet it's inception on the common ground of unburied treasure!
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 8452
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:42 pm

Above [compelled or not] you stated that you were not here to debate me. And yet here you are [days later] debating me.

So: are we still going at it now because we have both chosen to do so in order to sustain what we perceive autonomously to be to our greater satisfaction? Or was this exchange "destined" to continue because what we "chose" was only what we ever could have given that our "will" is inherently/necessarily in sync with the laws of nature?

And why do I suspect that your answer will be ,"yes"?

peacegirl wrote: The immutable law of nature itself is not keeping you here. You are keeping you here because you prefer being here over not leaving.


How then do you demonstrate that I either "prefer" to stay here given the psychological illusion of free will, or that I prefer to stay here because there was the actual possibility that of my own volition I might not have preferred to?

iambiguous wrote:The only difference between the two of us here though is that you insist that the author has pinned down precisely what this entails in regard to, among other things, Evil around the world; while I admit that it's all just still sheer speculation on my part given the gap here between "I" and a definitive understanding of existence itself.


peacegirl wrote: You are at least being honest that you don't have the answer. That doesn't mean the author doesn't.


Again, compelled or not, you evade the point. How on earth does the author demonstrate his answers [about Evil in particular] insofar as his answers seem to revolve almost entirely around the intellectual assumptions that he made "in his head" about these relationships?

Going back again to Mary either "choosing" or choosing an abortion, and others either "choosing" or choosing to argue that this is moral or immoral. How does he substantiate his claims about "choice"/choice given that Mary does not have free will.

And she doesn't, right?

iambiguous wrote:Yet it never fails to astonish me how the author and you and so many other objectivists here are actually able to convince themselves that their own TOE is the TOE. That their own understanding of human interactions reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding that there is.

What else can it be but the "psychology of objectivism"? After all, I was once an objectivist myself. I understand the profound pull of it in what may well be an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence that tumbles over in the abyss that is oblivion.


peacegirl wrote: I'm not an objectivist, so why do you keeping bringing it up?


Okay, so the question then comes back to establishing whether the "greater satisfaction" I gain in bringing that up, given how "I" understand the meaning of the word, is or is not "beyond my control?"

Was I ever able to conclude and then to aver here that you are not an objectivist?

peacegirl wrote: you are right unless you change your mind by something that captures your interest, but either way your will is not free


iambiguous wrote:In other words, unless the laws of matter embodied in "my" brain compel "me" to "choose" to change "my" mind by way of the psychological illusion of "free will".


peacegirl wrote: Right


Don't you mean, "right"?

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.


peacegirl wrote: There is a distinction in the way you define "natural law" as if this law compels you to choose things that you didn't agree to. Yes, natural law compels you to prefer one thing over another when contemplating, but you are the one doing the choosing.


So, over and over and over again, where [compelled or not] we get "stuck" is in making this distinction between "choose" and choose. I am the one "choosing" to type these word here and now. As opposed to -- what -- a mindless automaton programmed to type them?

But my question is this: were the words ever not going to be typed because I preferred not to type them? Because, in turn, I willfully weighed the pros and the cons of typing them and opted [as opposed to "opted"] to type them because of my own volition I concluded that typing them would provide me with a greater satisfaction?

peacegirl wrote: Natural law, heredity, environment, God, or anything else cannot choose for YOU as if to say something other than you made the choice. IOW, you can't say "natural law made me do it, my heredity made me do it, my environment made me do it, unless you wanted to do it.


Unless, perhaps, given any or all of those things in combination, I was never able to not want to? How is that part pinned down -- scientifically, philosophically, experientially, phenomenologically, experimentally etc. -- by the author?

peacegirl wrote: To repeat: in order for the choice to be made to do it, it needs your okay. Nothing in this world can make you do something unless you want to, for over this you have absolute control. This is a very important point.


Yeah, and as a "general description intellectual contraption" in the author's head, all he need do is to believe this. That being demonstration enough to base a book on.

peacegirl wrote: only in that the laws cannot force her to have an abortion if she chooses not to. It’s a semantic difference. This has been a problem in the debate because when discussing determinism it is interpreted to mean that there are prescribed set of actions that must be performed because it’s already been fated that you act in accordance.


iambiguous wrote:You mean if she "chooses" not to.

