Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:58 pm

That fetus has been aborted. Other children have been born.

But Jane is pregnant today. Is there a possibility that she will have a baby? Is there a possibility that she will abort the baby?

Stop looking in the rear view mirror. The things that have already happened can't be "unhappened", no matter what you think or do.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12256
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:46 pm

phyllo wrote:That fetus has been aborted. Other children have been born.

But Jane is pregnant today. Is there a possibility that she will have a baby? Is there a possibility that she will abort the baby?

Stop looking in the rear view mirror. The things that have already happened can't be "unhappened", no matter what you think or do.


Presuming 1] that I understand your point and 2] that you are of the male gender, it's a good thing that you are never able biologically to find yourself confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. In the present, for example.

At least in a context where mere mortals in a No God world do have some measure of free will.

And forget the past. Jane is pregnant and does not want to be today. And, depending on the legal jurisdiction in which she resides [in any particular country], she will have the option to abort the baby/clump of cells or she won't.

So, in a world where men and women do have the capacity to choose among a range of options, what does or will happen to her if she has an abortion is the crucial point, right?

What on earth are you talking about in regard to the past?

Of course, the point I raise here that disturbs the moral objectivists among us, has less to do with what we are in fact free to do or not to do, but that in regard to our reactions to abortion as a moral issue, given free will, "I" is rooted far more subjectively/subjunctively in dasein than in any frame of mind that philosophers can provide us insofar as establishing -- categorically? imperatively? -- what rational and virtuous men and women ought to think or feel or say or do.
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 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:04 am

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:That fetus has been aborted. Other children have been born.

But Jane is pregnant today. Is there a possibility that she will have a baby? Is there a possibility that she will abort the baby?

Stop looking in the rear view mirror. The things that have already happened can't be "unhappened", no matter what you think or do.


Presuming 1] that I understand your point and 2] that you are of the male gender, it's a good thing that you are never able biologically to find yourself confronted with an unwanted pregnancy. In the present, for example.

At least in a context where mere mortals in a No God world do have some measure of free will.

And forget the past. Jane is pregnant and does not want to be today. And, depending on the legal jurisdiction in which she resides [in any particular country], she will have the option to abort the baby/clump of cells or she won't.

So, in a world where men and women do have the capacity to choose among a range of options, what does or will happen to her if she has an abortion is the crucial point, right?

What on earth are you talking about in regard to the past?

Of course, the point I raise here that disturbs the moral objectivists among us, has less to do with what we are in fact free to do or not to do, but that in regard to our reactions to abortion as a moral issue, given free will, "I" is rooted far more subjectively/subjunctively in dasein than in any frame of mind that philosophers can provide us insofar as establishing -- categorically? imperatively? -- what rational and virtuous men and women ought to think or feel or say or do.


We are not talking about what rational and virtuous people ought to do. This is a personal choice based on her circumstances. This is not about moral judgment if she chooses to abort or not. Her belief about abortion may compel her to have the baby and give it up for adoption. or she may find that worse in her mind.
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 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:30 am

peacegirl wrote:
We are not talking about what rational and virtuous people ought to do. This is a personal choice based on her circumstances. This is not about moral judgment if she chooses to abort or not. Her belief about abortion may compel her to have the baby and give it up for adoption. or she may find that worse in her mind.


Assuming that 1] my understanding of determinism is actually more rather than less incorrect than your understanding of it and that 2] we do have some capacity to opt freely in expressing our own point of view, then I'm just not decided whether you misunderstand my arguments here more or less than I misunderstand yours.

It's just too close to call.
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 Berkley Babes » Sat Feb 20, 2021 1:53 am

I don't understand how accepting that we don't have free will, will grant us greater agency for a better world. Even if I agree we don't have free will. Killers will continue to kill on homicidal impulse. And the capital punishers will continue to kill the killers, in the name of something good.

Example, I agree with classical philosophers that we know nothing. But admitting that doesn't grant me knowledge. No, I go on assuming shit like everyone else. I continue doing what I did before.

Accepting we have little to no free will is more about accepting how life is, rather than it is about orchestrating an improved world.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:32 pm

Berkley Babes wrote:I don't understand how accepting that we don't have free will, will grant us greater agency for a better world. Even if I agree we don't have free will. Killers will continue to kill on homicidal impulse. And the capital punishers will continue to kill the killers, in the name of something good.


peacegirl wrote:Everything you just said is true as long as this knowledge is not fully understood. It will be status quo as usual. Wouldn't you be interested if there is a better way even if it means containing your skepticism?

How can you know how the corollary of no free will will stop killers from killing without knowing what this author has revealed? I don’t understand why no one will read the first three chapters which cannot be explained in piecemeal fashion. I just wish you all would give this man the benefit of the doubt which no one is doing because they believe it’s just another false claim! Really, what does anyone have to lose other than a few minutes of their time? :-k


Berkeley Babes wrote:: Example, I agree with classical philosophers that we know nothing. But admitting that doesn't grant me knowledge. No, I go on assuming shit like everyone else. I continue doing what I did before.

