Determinism

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

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 05, 2021 1:39 am

phyllo wrote:Your logic is ... "If they read the chapters, then they will agree with the author. They don't agree, therefore they have not read the chapters"?


8)
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40749
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:20 pm

iambiguous wrote:
phyllo wrote:Your logic is ... "If they read the chapters, then they will agree with the author. They don't agree, therefore they have not read the chapters"?



8)


Nageli disagreed with Mendel. He was wrong. The only way to prove that he was right is to see that there are no exceptions as far as “greater satisfaction”. I have no desire to go further because you have not met me halfway.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:52 pm

The only way to prove that he was right is to see that there are no exceptions as far as “greater satisfaction”.
You can try to show that people will become more responsible rather than less responsible when blame is removed. I don't think that's clearly established in the book.

And it's a critical part of the proposed system. If people become less responsible then the whole thing fails.
I have no desire to go further because you have not met me halfway.
I'm not going to read it again. And I'm not going to pretend to read 10 pages per day of a pdf that I have already read. #-o
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:09 pm

phyllo wrote:
The only way to prove that he was right is to see that there are no exceptions as far as “greater satisfaction”.
You can try to show that people will become more responsible rather than less responsible when blame is removed. I don't think that's clearly established in the book.

And it's a critical part of the proposed system. If people become less responsible then the whole thing fails.


You’re absolutely right, but it doesn’t fall apart.
I have no desire to go further because you have not met me halfway.


Phyllo: I'm not going to read it again. And I'm not going to pretend to read 10 pages per day of a pdf that I have already read. #-o

Peacegirl: If I cannot entice you I’m sorry. I don’t believe you read the first three chapters carefully or you would have had more questions. It really doesn’t matter if that’s your final decision. What you choose to do or not do is your choice in the direction of greater satisfaction. :smile:
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Mon Apr 05, 2021 4:34 pm

You’re absolutely right, but it doesn’t fall apart.
That settles it. :icon-eek:
I don’t believe you read the first three chapters carefully or you would have had more questions.
You don't even answer the questions that I do ask. Why would I pose even more questions??
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Apr 05, 2021 5:31 pm

phyllo wrote:
You’re absolutely right, but it doesn’t fall apart.
That settles it. :icon-eek:
I don’t believe you read the first three chapters carefully or you would have had more questions.
You don't even answer the questions that I do ask. Why would I pose even more questions??


Phyllo, I’ve answered every question that you asked. You are just skeptical. If you ever feel like reading the book you can always find it online.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Mon Apr 05, 2021 6:27 pm

Phyllo, I’ve answered every question that you asked.

Here I'm basically asking what you have that shows people will be more responsible without blame:
phyllo wrote:

The only way to prove that he was right is to see that there are no exceptions as far as “greater satisfaction”.


You can try to show that people will become more responsible rather than less responsible when blame is removed. I don't think that's clearly established in the book.

And it's a critical part of the proposed system. If people become less responsible then the whole thing fails.



You’re absolutely right, but it doesn’t fall apart.

I don't think that's an adequate response.

It's not the first time I asked. Never got a reply that addresses the question. :(
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:24 pm

phyllo wrote:
Phyllo, I’ve answered every question that you asked.

Here I'm basically asking what you have that shows people will be more responsible without blame:
phyllo wrote:

The only way to prove that he was right is to see that there are no exceptions as far as “greater satisfaction”.


Peacegirl: That’s not all of it.

You can try to show that people will become more responsible rather than less responsible when blame is removed. I don't think that's clearly established in the book.

Phyllo: And it's a critical part of the proposed system. If people become less responsible then the whole thing fails.

Peacegirl: You’re absolutely right, but nothing falls apart.

Phyllo: I don't think that's an adequate response.