Semantics:

"Semantics is the study of meaning, reference, or truth. The term can be used to refer to subfields of several distinct disciplines including linguistics, philosophy, and computer science."

Okay, Mary "chooses"/chooses to have an abortion. Now, given the author's own understanding of free will and semantics, was there ever the possibility that Mary could have willfully opted not to have an abortion?


peacegirl wrote: Not at that moment since her choice was already made.


Note to others:

Isn't this supposed to be what I say? Given my own understanding of determinism.

So, back again to the author making a truly profound point about human autonomy and Evil...a point that I keep failing to get. Or my point that the author's point itself is either the only point he was ever able to make given a wholly determined universe, or, given some measure of free will on his part, a point that he believes "in his head" as an "intellectual contraption".

Then we will need examples from the book in which, instead, he demonstrates empirically, experientially, scientifically, biologically, chemically, neurologically, etc., he what he believes is in fact true.

Then around and around we go:

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


peacegirl wrote: yes but there may come a day where one’s circumstances don’t consider abortion the preferable option.


iambiguous wrote:But: will there ever come a day when Mary is able to evaluate those new circumstances autonomously such that, of her own volition, she prefers not to abort the baby?


peacegirl wrote: Yes, if you mean by autonomous, acting alone without being persuaded by others. But having autonomy is not the same thing as having freedom of the will.


iambiguous wrote:Or is the baby doomed because, given the laws of matter as I understand them pertaining to Mary's brain, she can "choose" only that which can ever be given those very laws of matter.


peacegirl wrote: She can only choose what she believes is the best choice for her at that exact moment in time. If the conditions change, she may change her preference accordingly. It may give her greater satisfaction under the new circumstances not to get an abortion.


Whatever, for all practical purposes, that means.

The changed conditions result in giving her a greater satisfaction. But this greater satisfaction was always going to be an inherent/necessary part of the conditions themselves.

Like, given current conditions, somewhere around the globe a volcano is set to erupt. It erupts because of a change in those conditions and a baby is killed as a result of it. But, unlike Mary having an abortion, it didn't choose to erupt.

On the other hand, did Mary choose her abortion given changes in her conditions? Or, as with the volcano erupting, were those changes wholly in sync with the laws of matter? Such that she only "chose" to abort the baby.

Either way there was no possibility of the two babies not dying. But, with human beings, and unlike with the volcano, matter has evolved into consciousness. Precipitating what some have come to conclude is just the psychological illusion of choice.

Here and now, I am unable to explain it better than that. And, yes, I might not be understanding the distinction I make here in the most rational manner. And, if I am not, in your view, explain it all better.

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: This is immaterial iambiguous


iambiguous wrote:No, it is immaterial only if in fact it is immaterial. If, in other words, we are talking about human consciousness linked somehow to a "soul" linked somehow to a "spiritual path" linked somehow to a God or to the Buddhist universe.


peacegirl wrote: That is not what I'm talking about. Huh? #-o


Okay, but, compelled or not, it is what I am talking about here. And you will either bring what you and the author are talking about in regard to Evil and autonomy out into the world of conflicting goods [my "thing" here] or you won't.

peacegirl wrote: you can take it or leave it. It’s up to the reader to decide whether there is something to it


iambiguous wrote:Come on, we can take or leave anything that anyone like the author insists is true about the human condition. But this is still no less you completely avoiding the point I make. And, in the absence of a complete understanding of existence itself, the author himself is just "taking" what he believes "is" true as true.


peacegirl wrote: You are off base. I don't need to understand the entire universe to understand how to build a bridge, so to speak. It's a non-sequitur.


Again, from my own subjective frame of mind, that you have actually been able to think yourself into believing this from your own subjective frame of mind is perhaps your greatest accomplishment in sustaining the comfort and the consolation that the author's own comfort and consolation provided him. He concocts his very own "elaborate and sophisticated" intellectual/spiritual contraption into which he can anchor his one true Self. Or his very soul? He is even able to provide us with a way in which to rid the world of Evil itself!

And the author took it all the way to the grave! As, I suspect, you will as well.

Well, good for you!!

And you will accomplish this, I suspect further, by keeping everything pertaining to free will and Evil up in the clouds of abstraction:

peacegirl wrote: Being able to choose to take it or not to take it does not mean will is free. The free will you think you have (or hope to have) is not negated because we have this ability. But this does not mean in actual reality we have free will because every movement from the slightest reflex to the most difficult decisions are movements away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, and they can only go in one direction.