Accepting we have little to no free will is more about accepting how life is, rather than it is about orchestrating an improved world.


peacegirl wrote:You are right, it doesn't mean anything in and of itself (it's like what came first the chicken or the egg), but it means everything when we understand what lies behind this hermetically sealed door, which will allow us to veer into a new direction of peace and brotherhood.
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 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:38 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
We are not talking about what rational and virtuous people ought to do. This is a personal choice based on her circumstances. This is not about moral judgment if she chooses to abort or not. Her belief about abortion may compel her to have the baby and give it up for adoption. or she may find that worse in her mind.


Assuming that 1] my understanding of determinism is actually more rather than less incorrect than your understanding of it and that 2] we do have some capacity to opt freely in expressing our own point of view, then I'm just not decided whether you misunderstand my arguments here more or less than I misunderstand yours.

It's just too close to call.


As I said, our differences are really not different other than semantics. I have maintained over and over again that we are free to choose in the way you are proposing. The author says it in his book: I did it something of my own free will which only means I did something because I wanted to do it, without any external constraint holding me back. I cannot keep arguing with you over definition. Either you want to hear more, or you don't, chosen of your own free will ( :D )
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 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 9:44 pm

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
We are not talking about what rational and virtuous people ought to do. This is a personal choice based on her circumstances. This is not about moral judgment if she chooses to abort or not. Her belief about abortion may compel her to have the baby and give it up for adoption. or she may find that worse in her mind.


Assuming that 1] my understanding of determinism is actually more rather than less incorrect than your understanding of it and that 2] we do have some capacity to opt freely in expressing our own point of view, then I'm just not decided whether you misunderstand my arguments here more or less than I misunderstand yours.

It's just too close to call.


As I said, our differences are really not different other than semantics. I have maintained over and over again that we are free to choose in the way you are proposing. The author says it in his book: I did it something of my own free will which only means I did something because I wanted to do it, without any external constraint holding me back. I cannot keep arguing with you over definition. Either you want to hear more, or you don't, chosen of your own free will ( :D )


No, assuming I do possess some measure of free will here and am opting to choose these words when upon further reflection I might opt to choose different words, our differences revolve more around whether semantics itself can be demonstrated to be embodied by us as a "choice" or as a choice.

It's like with Mary's dead baby. Either way it's dead.

Thus, given the exchange that we are having, accepting your understanding of determinism or mine, it was never able to be other than what it must be. What in fact it is.

Note to others:

You explain it to her. :wink:
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 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 10:48 pm

peacegirl wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
We are not talking about what rational and virtuous people ought to do. This is a personal choice based on her circumstances. This is not about moral judgment if she chooses to abort or not. Her belief about abortion may compel her to have the baby and give it up for adoption. or she may find that worse in her mind.


iambiguous wrote:Assuming that 1] my understanding of determinism is actually more rather than less incorrect than your understanding of it and that 2] we do have some capacity to opt freely in expressing our own point of view, then I'm just not decided whether you misunderstand my arguments here more or less than I misunderstand yours.

It's just too close to call.


As I said, our differences are really not different other than semantics. I have maintained over and over again that we are free to choose in the way you are proposing. The author says it in his book: I did it something of my own free will which only means I did something because I wanted to do it, without any external constraint holding me back. I cannot keep arguing with you over definition. Either you want to hear more, or you don't, chosen of your own free will ( :D )


No, assuming I do possess some measure of free will here and am opting to choose these words when upon further reflection I might opt to choose different words, our differences revolve more around whether semantics itself can be demonstrated to be embodied by us as a "choice" or as a choice.

It's like with Mary's dead baby. Either way it's dead.


It's very much alive. Understanding that semantics can get in the way of a debate by recognizing how problematic it can be, may compel you (of your own free will or volition), to make sure that all definitions are understood to mean the same thing by each person so a clear and precise debate can take place.

iambiguous wrote:Thus, given the exchange that we are having, accepting your understanding of determinism or mine, it was never able to be other than what it must be. What in fact it is.