It's not the first time I asked. Never got a reply that addresses the question. :(

Peacegirl: I have answered you but you can’t expect a full understanding from a thread. It is very clear in the book as to why people become more responsible when all blame is removed. But there is more to it than just removing blame. I already explained that the possibility of being hurt by the economic system activates and justifies doing whatever one has to do for self-preservation. When this pervasive insecurity is gone, along with the removal of critical judgment and telling others what to do (which was necessary in the world of free will), the justification to hurt others in order to gain at their expense will no longer be a preferable option. I know you will tell me I didn’t answer your question. :sad:
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:28 pm

iambiguous wrote:First of all, what is always most fascinating to me about exchanges revolving around free will is how, whatever the ultimate reality is, both sides have to, well, shift gears to at least some semblance of free will. Otherwise, from my current frame of mind, the entire exchange was, is and will ever be only as it ever could have been.


peacegirl wrote:That is true, but when this principle is applied, and all blame is removed from the environment (including anything that judges your actions in advance as right or wrong), you can't use the laws of matter as an excuse for killing someone, or any other excuse when all justification has been removed.


But the principle is "applied" only in a mind that embodies the illusion of free willing in "applying" it. Except, for reasons embedded in the laws of nature as well, you create this no free will/free will reality where the mind "applies" it.

iambiguous wrote:You basically do the same thing. But: in a way I am still unable to fully grasp. You insist that we do not possess free will and that, yes, everything up to the present is only as it ever could be. But somehow at the present and in the future it's...different? Again, I am simply unable to grasp what on earth you mean by that "for all practical purposes".


peacegirl wrote:It's not different, but just as we make choices based on our present knowledge, so too do we make future choices based on a different set of choices, all in the direction of greater satisfaction. I have to post the same excerpt again because you obviously didn't retain anything.


Here's the part where I point out that I retain only what I was ever able to retain. And that all the "sets of choices" -- past, present and future -- are intertwined in the only possible reality.

As for excerpts like this...

the author wrote: By discovering
this well concealed law and demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to
speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic
change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing
what will be called miracles though they do not transcend the laws of
nature.
The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and
all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a
different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and
their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in
such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is
difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what
I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried
to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the
reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as
impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which
is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and
compared to our present understanding of human nature.


...from now on please don't include them unless you note where the author also makes the attempt to demonstrate how he goes about proving that his arguments are not just an intellectual contraption consisting of words that merely define and defend other words.

iambiguous wrote:Now, given your own understanding of what you "chose"/chose to write about Greene's review, what specific evidence do you have that he made up things and did not read the book.

Because you say so?


peacegirl wrote: Not because I say so iambiguous. This guy had no understanding of the second or third discoveries, and he misrepresented the first. There is no mention of dissenters or military in the entire book. If you believe Greene who was just some troll on the internet, then go ahead, but there is no point in my being here.


Note to nature:

Please explain to her the meaning of the words "specific evidence".

iambiguous wrote:And explain once again how, even if he did these things in the only possible reality, he was still worthy of your censure. To me that's the sort of censure we'd hear from those convinced that free will is the real deal.[/b]


peacegirl wrote: I'm not blaming him when I know he couldn't help himself, but he would never have made a fake review in the new world. He struck the first blow and I was justifiably upset because people count on reviews to be objective. I'm over it though. Eventually there will be rave reviews and they will replace this poor one.


I'm sorry, but...huh?

Back to the future again? You level all of these accusations at him for something he could never have not done here and now. He could never have not struck the first blow either but in the future...what? Compelled or not, when you go to this mystical future, it's all just intellectual gibberish to me. Like something ecmandu would post. But he has a "condition".

peacegirl wrote:Not everyone flocks to someone who makes an important finding. Take Gregor Mendel, for example, whom the author quotes in his book.


iambiguous wrote:As though this doesn't just explain away the distinction I make between Einstein and Edison on the one hand, and your author on the other.

As for Mendel, same thing. The work that he did resulted in actual either/or information and knowledge about genes. He is called the "father of modern genetics" for a reason.

So, when will your author be called "the father of modern free will and evil"?


peacegirl wrote: I don't care what he will be called. You sound resentful.