If I do say so myself.

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.


peacegirl wrote: based on your background, you may not want to learn any more. That’s your unfree choice in the direction of greater satisfaction


iambiguous wrote:The part I call dasein. Only the parameters of dasein are no less a psychological illusion given the manner in which I construe the meaning of determinism. Like pursuing my "greater satisfaction" in my dreams. I think I am choosing it in the dream but it is only my brain calling the shots. All the shots...chemically and neurologically.


peacegirl wrote:Your brain is calling the shots, but you are your brain therefore you cannot, once again, get off the hook by saying my brain made me do it, as if you are a separate entity.


Back to the truly surreal part of this exchange. The part where, given my own understanding of determinism, that is what I would say!

peacegirl wrote: Reality is not a dream though, and although we are all products of our physical and psychological make-up, we are still the agents making the choice based on those influences.


But: how to explain the "reality"/reality we "experience"/experience in the dreams? In mine, I am having the experience in the same manner that I think I am experiencing things in the world where I am fully awake.

But it is all a chemical/neurological "reality" "in the dream".

Come on, there is something very, very weird happening here?

The human brain here is just...just what exactly?

Only to be understood as the author explains it?

Yeah, 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
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40400
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Feb 18, 2021 12:32 am

iambiguous wrote:Above [compelled or not] you stated that you were not here to debate me. And yet here you are [days later] debating me.


I was hoping to get other people interested because we are not making headway, and will probably never.

iambiguous wrote:So: are we still going at it now because we have both chosen to do so in order to sustain what we perceive autonomously to be to our greater satisfaction?


Why include the word autonomous? It is confusing since autonomous does not mean free will, which is why you use it.

iambiguous wrote:Or was this exchange "destined" to continue because what we "chose" was only what we ever could have given that our "will" is inherently/necessarily in sync with the laws of nature?

Clarification: Yes, this exchange was "destined" to continue because you chose it, which means it was the only choice that you could have made given that our "will" is inherently/necessarily in sync with the laws of nature.

And why do I suspect that your answer will be ,"yes"?


You are right. This exchange was destined to continue because it gave me greater preference to answer you rather than ignore you.

These are invariable, eternal laws; but even
though our destiny is predetermined by these laws, we can only go in
one direction.


peacegirl wrote: The immutable law of nature itself is not keeping you here. You are keeping you here because you prefer being here over not leaving.


iambiguous wrote:How then do you demonstrate that I either "prefer" to stay here given the psychological illusion of free will, or that I prefer to stay here because there was the actual possibility that of my own volition I might not have preferred to?


The possibility exists for you to stay here or not to stay here (even though will is not free; this is what you're not getting), based on your own preference. Preference, volition, and autonomy are not synonymous with freedom of the will. You prefer to stay here because it gives you greater satisfaction at this moment than to leave. It's as simple as that. Your desire a second from now may be to leave, in the same direction. Every moment offers a new set of alternatives to choose from based on antecedent events and considerations.

iambiguous wrote:The only difference between the two of us here though is that you insist that the author has pinned down precisely what this entails in regard to, among other things, Evil around the world; while I admit that it's all just still sheer speculation on my part given the gap here between "I" and a definitive understanding of existence itself.


peacegirl wrote: You are at least being honest that you don't have the answer. That doesn't mean the author doesn't.


iambiguous wrote:Again, compelled or not, you evade the point. How on earth does the author demonstrate his answers [about Evil in particular] insofar as his answers seem to revolve almost entirely around the intellectual assumptions that he made "in his head" about these relationships?


He made no intellectual assumptions. He made astute observations. Evil in this context means the hurt in our relation to one another.

iambiguous wrote:Going back again to Mary either "choosing" or choosing an abortion, and others either "choosing" or choosing to argue that this is moral or immoral. How does he substantiate his claims about "choice"/choice given that Mary does not have free will.

And she doesn't, right?


She doesn't have free will. This will be her choice in the new world because she's carrying the baby. As the economic conditions change for the better, and marriages stay intact, the desire to keep a pregnancy will be increased. No one needs to tell a person that it's immoral. It's a very difficult decision for any mother-to-be to get an abortion without being judged on top of it.

iambiguous wrote:Yet it never fails to astonish me how the author and you and so many other objectivists here are actually able to convince themselves that their own TOE is the TOE. That their own understanding of human interactions reflects the optimal or the only rational understanding that there is.