Note to others:

You explain it to her. :wink:


Obviously, our exchange, accepting my understanding of determinism or yours, was never able to be other than what it must be, so there's no need to keep repeating it. To lessen the confusion I was trying to get you to understand that the term "free will" is perfectly fine to use in colloquial sense if it means done without external force or constraint. There is no conflict to say "I did this of my own free will", if "free will" is understood to mean "of my own desire" or "because I wanted to". Again, this does not mean man has freedom of the will. Semantic use of a particular word or expression may be learned by one's culture to mean different things. It is obviously embedded in how every person interprets and expresses their thoughts based on how the word or expression is defined by them. Anything can be a choice to opt into or out of depending on what value one sees in opting into or out of, which turns out to be one's preference at any particular moment in time (or as you put it, here and now).
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 » Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:56 pm

peacegirl wrote:As I said, our differences are really not different other than semantics. I have maintained over and over again that we are free to choose in the way you are proposing. The author says it in his book: I did it something of my own free will which only means I did something because I wanted to do it, without any external constraint holding me back. I cannot keep arguing with you over definition. Either you want to hear more, or you don't, chosen of your own free will ( :D )


No, assuming I do possess some measure of free will here and am opting to choose these words when upon further reflection I might opt to choose different words, our differences revolve more around whether semantics itself can be demonstrated to be embodied by us as a "choice" or as a choice.

It's like with Mary's dead baby. Either way it's dead.


peacegirl wrote:It's very much alive. Understanding that semantics can get in the way of a debate by recognizing how problematic it can be, may compel you (of your own free will or volition), to make sure that all definitions are understood to mean the same thing by each person so a clear and precise debate can take place.


Compelled or not, let's get this straight. Mary has no free will in the manner in which you understand it. So, if she aborts her baby in the morning tomorrow, was there any possibility that the baby would still be alive tomorrow night? *

Now, in the manner in which I understand determinism, the baby was doomed going all the way back to whatever set into motion the immutable law of matter itself.

You on the other hand speak of possible changes that precipitate a new assessment of that which constitutes a "greater satisfaction" for her. And that if this unfolds the baby may live. But, for me, both the changes and her new assessment of satisfaction is no less subsumed in the only possible reality.

Same with this exchange. Given the manner in which you understand free will and determinism, was there ever the possibility that I would not be typing these words that you are now reading?

You say...

Obviously, our exchange, accepting my understanding of determinism or yours, was never able to be other than what it must be, so there's no need to keep repeating it.


On the contrary, if human interactions unfold only as they must, given either of our understanding of free will and determinism, then "for all practical purposes" everything that we think, feel, say and do is ever and always only what it can be, will be, must be. Given the immutable laws of matter. The human brain here is just a very special kind of matter. It has evolved to bring about the psychological illusion of actual free will in the human species.

When in fact it doesn't exist.

* Here, of course, those who argue for the existence of free will say that there is the possibility that the baby will not be aborted at all. Why? Because Mary has the capacity to change her mind given a new situation. Suppose, for example, that, fortuitously, she bumps into an old friend. Jane. Jane is is opposed to abortion and, after a long discussion, is able to talk Mary into choosing to give birth instead.

But all of this unfolds only because our human minds have the capacity to continually [and to freely] weigh new information and new circumstances and, of our own volition, choose this instead of that.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40400
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:44 pm

iambiguous wrote:
peacegirl wrote:As I said, our differences are really not different other than semantics. I have maintained over and over again that we are free to choose in the way you are proposing. The author says it in his book: I did it something of my own free will which only means I did something because I wanted to do it, without any external constraint holding me back. I cannot keep arguing with you over definition. Either you want to hear more, or you don't, chosen of your own free will ( :D )


No, assuming I do possess some measure of free will here and am opting to choose these words when upon further reflection I might opt to choose different words, our differences revolve more around whether semantics itself can be demonstrated to be embodied by us as a "choice" or as a choice.

It's like with Mary's dead baby. Either way it's dead.


peacegirl wrote:It's very much alive. Understanding that semantics can get in the way of a debate by recognizing how problematic it can be, may compel you (of your own free will or volition), to make sure that all definitions are understood to mean the same thing by each person so a clear and precise debate can take place.


Compelled or not, let's get this straight. Mary has no free will in the manner in which you understand it.


Right.

iambiguous wrote: So, if she aborts her baby in the morning tomorrow, was there any possibility that the baby would still be alive tomorrow night? *


No.

iambiguous wrote:Now, in the manner in which I understand determinism, the baby was doomed going all the way back to whatever set into motion the immutable law of matter itself.


Everything that happened had to happen exactly that way. But the word "cause" is misleading.

The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions.


iambiguous wrote:You on the other hand speak of possible changes that precipitate a new assessment of that which constitutes a "greater satisfaction" for her. And that if this unfolds the baby may live. But, for me, both the changes and her new assessment of satisfaction is no less subsumed in the only possible reality.


That's like saying if something had been different leading up to the choice to abort, the baby may still be alive, but that's not reality since the event already took place. We can't undo what has already been done.

iambiguous wrote:Same with this exchange. Given the manner in which you understand free will and determinism, was there ever the possibility that I would not be typing these words that you are now reading?


No, your typing these exact words could not have been any different. I just hope that you stop repeating yourself (in the direction of greater satisfaction) as it's getting us nowhere. That's why I am asking people to read the first three chapters.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf


iambiguous wrote:You say...