Again! What does that have to do with the point I make about the gap between the author and men like Einstein, Edison and Mendel?

To wit:

peacegirl wrote: So demonstrating one's discovery through a book is somehow questionable? A world of words? That's how we communicate, haven't you noticed? This can be simulated or proven in some other way. I am drawing attention to people who may be interested in this major discovery. You're just an angry skeptic.


iambiguous wrote:Typical. My point that Einstein and Edison "created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound" is completely ignored. Instead, the author's own "world of words" in a book is proof enough that it is true "scientifically".

And either I was never able to be other than an angry skeptic or I can freely opt to be all the more mocking of arguments that seem flagrantly weak to me. And, even here, that is only in regard to the arguments that are intelligible to me.


peacegirl wrote: Again, I don't blame you for being an angry skeptic, but we won't be able to continue like this ad infinitum because we are getting absolutely nowhere. The most I would expect anyone to do is to hear him out, and then decide for himself. But you won't even hear him out.


Assuming the real deal free will world, we might get somewhere if you would actually address the points I make above about Einstein and Edison. Your best defense -- only defense -- is still this: that you were never able to not not address them.

iambiguous wrote:You're not a physicist or a neuroscientist or a professional philosopher/metaphysician. What qualifications do you have to demonstrate your assumptions other than in how you define the meaning of the words in the argument itself. Your words would only be connected to other words. And not connected to the behaviors that are "chosen"/chosen by yourself or others.


peacegirl wrote: Because I understand what he is saying and I see the problem with the standard definition in regard to the will of man. He showed that nothing could make Gandhi do anything against his will, not even the threat of death. I don't know if you read my posts, frankly.


In other words, as with the author, you defend yourself only in a world of words. Gandhi on the other hand was out in a particular world interacting with others on the world stage. But he seems to become just another one of your no free will/free will composite men.

And this part...

Gandhi could do what he willed but he could not will what he willed.
Gandhi could do what he wanted, but he could not want what he wanted.

...is just swept under the philosophical rug.

Or, sure, so it seems to me.

iambiguous wrote:Running late for a meeting. Skipping breakfast. How would you demonstrate that both are either only what they ever could have been in the only possible reality or through the author's arguments we are able to create a future more in sync with a "greater satisfaction". How would you show that this greater satisfaction you feel is not in and of itself the only thing that nature compelled you to feel?


peacegirl wrote: I'm not trying to show that the greater satisfaction a person chooses could not be anything other than what he was compelled to do, but it is he law of greater satisfaction that is causing him to choose one thing over another.


So? It is still no less a compelled satisfaction. The law of greater satisfaction...how does that fit into the overarching laws of matter themselves? Other than only as it must.

How is this...

peacegirl wrote: You cannot blame what you do on the laws of matter, because you wouldn't have chosen what you do, if you didn't want to. IOW, you cannot say the laws of matter made you do something against your will, which many people have a problem with for good reason. Imagine someone trying to get off the hook by saying, "I couldn't help driving my car into the marketplace and killing people. The laws of matter made me do it. I didn't want to but had to." Don't you see the problem here?


...not wholly in sync in turn with these laws?

iambiguous wrote:And suppose you ate bacon for breakfast. And some animal rights activists called that evil. How would you or the author have demonstrated to the scientific or philosophical community whether eating bacon is or is not evil? And how in the future it will all just disappear altogether as a moral quandary.


peacegirl wrote: Again, no one will tell anyone that killing an animal for food (or anything else) is wrong. There will be no moral code which dictates what is right and wrong. Conscience will help each individual decide what is best under their particular circumstances because conscience will go up to a 10 under these new conditions. People in the new world would not want to kill animals inhumanely or be cruel. Being cruel is not a normal behavior and it's only when people are not hurt, that they will not want to hurt. These are the gray areas where individuals will have to make up their own mind and no one will criticize them. Now let's get back to the most important issues at hand like war, crime, hatred, and poverty.