What else can it be but the "psychology of objectivism"? After all, I was once an objectivist myself. I understand the profound pull of it in what may well be an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence that tumbles over in the abyss that is oblivion.


peacegirl wrote: I'm not an objectivist, so why do you keeping bringing it up?


iambiguous wrote:Okay, so the question then comes back to establishing whether the "greater satisfaction" I gain in bringing that up, given how "I" understand the meaning of the word, is or is not "beyond my control?"


Now that you decided to stay (that moment is over), you could not have done otherwise. Your preference to stay made it impossible for you to go. That doesn't mean in the next second, your preference may be to leave here, also in the direction of satisfaction.

iambiguous wrote:Was I ever able to conclude and then to aver here that you are not an objectivist?


No you couldn't, and I couldn't help but ask you why do you keep bringing this up? Both of us are compelled to do and say what we do and say.

peacegirl wrote: you are right unless you change your mind by something that captures your interest, but either way your will is not free


iambiguous wrote:In other words, unless the laws of matter embodied in "my" brain compel "me" to "choose" to change "my" mind by way of the psychological illusion of "free will".


peacegirl wrote: Right


iambiguous wrote:Don't you mean, "right"?


YOU are under a compulsion to choose whatever it is you prefer. You are controlled by this invariable law, and there is no way you can get around it, which is why it is an invariable law.

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.


We choose only what we prefer based on the options available. Yes, what we prefer is the only thing that we can prefer. There is nothing wrong with this tautology.

Tautologies are not always circular in a way that makes them trivial. They are simply true in all circumstances. Or you might say “they are not false in any circumstance.” Being necessarily true is a poor reason to dismiss an idea as trivial or redundant.

Please leave abortion out right now. This conflict of right and wrong will change over time, as I already explained. People do things in this world out of desperation. Passing judgment doesn't solve the problem. What solves the problem is changing the conditions that lead to this kind of desperation since very few women would want to abort a fetus unless they were desperate.

peacegirl wrote: There is a distinction in the way you define "natural law" as if this law compels you to choose things that you didn't agree to. Yes, natural law compels you to prefer one thing over another when contemplating, but you are the one doing the choosing.


iambiguous wrote:So, over and over and over again, where [compelled or not] we get "stuck" is in making this distinction between "choose" and choose. I am the one "choosing" to type these word here and now. As opposed to -- what -- a mindless automaton programmed to type them?


A mindless automaton can take orders from a program, and can even spit out the best option based on the input and what it is told to do. But people are different in that there is no program other than this natural law of greater satisfaction. Our choices are much more complex because of the many variables involved but they are still controlled by this invariable law. It really doesn't matter if you call yourself an automaton or not. If you want to call "greater satisfaction" as being programmed, that's fine. There is nothing in this that allows for free will.

iambiguous wrote:But my question is this: were the words ever not going to be typed because I preferred not to type them?


No, not at that second because you did, in fact, prefer to type them. You can't go back in time and not prefer to type them. The option is over.

iambiguous wrote: Because, in turn, I willfully weighed the pros and the cons of typing them and opted [as opposed to "opted"] to type them because of my own volition I concluded that typing them would provide me with a greater satisfaction?


Correct. This discussion is getting muddled because of the difference I was trying to make regarding "being in sync with the laws of matter" and "having the ability to choose". It really doesn't matter how you frame it. Let's not make it harder than it already is. These differences are insignificant because they are one and the same. I was only trying to emphasize that nothing can make you do what you don't want to do, against your will. We have been given the ability to refuse an action if it is against our better judgment.


peacegirl wrote: Natural law, heredity, environment, God, or anything else cannot choose for YOU as if to say something other than you made the choice. IOW, you can't say "natural law made me do it, my heredity made me do it, my environment made me do it, unless you wanted to do it.


iambiguous wrote:Unless, perhaps, given any or all of those things in combination, I was never able to not want to? How is that part pinned down -- scientifically, philosophically, experientially, phenomenologically, experimentally etc. -- by the author?