Obviously, our exchange, accepting my understanding of determinism or yours, was never able to be other than what it must be, so there's no need to keep repeating it.


On the contrary, if human interactions unfold only as they must, given either of our understanding of free will and determinism, then "for all practical purposes" everything that we think, feel, say and do is ever and always only what it can be, will be, must be. Given the immutable laws of matter. The human brain here is just a very special kind of matter. It has evolved to bring about the psychological illusion of actual free will in the human species. When in fact it doesn't exist.


Before you make a choice iambiguous, you have the ability to alter your response IF you want to. Obviously, you would rather repeat the same thing over and over, which will then be part of the unfolding of your response that could not have been otherwise. To repeat: if you wanted to, you could respond differently, but this is not your preference in the direction of satisfaction (which is why will is not free, remember?)

iambiguous wrote:* Here, of course, those who argue for the existence of free will say that there is the possibility that the baby will not be aborted at all. Why? Because Mary has the capacity to change her mind given a new situation. Suppose, for example, that, fortuitously, she bumps into an old friend. Jane. Jane is is opposed to abortion and, after a long discussion, is able to talk Mary into choosing to give birth instead.

But all of this unfolds only because our human minds have the capacity to continually [and to freely] weigh new information and new circumstances and, of our own volition, choose this instead of that.


What does "and to freely" have to do with it iambiguous? Her capacity to change her mind given a different set of circumstances (e.g., meeting up with Jane) would more than likely render a different decision based on this new information which Jane is weighing. But her friend didn't show up to change her mind. This is a hypothetical situation which did not occur, therefore the baby was aborted given Jane's situation, and it could not have been otherwise now that it has already occurred.

This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature.

Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.

Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience.
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 » Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:41 pm

iambiguous wrote:Now, in the manner in which I understand determinism, the baby was doomed going all the way back to whatever set into motion the immutable law of matter itself.


peacegirl wrote: Everything that happened had to happen exactly that way. But the word "cause" is misleading.


Come on, peacegirl, if "everything that happened had to happen exactly that way", how does that not include you noting this: "But the word 'cause' is misleading."

Back again to the dead baby. Either how I understand free will and determinism or how you understand them, nothing is going to make the baby any less dead. I merely take this all the way back to whatever brought into existence the laws of matter themselves. Nothing is excluded from that.

Unless, of course, re God or some No God natural explanation we do not yet grasp, the human brain is matter that is somehow the exception.

Thus:

iambiguous wrote:You on the other hand speak of possible changes that precipitate a new assessment of that which constitutes a "greater satisfaction" for her. And that if this unfolds the baby may live. But, for me, both the changes and her new assessment of satisfaction is no less subsumed in the only possible reality.


peacegirl wrote: That's like saying if something had been different leading up to the choice to abort, the baby may still be alive, but that's not reality since the event already took place. We can't undo what has already been done.


Who cares what it's like saying if there was never any possibilty of you not noting it. Who cares if going back to the explanation for why matter unfolds only as it must, the baby was "fated"/fated, "destined"/destined to be aborted. Human "satisfaction" here is just one more manifestation of the psychological illusion of free will given my own understanding of determinism.

On the other hand, if I and others do possess some measure of actual willful volition/autyonomy/freedom, I might come across an argument able to actually persuade me to change my mind. You know, for real.

Until then...

iambiguous wrote:Same with this exchange. Given the manner in which you understand free will and determinism, was there ever the possibility that I would not be typing these words that you are now reading?


peacegirl wrote: No, your typing these exact words could not have been any different. I just hope that you stop repeating yourself (in the direction of greater satisfaction) as it's getting us nowhere. That's why I am asking people to read the first three chapters.


...this is just nonsense to me. But it could never have not been construed by me to be nonsense. So, you've got that going for you. :wink:

Obviously, our exchange, accepting my understanding of determinism or yours, was never able to be other than what it must be, so there's no need to keep repeating it.


On the contrary, if human interactions unfold only as they must, given either of our understanding of free will and determinism, then "for all practical purposes" everything that we think, feel, say and do is ever and always only what it can be, will be, must be. Given the immutable laws of matter. The human brain here is just a very special kind of matter. It has evolved to bring about the psychological illusion of actual free will in the human species. When in fact it doesn't exist.


peacegirl wrote: Before you make a choice iambiguous, you have the ability to alter your response IF you want to. Obviously, you would rather repeat the same thing over and over, which will then be part of the unfolding of your response that could not have been otherwise. To repeat: if you wanted to, you could respond differently, but this is not your preference in the direction of satisfaction (which is why will is not free, remember?)