In other words, if the future is derived entirely from the assumptions you make about it, that's just simply the way it will be. And, again, since it might take a thousand years or more for the author's rendition of it to be confirmed, he was never really able to be proven wrong back when he wrote the book.

Right?

iambiguous wrote:Again, there are the discoveries made by Einstein and Edison...discoveries that are bursting at the seams with demonstrable evidence. And, for Einstein, he would be the first to acknowledge all of the mysteries that remain to be discovered going back to an understanding of existence itself. As for Edison, he discovered ways to create actual things. They either work as intended or they don't.

The author's "discovery" on the other hand? Look, if you lack both the intellectual honesty and integrity to own up to just how meager his own demonstrable proof is...?


peacegirl wrote: I don't think his proof is meager. What is his discovery iambiguous? I think you would enjoy the first three chapters but you're fighting me for whatever reason. The worst thing that can happen is you pooh pooh what he wrote, and say it's crap. I won't blame you.


And around and around we go. The fact that you don't think that his proof is meager makes it true. You show no substantial evidence of this proof but that's just a trivial pursuit. Something for those like Einstein and Edison.

And not only won't I blame you for it, I can't blame you for it. Why? Because I have thought myself into believing that you could never have not posted anything other than what nature compels you to.
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: 40749
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Mon Apr 05, 2021 7:48 pm

Peacegirl: I have answered you but you can’t expect a full understanding from a thread. It is very clear in the book as to why people become more responsible when all blame is removed. But there is more to it than just removing blame. I already explained that the possibility of being hurt by the economic system activates and justifies doing whatever one has to do for self-preservation. When this pervasive insecurity is gone, along with the removal of critical judgment and telling others what to do (which was necessary in the world of free will), the justification to hurt others in order to gain at their expense will no longer be a preferable option. I know you will tell me I didn’t answer your question.
That's an assertion that people will act a certain way without any evidence to support it.

And it's based on the idea that you can set up an economic system where all insecurity is gone ... on a planet with 7 billion people (and growing) and a limited set of resources.

We are consuming 179% of the earth's resources and the majority of the planet is living near poverty and not consuming much at all. Imagine when everyone has a car and a house and air conditioning and lots of objects. We will need a hundred planets to sustain it all.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:11 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote:First of all, what is always most fascinating to me about exchanges revolving around free will is how, whatever the ultimate reality is, both sides have to, well, shift gears to at least some semblance of free will. Otherwise, from my current frame of mind, the entire exchange was, is and will ever be only as it ever could have been.


peacegirl wrote:That is true, but when this principle is applied, and all blame is removed from the environment (including anything that judges your actions in advance as right or wrong), you can't use the laws of matter as an excuse for killing someone, or any other excuse when all justification has been removed.


But the principle is "applied" only in a mind that embodies the illusion of free willing in "applying" it. Except, for reasons embedded in the laws of nature as well, you create this no free will/free will reality where the mind "applies" it.


The principle of no blame will be applied to a larger and larger population as they become citizens. It doesn't matter if someone understands the illusion of free will because the principle will work regardless. It's the same thing as the light bulb. We don't have to understand how it works to get the benefit.

iambiguous wrote:You basically do the same thing. But: in a way I am still unable to fully grasp. You insist that we do not possess free will and that, yes, everything up to the present is only as it ever could be. But somehow at the present and in the future it's...different? Again, I am simply unable to grasp what on earth you mean by that "for all practical purposes".


Unless you give up the standard definition of determinism, it won't make any sense to you. I've tried to explain it but you keep saying you are unable to grasp what on earth I mean. That's why this may be a discussion in futility.

peacegirl wrote:It's not different, but just as we make choices based on our present knowledge, so too do we make future choices based on a different set of choices, all in the direction of greater satisfaction. I have to post the same excerpt again because you obviously didn't retain anything.


iambiguous wrote:Here's the part where I point out that I retain only what I was ever able to retain. And that all the "sets of choices" -- past, present and future -- are intertwined in the only possible reality.