This cannot be pinned down empirically because we cannot prove through experiment that we move in this direction. It is an accurate observation nevertheless. The word choice is misleading. What choice do we actually have but to move in a specific direction that renders all other options an impossibility.

peacegirl wrote: To repeat: in order for the choice to be made to do it, it needs your okay. Nothing in this world can make you do something unless you want to, for over this you have absolute control. This is a very important point.


iambiguous wrote:Yeah, and as a "general description intellectual contraption" in the author's head, all he need do is to believe this. That being demonstration enough to base a book on.


This is not about convincing people of a belief. If he wasn't sure of this knowledge, he would never have spent 30 years trying to communicate what he knew. But you will tell me it's an intellectual contraption. That is YOUR intellectual contraption.

peacegirl wrote: only in that the laws cannot force her to have an abortion if she chooses not to. It’s a semantic difference. This has been a problem in the debate because when discussing determinism it is interpreted to mean that there are prescribed set of actions that must be performed because it’s already been fated that you act in accordance.


iambiguous wrote:You mean if she "chooses" not to.

Semantics:

"Semantics is the study of meaning, reference, or truth. The term can be used to refer to subfields of several distinct disciplines including linguistics, philosophy, and computer science."


peacegirl wrote:https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-semantics.html


iambiguous wrote:Okay, Mary "chooses"/chooses to have an abortion. Now, given the author's own understanding of free will and semantics, was there ever the possibility that Mary could have willfully opted not to have an abortion?


No, she couldn't have at that moment. We are talking about past tense.

iambiguous wrote:Note to others:

Isn't this supposed to be what I say? Given my own understanding of determinism.

So, back again to the author making a truly profound point about human autonomy and Evil...a point that I keep failing to get. Or my point that the author's point itself is either the only point he was ever able to make given a wholly determined universe, or, given some measure of free will on his part, a point that he believes "in his head" as an "intellectual contraption".


Yes, the author is making a profound point and it was the only point he was ever able to make. That does not mean he didn't discover why man's will is not free and why this has extreme significance for man's progress.

iambiguous wrote:Then we will need examples from the book in which, instead, he demonstrates empirically, experientially, scientifically, biologically, chemically, neurologically, etc., he what he believes is in fact true.


He demonstrated that man can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, from one moment to the next, through observation. Of course it needs to be confirmed experientially, which is easy to do. Some people call it the movement toward pleasure but that isn't accurate. We can all attest to the fact that we contemplate and choose what is our preference (whether it is the lesser of two or more evils, or the greater of two or more goods). This movement is in the direction of greater satisfaction than what the present position offers. That is the movement of all life.

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

iambiguous wrote:Then around and around we go:

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


peacegirl wrote: yes but there may come a day where one’s circumstances don’t consider abortion the preferable option.


iambiguous wrote:But: will there ever come a day when Mary is able to evaluate those new circumstances autonomously such that, of her own volition, she prefers not to abort the baby?


peacegirl wrote: Yes, if you mean by autonomous, acting alone without being persuaded by others. But having autonomy is not the same thing as having freedom of the will.


iambiguous wrote:Or is the baby doomed because, given the laws of matter as I understand them pertaining to Mary's brain, she can "choose" only that which can ever be given those very laws of matter.


peacegirl wrote: She can only choose what she believes is the best choice for her at that exact moment in time. If the conditions change, she may change her preference accordingly. It may give her greater satisfaction under the new circumstances not to get an abortion.


iambiguous wrote:Whatever, for all practical purposes, that means.


It has huge practical purposes.

iambiguous wrote:The changed conditions result in giving her a greater satisfaction. But this greater satisfaction was always going to be an inherent/necessary part of the conditions themselves.


Very true.

iambiguous wrote:Like, given current conditions, somewhere around the globe a volcano is set to erupt. It erupts because of a change in those conditions and a baby is killed as a result of it. But, unlike Mary having an abortion, it didn't choose to erupt.


True. We choose, volcanoes don't.

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, did Mary choose her abortion given changes in her conditions? Or, as with the volcano erupting, were those changes wholly in sync with the laws of matter? Such that she only "chose" to abort the baby.


Her choices were always in sync with the laws of matter. Whether she would choose her abortion given changes in her conditions, we don't know because we are just surmising, but...the chances of her desiring to have an abortion given a different set of environmental conditions, would have us predict a different outcome.

iambiguous wrote:Either way there was no possibility of the two babies not dying. But, with human beings, and unlike with the volcano, matter has evolved into consciousness. Precipitating what some have come to conclude is just the psychological illusion of choice.


Choice is an illusion, granted.