Wow, around and around and around we go! And where we stop is, well, in tumbling over into the grave of course. Like the author. That will settle it. You know, whatever that means.

iambiguous wrote:Here, of course, those who argue for the existence of free will say that there is the possibility that the baby will not be aborted at all. Why? Because Mary has the capacity to change her mind given a new situation. Suppose, for example, that, fortuitously, she bumps into an old friend. Jane. Jane is is opposed to abortion and, after a long discussion, is able to talk Mary into choosing to give birth instead.

But all of this unfolds only because our human minds have the capacity to continually [and to freely] weigh new information and new circumstances and, of our own volition, choose this instead of that.


peacegirl wrote: What does "and to freely" have to do with it iambiguous?


Only everything if those who champion free will in the opposite of how you were not compelled by the laws of nature to encompass it are right.

In other words, they don't think about it like this:

peacegirl wrote: Her capacity to change her mind given a different set of circumstances (e.g., meeting up with Jane) would more than likely render a different decision based on this new information which Jane is weighing. But her friend didn't show up to change her mind. This is a hypothetical situation which did not occur, therefore the baby was aborted given Jane's situation, and it could not have been otherwise now that it has already occurred.


They think about it in a very, very different way instead.

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

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:22 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Now, in the manner in which I understand determinism, the baby was doomed going all the way back to whatever set into motion the immutable law of matter itself.


peacegirl wrote: Everything that happened had to happen exactly that way. But the word "cause" is misleading.


iambiguous wrote:Come on, peacegirl, if "everything that happened had to happen exactly that way", how does that not include you noting this: "But the word 'cause' is misleading."


Because it is.

iambiguous wrote:Back again to the dead baby. Either how I understand free will and determinism or how you understand them, nothing is going to make the baby any less dead. I merely take this all the way back to whatever brought into existence the laws of matter themselves. Nothing is excluded from that.


That is true, but the word cause is misleading.

iambiguous wrote:Unless, of course, re God or some No God natural explanation we do not yet grasp, the human brain is matter that is somehow the exception.


No one is saying that.

iambiguous wrote:Thus:

You on the other hand speak of possible changes that precipitate a new assessment of that which constitutes a "greater satisfaction" for her. And that if this unfolds the baby may live. But, for me, both the changes and her new assessment of satisfaction is no less subsumed in the only possible reality.


peacegirl wrote: That's like saying if something had been different leading up to the choice to abort, the baby may still be alive, but that's not reality since the event already took place. We can't undo what has already been done.


iambiguous wrote:Who cares what it's like saying if there was never any possibilty of you not noting it. Who cares if going back to the explanation for why matter unfolds only as it must, the baby was "fated"/fated, "destined"/destined to be aborted. Human "satisfaction" here is just one more manifestation of the psychological illusion of free will given my own understanding of determinism.


That is true, but just like the idea of Jane changing her mind because of new information, so too, mankind can change its mind due to new information.

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, if I and others do possess some measure of actual willful volition/autyonomy/freedom, I might come across an argument able to actually persuade me to change my mind. You know, for real.


You still don't understand iambiguous, that nothing is stopping you from changing your mind, WITHOUT FREE WILL.

iambiguous wrote:Until then...

Same with this exchange. Given the manner in which you understand free will and determinism, was there ever the possibility that I would not be typing these words that you are now reading?


peacegirl wrote: No, your typing these exact words could not have been any different. I just hope that you stop repeating yourself (in the direction of greater satisfaction) as it's getting us nowhere. That's why I am asking people to read the first three chapters.


iambiguous wrote:...this is just nonsense to me. But it could never have not been construed by me to be nonsense. So, you've got that going for you. :wink:


If it's nonsense to you, then we need to go no further because you've already made up your mind.

Obviously, our exchange, accepting my understanding of determinism or yours, was never able to be other than what it must be, so there's no need to keep repeating it.


On the contrary, if human interactions unfold only as they must, given either of our understanding of free will and determinism, then "for all practical purposes" everything that we think, feel, say and do is ever and always only what it can be, will be, must be. Given the immutable laws of matter. The human brain here is just a very special kind of matter. It has evolved to bring about the psychological illusion of actual free will in the human species. When in fact it doesn't exist.


peacegirl wrote: Before you make a choice iambiguous, you have the ability to alter your response IF you want to. Obviously, you would rather repeat the same thing over and over, which will then be part of the unfolding of your response that could not have been otherwise. To repeat: if you wanted to, you could respond differently, but this is not your preference in the direction of satisfaction (which is why will is not free, remember?)


iambiguous wrote:Wow, around and around and around we go! And where we stop is, well, in tumbling over into the grave of course. Like the author. That will settle it. You know, whatever that means.


What do you have against the author. You don't even understand what he wrote. =;

iambiguous wrote:Here, of course, those who argue for the existence of free will say that there is the possibility that the baby will not be aborted at all. Why? Because Mary has the capacity to change her mind given a new situation. Suppose, for example, that, fortuitously, she bumps into an old friend. Jane. Jane is is opposed to abortion and, after a long discussion, is able to talk Mary into choosing to give birth instead.