As for excerpts like this...

the author wrote: By discovering
this well concealed law and demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to
speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic
change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing
what will be called miracles though they do not transcend the laws of
nature.
The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and
all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a
different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and
their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in
such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is
difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what
I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried
to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the
reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as
impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which
is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and
compared to our present understanding of human nature.


...from now on please don't include them unless you note where the author also makes the attempt to demonstrate how he goes about proving that his arguments are not just an intellectual contraption consisting of words that merely define and defend other words.


His discovery is a 600 page book that goes into all areas of human relation. I cannot meet your demands. These are no intellectual contraptions that consist of words that merely define and defend other words. The definitions he uses are accurate, and it matters. His other principle that nothing (not even the laws of matter) can force us to do what we make up our minds NOT TO DO, matters. This leads to his discovery, but you will never understand it unless you let go of your definition, even temporarily. ](*,)

iambiguous wrote:Now, given your own understanding of what you "chose"/chose to write about Greene's review, what specific evidence do you have that he made up things and did not read the book.

Because you say so?


peacegirl wrote: Not because I say so iambiguous. This guy had no understanding of the second or third discoveries, and he misrepresented the first. There is no mention of dissenters or military in the entire book. If you believe Greene who was just some troll on the internet, then go ahead, but there is no point in my being here.


iambiguous wrote:Note to nature:

Please explain to her the meaning of the words "specific evidence".


Note to nature: Please explain to iambiguous that I cannot put down specific evidence if he doesn't even understand the discovery which is in Chapter Two.

iambiguous wrote:And explain once again how, even if he did these things in the only possible reality, he was still worthy of your censure. To me that's the sort of censure we'd hear from those convinced that free will is the real deal.[/b]


peacegirl wrote: I'm not blaming him when I know he couldn't help himself, but he would never have made a fake review in the new world. He struck the first blow and I was justifiably upset because people count on reviews to be objective. I'm over it though. Eventually there will be positive reviews and they will replace this poor one.


iambiguous wrote:I'm sorry, but...huh?

Back to the future again? You level all of these accusations at him for something he could never have not done here and now. He could never have not struck the first blow either but in the future...what? Compelled or not, when you go to this mystical future, it's all just intellectual gibberish to me. Like something ecmandu would post. But he has a "condition".


Yes I level accusations at him for doing what he did. Just because his will is not free doesn't mean I don't have feelings. We are not in the new world. It would play out very differently if we were.

peacegirl wrote:Not everyone flocks to someone who makes an important finding. Take Gregor Mendel, for example, whom the author quotes in his book.


iambiguous wrote:As though this doesn't just explain away the distinction I make between Einstein and Edison on the one hand, and your author on the other.

As for Mendel, same thing. The work that he did resulted in actual either/or information and knowledge about genes. He is called the "father of modern genetics" for a reason.

So, when will your author be called "the father of modern free will and evil"?


peacegirl wrote: I don't care what he will be called. You sound resentful.


iambiguous wrote:Again! What does that have to do with the point I make about the gap between the author and men like Einstein, Edison and Mendel?

To wit:

peacegirl wrote: So demonstrating one's discovery through a book is somehow questionable? A world of words? That's how we communicate, haven't you noticed? This can be simulated or proven in some other way. I am drawing attention to people who may be interested in this major discovery. You're just an angry skeptic.


They are different discoveries that require different proofs. Edison did experiments; so did Mendel. They used the scientific method. This discovery cannot be proved so easily in that same way. I already said that empirical evidence is the ultimate proof, but people have to see why he made the claims he did based on his observations. Then and then only can people desire to simulate on a smaller scale this new world, or to start making plans to begin the Great Transition (which will require the political leads of the world to become the first citizens).

iambiguous wrote:Typical. My point that Einstein and Edison "created new ideas and new inventions that were able to be tested in the present as either sound or unsound" is completely ignored. Instead, the author's own "world of words" in a book is proof enough that it is true "scientifically".