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences
otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and
A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very
misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but
in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving
towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences
what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two
or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is
compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers
worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more
satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.


iambiguous wrote:Here and now, I am unable to explain it better than that. And, yes, I might not be understanding the distinction I make here in the most rational manner. And, if I am not, in your view, explain it all better.


I'm trying to find a commonality that will let us move forward. Most of our differences are semantics, nothing more.

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: This is immaterial iambiguous


iambiguous wrote:No, it is immaterial only if in fact it is immaterial. If, in other words, we are talking about human consciousness linked somehow to a "soul" linked somehow to a "spiritual path" linked somehow to a God or to the Buddhist universe.


peacegirl wrote: That is not what I'm talking about. Huh? #-o


iambiguous wrote:Okay, but, compelled or not, it is what I am talking about here.


Yes, and I'm telling you it's irrelevant to the proof.

iambiguous wrote: And you will either bring what you and the author are talking about in regard to Evil and autonomy out into the world of conflicting goods [my "thing" here] or you won't.


I don't have to answer you in the way you deem necessary, because it is not necessary. He carefully describes how this new world will come about, in a step by step fashion. But you wouldn't know because you refuse to read it. You can't help yourself. He explains "evil" (hurt) and why it is coming to an end out of necessity, when the entire economic system will be revamped giving everyone basic economic security. Poverty is going to be wiped out. That will take a lot of conflict away, right there. #-o

peacegirl wrote: you can take it or leave it. It’s up to the reader to decide whether there is something to it


iambiguous wrote:Come on, we can take or leave anything that anyone like the author insists is true about the human condition. But this is still no less you completely avoiding the point I make. And, in the absence of a complete understanding of existence itself, the author himself is just "taking" what he believes "is" true as true.


peacegirl wrote: You are off base. I don't need to understand the entire universe to understand how to build a bridge, so to speak. It's a non-sequitur.


iambiguous wrote:Again, from my own subjective frame of mind, that you have actually been able to think yourself into believing this from your own subjective frame of mind is perhaps your greatest accomplishment in sustaining the comfort and the consolation that the author's own comfort and consolation provided him. He concocts his very own "elaborate and sophisticated" intellectual/spiritual contraption into which he can anchor his one true Self. Or his very soul? He is even able to provide us with a way in which to rid the world of Evil itself!


Yes he does, but it is not an intellectual contraption. It is you whose extreme skepticism is ruinous. Dang, you won't even read the first three chapters because of your belief that he is a fundamentalist. :-k

iambiguous wrote:And the author took it all the way to the grave! As, I suspect, you will as well.

Well, good for you!!

And you will accomplish this, I suspect further, by keeping everything pertaining to free will and Evil up in the clouds of abstraction:


There is no abstraction. There are concrete examples throughout the book. It is the most practical book you would ever want to read. You are making all kinds of assumptions! :-?

peacegirl wrote: Being able to choose to take it or not to take it does not mean will is free. The free will you think you have (or hope to have) is not negated because we have this ability. But this does not mean in actual reality we have free will because every movement from the slightest reflex to the most difficult decisions are movements away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction each and every moment of time, and they can only go in one direction.


iambiguous wrote:If I do say so myself.


So why can't you accept as a basis to continue listening to his proof. If he's wrong he's wrong, but you can't know this if you don't know what his proof is.

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.


peacegirl wrote: based on your background, you may not want to learn any more. That’s your unfree choice in the direction of greater satisfaction


iambiguous wrote:The part I call dasein. Only the parameters of dasein are no less a psychological illusion given the manner in which I construe the meaning of determinism. Like pursuing my "greater satisfaction" in my dreams. I think I am choosing it in the dream but it is only my brain calling the shots. All the shots...chemically and neurologically.


peacegirl wrote:Your brain is calling the shots, but you are your brain therefore you cannot, once again, get off the hook by saying my brain made me do it, as if you are a separate entity.


iambiguous wrote:Back to the truly surreal part of this exchange. The part where, given my own understanding of determinism, that is what I would say!


You're right. I am not disputing this.

peacegirl wrote: Reality is not a dream though, and although we are all products of our physical and psychological make-up, we are still the agents making the choice based on those influences.


iambiguous wrote:But: how to explain the "reality"/reality we "experience"/experience in the dreams? In mine, I am having the experience in the same manner that I think I am experiencing things in the world where I am fully awake.