But all of this unfolds only because our human minds have the capacity to continually [and to freely] weigh new information and new circumstances and, of our own volition, choose this instead of that.


peacegirl wrote: What does "and to freely" have to do with it iambiguous?


iambiguous wrote:Only everything if those who champion free will in the opposite of how you were not compelled by the laws of nature to encompass it are right.


Wrong.

iambiguous wrote:In other words, they don't think about it like this:

peacegirl wrote: Her capacity to change her mind given a different set of circumstances (e.g., meeting up with Jane) would more than likely render a different decision based on this new information which Jane is weighing. But her friend didn't show up to change her mind. This is a hypothetical situation which did not occur, therefore the baby was aborted given Jane's situation, and it could not have been otherwise now that it has already occurred.


They think about it in a very, very different way instead.

Compelled or otherwise.


I know they think about it in a different way, but in the end there is only ONE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT, which is the correct way.
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 phyllo » Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:38 pm

I know they think about it in a different way, but in the end there is only ONE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT, which is the correct way.
What about the fact that belief in free-will improves performance and quality of life?
Strong belief in free will is associated with more positive attitudes, better work performance, and academic achievements. The belief in free will may cause an individual to have an increased level of perceived autonomy that they can freely act to accomplish personal goals and improve life quality. And this positive attitude enhances self-control (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... lf-control
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12256
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:42 pm

iambiguous wrote:Come on, peacegirl, if "everything that happened had to happen exactly that way", how does that not include you noting this: "But the word 'cause' is misleading."


peacegirl wrote: Because it is.


Perhaps because nothing we think, feel, say and do is excluded from whatever it is that we may or may not come to understand about the laws of matter. I merely recognize the enormous gap between what I think this might mean "here and now" and a definitive comprehension of "all there is". And in a way that, in my view, objectivists of your ilk refuse to grapple with at all. Why? Because the whole point of the argument you make is for your true self/real me/soul to be in possession of the argument itself. Back again to the psychology of objectivism.

Assuming that you really do have free will in the manner in which those who champion it claim for our species.

But this also assumes that my own understanding of determinism is the wrong one.

And here we're both stuck. Though, unlike the author, not yet dead.

iambiguous wrote:Who cares what it's like saying if there was never any possibility of you not noting it. Who cares if going back to the explanation for why matter unfolds only as it must, the baby was "fated"/fated, "destined"/destined to be aborted. Human "satisfaction" here is just one more manifestation of the psychological illusion of free will given my own understanding of determinism.


peacegirl wrote: That is true, but just like the idea of Jane changing her mind because of new information, so too, mankind can change its mind due to new information.


Note to others:

All I can do here is to ask someone to at least make the attempt at explaining to me how she can agree that what I am saying above is true, yet somehow speak of mankind "changing its mind because of new information" as though both the new information and the mind changing are not just additional inherent/necessary layers of matter unfolding over time given the only possible manner in which it could.

Then going back to the gap between whatever the hell that means and a complete understanding of existence itself.

This part in particular:

iambiguous wrote:On the other hand, if I and others do possess some measure of actual willful volition/autonomy/freedom, I might come across an argument able to actually persuade me to change my mind. You know, for real.


peacegirl wrote: You still don't understand iambiguous, that nothing is stopping you from changing your mind, WITHOUT FREE WILL.


Go ahead, I dare someone to make sense of this given what you think she means...given any particular thing that you think, feel, say or do. And then [me being "me"] note how and why it is either Good or Evil.

Finally, this:

peacegirl wrote: I know they think about it in a different way, but in the end there is only ONE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT, which is the correct way.


Let me ask you, who here at ILP does this sort of declamatory arrogance remind you of?

Hint: urwrongx, obsrvr, wendy, joker, pedro, fixed jacob, ecmandu, polishyouthgotipbanned.

And all those actual intelligent and articulate members [like peacegirl] with their own fully "thought out" TOE. Truly elaborate and comprehensive intellectual contraptions accompanied by equally fierce claims to explain the ONE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT.

IT being everything, for example.

Again, I was once one of them myself! I know what it's like to think that you have pinned the Human Condition and Reality itself to the mat.