And either I was never able to be other than an angry skeptic or I can freely opt to be all the more mocking of arguments that seem flagrantly weak to me. And, even here, that is only in regard to the arguments that are intelligible to me.


You can be mocking without free will iambiguous. I can't help you if you think his arguments are flagrantly weak especially since you read nothing.

peacegirl wrote: Again, I don't blame you for being an angry skeptic, but we won't be able to continue like this ad infinitum because we are getting absolutely nowhere. The most I would expect anyone to do is to hear him out, and then decide for himself. But you won't even hear him out.


iambiguous wrote:Assuming the real deal free will world, we might get somewhere if you would actually address the points I make above about Einstein and Edison. Your best defense -- only defense -- is still this: that you were never able to not not address them.


At that moment I wasn't. So what? We don't need a free will world for me to try to clarify what you don't understand, or what you think I'm not giving you.

iambiguous wrote:You're not a physicist or a neuroscientist or a professional philosopher/metaphysician. What qualifications do you have to demonstrate your assumptions other than in how you define the meaning of the words in the argument itself. Your words would only be connected to other words. And not connected to the behaviors that are "chosen"/chosen by yourself or others.


peacegirl wrote: Because I understand what he is saying and I see the problem with the standard definition in regard to the will of man. He showed that nothing could make Gandhi do anything against his will, not even the threat of death. I don't know if you read my posts, frankly.


iambiguous wrote:In other words, as with the author, you defend yourself only in a world of words. Gandhi on the other hand was out in a particular world interacting with others on the world stage. But he seems to become just another one of your no free will/free will composite men.

And this part...

Gandhi could do what he willed but he could not will what he willed.
Gandhi could do what he wanted, but he could not want what he wanted.

...is just swept under the philosophical rug.

Or, sure, so it seems to me.


It makes no difference because even if we can't will what we will, we can do what we will, and what we do what we will will be different than what we do what we will in an environment of blame and punishment.

iambiguous wrote:Running late for a meeting. Skipping breakfast. How would you demonstrate that both are either only what they ever could have been in the only possible reality or through the author's arguments we are able to create a future more in sync with a "greater satisfaction". How would you show that this greater satisfaction you feel is not in and of itself the only thing that nature compelled you to feel?


peacegirl wrote: I'm not trying to show that the greater satisfaction a person chooses could not be anything other than what he was compelled to do, but it is he law of greater satisfaction that is causing him to choose one thing over another.


iambiguous wrote:So? It is still no less a compelled satisfaction. The law of greater satisfaction...how does that fit into the overarching laws of matter themselves? Other than only as it must.

How is this...

peacegirl wrote: You cannot blame what you do on the laws of matter, because you wouldn't have chosen what you do, if you didn't want to. IOW, you cannot say the laws of matter made you do something against your will, which many people have a problem with for good reason. Imagine someone trying to get off the hook by saying, "I couldn't help driving my car into the marketplace and killing people. The laws of matter made me do it. I didn't want to but had to." Don't you see the problem here?


...not wholly in sync in turn with these laws?


Yes, but you can't blame it on the laws of matter, as if the laws force you to do what you don't want to do. Does anyone feel sorry for me in this exchange? [-o< I can't go on for long without iambiguous grasping something. If not, he can't help himself but it's just too difficult.

iambiguous wrote:And suppose you ate bacon for breakfast. And some animal rights activists called that evil. How would you or the author have demonstrated to the scientific or philosophical community whether eating bacon is or is not evil? And how in the future it will all just disappear altogether as a moral quandary.


peacegirl wrote: Again, no one will tell anyone that killing an animal for food (or anything else) is wrong. There will be no moral code which dictates what is right and wrong. Conscience will help each individual decide what is best under their particular circumstances because conscience will go up to a 10 under these new conditions. People in the new world would not want to kill animals inhumanely or be cruel. Being cruel is not a normal behavior and it's only when people are not hurt, that they will not want to hurt. These are the gray areas where individuals will have to make up their own mind and no one will criticize them. Now let's get back to the most important issues at hand like war, crime, hatred, and poverty.


iambiguous wrote:In other words, if the future is derived entirely from the assumptions you make about it, that's just simply the way it will be. And, again, since it might take a thousand years or more for the author's rendition of it to be confirmed, he was never really able to be proven wrong back when he wrote the book.