But it is all a chemical/neurological "reality" "in the dream".

Come on, there is something very, very weird happening here?

The human brain here is just...just what exactly?

Only to be understood as the author explains it?

Yeah, right.


The human brain is subject to the laws of nature. We never had free will in the past, we don't have free will in the present, and we will never have free will in the future BECAUSE FREE WILL DOESN'T EXIST.
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

Postby iambiguous » Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:47 pm

There’s No Such Thing as Free Will
But we’re better off believing in it anyway.
Stephen Cave in The Atlantic

Yet not all scholars who argue publicly against free will are blind to the social and psychological consequences. Some simply don’t agree that these consequences might include the collapse of civilization. One of the most prominent is the neuroscientist and writer Sam Harris, who, in his 2012 book, Free Will, set out to bring down the fantasy of conscious choice. Like Smilansky, he believes that there is no such thing as free will. But Harris thinks we are better off without the whole notion of it.


All I can say to this is, "here we go again".

Harris sets about to bring down "the fantasy of conscious choice" as though what he himself consciously thinks about it is not in turn an inherent manifestation of the fantasy as well. How can we be better off regarding the whole notion of anything at all if our thoughts and feelings of being better off were/are only as they were/are/will be anyway?

I'm trying to imagine Harris's reaction to this? A reaction that is not inherently/necessarily the embodiment of the only possible reality. The mystery then still being the existence of self-conscious matter itself. In a No God world.

“We need our beliefs to track what is true,” Harris told me.


Now, given the manner in which I understand determinism, his need to suggest that, like our need to react to the suggestion as we do, is the only possible reality. It's as though I was having a dream in which Harris and I were discussing this. In the dream everything seems entirely real. What I say. What he says. But it is all just the illusion of reality, given the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, culminating in the human species acquiring brains with the genetic capacity to dream...to create and then sustain these chemical and neurological interactions.

How then is the waking brain's "reality"/reality different? And what if the difference that we intuit "in our gut" is all just part of the psychological illusion of free will.

Illusions, no matter how well intentioned, will always hold us back. For example, we currently use the threat of imprisonment as a crude tool to persuade people not to do bad things. But if we instead accept that “human behavior arises from neurophysiology,” he argued, then we can better understand what is really causing people to do bad things despite this threat of punishment—and how to stop them. “We need,” Harris told me, “to know what are the levers we can pull as a society to encourage people to be the best version of themselves they can be".


This is still all completely nonsensical to me. He starts with the assumption that conscious choice is fantastical. And then proceeds to choose words to create an argument in much the same manner that [to me] someone who believed in free will would.

As though there was a best version of any particular self out in a world that to me creates moral and political value judgments out of existential fabrications derived from particular existential trajectories derived from particular lives out in particular worlds historically, culturally and circumstantially.

And, here, presuming some measure of human autonomy.

And what on earth does it mean to discuss "what is really causing people to do bad things" when what is really causing people to think, feel, say and do everything is the fact that their brain is just more matter wholly in sync with whatever explains the so-called immutable laws of matter.

Again, a little help with this if you think you understand the point Harris and others are making that I keep missing.
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: 40400
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:32 pm

In a cosmos of no freewill, there is no better or worse including this argument, your argument or Sams argument.

There’s no better to move towards, no worse to move away from.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11563
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:23 pm

iambiguous wrote:There’s No Such Thing as Free Will
But we’re better off believing in it anyway.
Stephen Cave in The Atlantic

Yet not all scholars who argue publicly against free will are blind to the social and psychological consequences. Some simply don’t agree that these consequences might include the collapse of civilization. One of the most prominent is the neuroscientist and writer Sam Harris, who, in his 2012 book, Free Will, set out to bring down the fantasy of conscious choice. Like Smilansky, he believes that there is no such thing as free will. But Harris thinks we are better off without the whole notion of it.


We are better off believing we have free will in a society that requires us to blame and punish. But we are talking about a new approach.

iambiguous wrote:All I can say to this is, "here we go again".

Harris sets about to bring down "the fantasy of conscious choice" as though what he himself consciously thinks about it is not in turn an inherent manifestation of the fantasy as well. How can we be better off regarding the whole notion of anything at all if our thoughts and feelings of being better off were/are only as they were/are/will be anyway?