It feels fucking great!!
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 » Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:58 pm

phyllo wrote:
I know they think about it in a different way, but in the end there is only ONE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT, which is the correct way.
What about the fact that belief in free-will improves performance and quality of life?
Strong belief in free will is associated with more positive attitudes, better work performance, and academic achievements. The belief in free will may cause an individual to have an increased level of perceived autonomy that they can freely act to accomplish personal goals and improve life quality. And this positive attitude enhances self-control (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... lf-control


Being able to choose between alternative courses of action is what we all do all day long, and it’s okay in this context to say I chose this or that of my own free will; no one had a gun to my head. No one is taking this ability away. What is being expressed, and why will is not free, is that only one possible choice can be made at any given moment; the choice being the one that moves us in the direction of “greater” satisfaction, not less.
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 23, 2021 5:05 pm

peacegirl wrote:
phyllo wrote:
I know they think about it in a different way, but in the end there is only ONE RIGHT WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT, which is the correct way.
What about the fact that belief in free-will improves performance and quality of life?
Strong belief in free will is associated with more positive attitudes, better work performance, and academic achievements. The belief in free will may cause an individual to have an increased level of perceived autonomy that they can freely act to accomplish personal goals and improve life quality. And this positive attitude enhances self-control (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... lf-control


Being able to choose between alternative courses of action is what we all do all day long, and it’s okay in this context to say I chose this or that of my own free will; no one had a gun to my head. No one is taking this ability away. What is being expressed, and why will is not free, is that only one possible choice can be made at any given moment; the choice being the one that moves us in the direction of “greater” satisfaction, not less.


It is amazing to me that not one person has read and tried to understand the first three chapters. You are completely off base iambiguous. I have told you I am not an objectivist but you refuse to accept that because you wouldn’t know what to do with it. You have classified me and put me in a box that makes it easy for you to dismiss me out of hand.

You accuse this author of intellectual contraptions (which they are not) and yet the irony is you don’t even know what his discovery is and it is not that man’s will is not free. That is the gateway that opens the door to his discovery.

You go in circles by repeating what any determinist already knows, yet you won’t let me move on. I cannot get from A to B when you say I could not have not answered the way I did. That is taken for granted from a determinist point of view but you refuse to listen to his proof.

Due to the fact that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, there is a way to prevent desiring the hurt to others as a satisfactory choice when it cannot be justified. Maybe I can start a sub forum based on the facts of the author’s premises, not mere opinions.

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 iambiguous » Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:21 pm

peacegirl wrote:It is amazing to me that not one person has read and tried to understand the first three chapters.


No, what is amazing is that you note this while acknowledging that if others here "chose" not to read them that is because, in lacking free will, there was never any possibility of them being able to choose to read them.

And even to the extent that we do possess free will in the manner in which most understand that capacity, you are so embedded in the objectivist mentality of the author that to understand what he writes is to agree with what he writes. Even if we have free will, that is the only option for those of his ilk. Hell, we've had dozens here just like him. What I call the James S. Saint/Fixed Jacob Syndrome. Or so say those of my ilk.

So, if one "chooses" to read the chapters that is entirely in sync with the laws of matter. And if one "chooses" not to read them that too is entirely in sync with the laws of matter.

And [of course] if one chooses to read the chapters and does not agree with what is written, than they have chosen to misunderstand them. No one is ever allowed not to agree with what is written.

peacegirl wrote:You are completely off base iambiguous. I have told you I am not an objectivist but you refuse to accept that because you wouldn’t know what to do with it. You have classified me and put me in a box that makes it easy for you to dismiss me out of hand.


Again, like any of what I do I am ever able not to do!!

Only with you, to speak of an objectivist as "I" understand it -- someone convinced they are wholly "at one" with a Real Me, wholly in sync with the Right Way to think, feel, say and do anything -- is particularly surreal given the way that I think that you think as I do about free will but come to very different conclusions regarding how "for all practical purposes" it "works" given what to me is still the unintelligible distinction that you make between "choice" and choice.

peacegirl wrote:You go in circles by repeating what any determinist already knows, yet you won’t let me move on. I cannot get from A to B when you say I could not have not answered the way I did. That is taken for granted from a determinist point of view but you refuse to listen to his proof.


Note to nature:

If at all possible, allow me to stop going around and around in circles long enough to explain to her how she is compelled to go around and around in circles as well. Or, you know, however the whole of reality works going back to how it all fits into an ontological -- teleological? -- explanation for existence itself.

God, perhaps?


peacegirl wrote:Due to the fact that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, there is a way to prevent desiring the hurt to others as a satisfactory choice when it cannot be justified. Maybe I can start a sub forum based on the facts of the author’s premises, not mere opinions.


Maybe? Like that actually is up to you freely? Like you have the actual option to maybe not?

All the while of course completely ignoring the part where the author and only the author is able to make the one and the only proper distinction between Good and Evil.
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 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:12 pm

Peacegirl: It is amazing to me that not one person has read and tried to understand the first three chapters.

Iambiguous: No, what is amazing is that you note this while acknowledging that if others here "chose" not to read them that is because, in lacking free will, there was never any possibility of them being able to choose to read them.

Peacegirl: that is true but I was hoping that curiosity alone would compel people to want to read. Either way they couldn’t do otherwise.

Iambiguous: And even to the extent that we do possess free will in the manner in which most understand that capacity, you are so embedded in the objectivist mentality of the author that to understand what he writes is to agree with what he writes.

Peacegirl: not necessarily. If I understand what someone writes and it’s incorrect, I don’t have to agree with him.


Iambiguous: Even if we have free will, that is the only option for those of his ilk. Hell, we've had dozens here just like him. What I call the James S. Saint/Fixed Jacob Syndrome. Or so say those of my ilk.

Peacegirl: if he was wrong regarding his observations, he would have accepted it just as he would accept 2+2 does not equal four if that turned out to be true.

Iambiguous: So, if one "chooses" to read the chapters that is entirely in sync with the laws of matter. And if one "chooses" not to read them that too is entirely in sync with the laws of matter.

Peacegirl: that’s a fine way to put it.

Iambiguous: And [of course] if one chooses to read the chapters and does not agree with what is written, than they have chosen to misunderstand them. No one is ever allowed not to agree with what is written.

Peacegirl: that is false. If there is disagreement it can be shown where there is a misunderstanding or not. If someone disagrees that 2+2 is 4, but 5, he needs to be shown why it is four. His disagreement doesn’t change this fact. Facts are different than opinions obviously. Of course you don’t believe we can’t have a little free will thrown in for good measure, therefore you resist that man doesn’t have this type of free will; the kind of free will that would allow someone to choose among options what he least prefers.

Peacegirl: You are completely off base iambiguous. I have told you I am not an objectivist but you refuse to accept that because you wouldn’t know what to do with it. You have classified me and put me in a box that makes it easy for you to dismiss me out of hand.

Iambiguous: Again, like any of what I do I am ever able not to do!!

Only with you, to speak of an objectivist as "I" understand it -- someone convinced they are wholly "at one" with a Real Me, wholly in sync with the Right Way to think, feel, say and do anything -- is particularly surreal given the way that I think that you think as I do about free will but come to very different conclusions regarding how "for all practical purposes" it "works" given what to me is still the unintelligible distinction that you make between "choice".

Peacegirl: No one is saying there is a right way to think, feel, say, or do anything. The only objective standard that conforms to this type of thought is the hurt to others that we don’t want to happen.

Peacegirl: We are able to contemplate but choice is not free or we could choose among meaningful options both what we want and what we don’t want. That’s impossible. As I already mentioned, the word cause is misleading. You have to consent to an action before it’s put into action. This is a distinction that many philosophers have a problem with because the way determinism is defined, the natural laws of causation could make them choose something even if they didn’t want it (iow, against their will). That does not happen in the real world. What we choose is our preference which is in sync with the law of greater satisfaction: an immutable law.

Peacegirl: You go in circles by repeating what any determinist already knows, yet you won’t let me move on. I cannot get from A to B when you say I could not have not answered the way I did. That is taken for granted from a determinist point of view but you refuse to listen to his proof. [/quote]

Iambiguous: Note to nature:

If at all possible, allow me to stop going around and around in circles long enough to explain to her how she is compelled to go around and around in circles as well. Or, you know, however the whole of reality works going back to how it all fits into an ontological -- teleological? -- explanation for existence itself.

God, perhaps?


Peacegirl: Due to the fact that we can only move in the direction of greater satisfaction, there is a way to prevent the desire to hurt to others as the least satisfactory choice. Maybe I can start a sub forum based on the facts of the author’s premises, not mere opinions.

Iambiguous: Maybe? Like that actually is up to you freely? Like you have the actual option to maybe not?

Peacegirl: I never said it was up to me. In actuality, choice is an illusion because we can only go in the direction of what we prefer, which only allows one choice at a time. I’ve said this all along.

Iambiguous: All the while of course completely ignoring the part where the author and only the author is able to make the one and the only proper distinction between Good and Evil.

Peacegirl: he was very clear that evil in this context only refers to something someone does to you that you don’t want done to yourself. This usually comprises of serious things that are common to most of us. For example, most people would consider it evil to shoot someone, or to beat an innocent person with a baseball bat. Can you agree that this would be, in most people’s eyes, an evil act?
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 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:05 am

Read my book first.
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:14 am

Berkley Babes wrote:Read my book first.


Yours looks interesting. It’s a novel, 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

Postby Berkley Babes » Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:15 am

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

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:29 am

Berkley Babes wrote:yeah


Is it on Amazon?
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 » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:30 am

peacegirl wrote:
Berkley Babes wrote:yeah


Is it on Amazon?


Nope, its free and can be found here:

https://americancaptive.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Berkley Babes
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:18 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:25 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Berkley Babes wrote:yeah


Is it on Amazon?


I really want to read it. I don’t normally read novels but I have a feeling I will love your book. I will absolutely read it when I’m not under pressure, which I am right now. Why don’t you put it on Amazon so people will find it?

Berkley: Nope, its free and can be found here:

https://americancaptive.wordpress.com/[/quote]
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