Our civilization has made progress because the people in that civilization found better ways to achieve a common goal.

iambiguous wrote:I'm trying to imagine Harris's reaction to this? A reaction that is not inherently/necessarily the embodiment of the only possible reality. The mystery then still being the existence of self-conscious matter itself. In a No God world.


Again, this is not relevant to what I am trying to convey. There is only one possible reality because free choice is an illusion. Sam Harris would be in agreement, I believe.

“We need our beliefs to track what is true,” Harris told me.

Now, given the manner in which I understand determinism, his need to suggest that, like our need to react to the suggestion as we do, is the only possible reality. It's as though I was having a dream in which Harris and I were discussing this. In the dream everything seems entirely real. What I say. What he says. But it is all just the illusion of reality, given the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, culminating in the human species acquiring brains with the genetic capacity to dream...to create and then sustain these chemical and neurological interactions.

How then is the waking brain's "reality"/reality different? And what if the difference that we intuit "in our gut" is all just part of the psychological illusion of free will.


Maybe it's all a dream. Maybe we intuit "in our gut" that free will is an illusion, but there is also a way to prove it (which I'm trying to do). The reality of no free will changes human conduct for the better. You think it's an intellectual contraption. That's your intellectual contraption.

Illusions, no matter how well intentioned, will always hold us back. For example, we currently use the threat of imprisonment as a crude tool to persuade people not to do bad things. But if we instead accept that “human behavior arises from neurophysiology,” he argued, then we can better understand what is really causing people to do bad things despite this threat of punishment—and how to stop them. “We need,” Harris told me, “to know what are the levers we can pull as a society to encourage people to be the best version of themselves they can be".


iambiguous wrote:This is still all completely nonsensical to me. He starts with the assumption that conscious choice is fantastical. And then proceeds to choose words to create an argument in much the same manner that [to me] someone who believed in free will would.


I think that is because we can use the same argument in much the same manner of someone who believed in free will. Determinism doesn't stop us from thinking through problems and finding solutions. Maybe to you that equates with free will. I don't agree that conscious choice is fantastical. It's just not free.

iambiguous wrote:As though there was a best version of any particular self out in a world that to me creates moral and political value judgments out of existential fabrications derived from particular existential trajectories derived from particular lives out in particular worlds historically, culturally and circumstantially.


Maybe so, but there is one thing that we all hope to achieve and that is less suffering in the world.

There is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of others.

iambiguous wrote:And, here, presuming some measure of human autonomy.

And what on earth does it mean to discuss "what is really causing people to do bad things" when what is really causing people to think, feel, say and do everything is the fact that their brain is just more matter wholly in sync with whatever explains the so-called immutable laws of matter.

Again, a little help with this if you think you understand the point Harris and others are making that I keep missing.


When he says "what is really causing people to do bad things" it is their brain choosing out of preference to do things that hurt others. That is why so many discussions regarding free will and determinism go back to how can we best increase moral responsibility. Harris is trying to understand the antecedent events in a person's life that could compel him (or his brain) to desire these behaviors. It is true that their brain is in sync with whatever explains the so-called immutable laws of matter, but this will never hold up in a court of law when someone is hurt by another's criminal actions. That is the essence of this debate and why it's an important one.
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

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:18 pm

iambiguous wrote:So: are we still going at it now because we have both chosen to do so in order to sustain what we perceive autonomously to be to our greater satisfaction?


peacegirl wrote:Why include the word autonomous? It is confusing since autonomous does not mean free will, which is why you use it.


Again, before moving on to all of your other [compelled or not] points, let's bring this down to earth.

Mary "chooses"/chooses to have an abortion.

Now, in the manner in which you make the distinction between human autonomy and free will, was there ever the possibility that the baby would not be killed?
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: 40400
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:40 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:So: are we still going at it now because we have both chosen to do so in order to sustain what we perceive autonomously to be to our greater satisfaction?


peacegirl wrote:Why include the word autonomous? It is confusing since autonomous does not mean free will, which is why you use it.


Again, before moving on to all of your other [compelled or not] points, let's bring this down to earth.

Mary "chooses"/chooses to have an abortion.

Now, in the manner in which you make the distinction between human autonomy and free will, was there ever the possibility that the baby would not be killed?


No iambiguous, there is no way the baby could not not have been killed. There is no way the wars and crimes through the millenia could not not have occurred.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Artimas