He knew what he had discovered. It didn't take anyone to confirm for him what he knew, in fact, to be true. But in order for any discovery to be applied, others have to confirm it.

Please
remember that any truth revealed in a mathematical manner does not
require your approval for its validity, although it does necessitate your
understanding for recognition and development. And now my friends,
if you care to come along, let us embark...the hour is getting late.


iambiguous wrote:Right?


Wrong.

iambiguous wrote:Again, there are the discoveries made by Einstein and Edison...discoveries that are bursting at the seams with demonstrable evidence. And, for Einstein, he would be the first to acknowledge all of the mysteries that remain to be discovered going back to an understanding of existence itself. As for Edison, he discovered ways to create actual things. They either work as intended or they don't.

The author's "discovery" on the other hand? Look, if you lack both the intellectual honesty and integrity to own up to just how meager his own demonstrable proof is...?


peacegirl wrote: I don't think his proof is meager. What is his discovery iambiguous? I think you would enjoy the first three chapters but you're fighting me for whatever reason. The worst thing that can happen is you pooh pooh what he wrote, and say it's crap. I won't blame you.


iambiguous wrote:And around and around we go. The fact that you don't think that his proof is meager makes it true.


I didn't say that.

iambiguous wrote: You show no substantial evidence of this proof but that's just a trivial pursuit. Something for those like Einstein and Edison.

And not only won't I blame you for it, I can't blame you for it. Why? Because I have thought myself into believing that you could never have not posted anything other than what nature compels you to.


You can't blame me because my will is not free, but that doesn't make him wrong just because you think it's a trivial pursuit: someone who didn't read one page of this book. :-?
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:52 am, edited 7 times in total.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Ecmandu » Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:39 am

You two are pissing at windmills... and it blows back in your faces.

We all have contextual freedom.

Does this current plan work?

No. We need to create a new context.

Negative zero sum realities don’t work.

Only positive non zero sum realities work.

That requires intelligence. It requires dedication.

Is reality deterministic? No. However, the more you know, you wouldn’t have done stupid stuff. That is deterministic.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11707
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:15 pm

phyllo wrote:
Peacegirl: I have answered you but you can’t expect a full understanding from a thread. It is very clear in the book as to why people become more responsible when all blame is removed. But there is more to it than just removing blame. I already explained that the possibility of being hurt by the economic system activates and justifies doing whatever one has to do for self-preservation. When this pervasive insecurity is gone, along with the removal of critical judgment and telling others what to do (which was necessary in the world of free will), the justification to hurt others in order to gain at their expense will no longer be a preferable option. I know you will tell me I didn’t answer your question.
That's an assertion that people will act a certain way without any evidence to support it.

And it's based on the idea that you can set up an economic system where all insecurity is gone ... on a planet with 7 billion people (and growing) and a limited set of resources.

Peacegirl: Yes

Phyllo: We are consuming 179% of the earth's resources and the majority of the planet is living near poverty and not consuming much at all. Imagine when everyone has a car and a house and air conditioning and lots of objects. We will need a hundred planets to sustain it all.

Peacegirl: who says that everyone will have lots of objects if they are not affordable? Basic necessity is essential with opportunities to get ahead if one wants. You are jumping the gun. Try not to do that because it doesn’t sound like you’re questioning me. It sounds like you’re opposing me which will get us nowhere.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 06, 2021 3:27 pm

Peacegirl: who says that everyone will have lots of objects if they are not affordable?
If some people want cars and they can't have it them, then they will feel "hurt" by the economic system and by other people.

This seems unavoidable. You can never set up the perfect system which satisfies everyone.
Try not to do that because it doesn’t sound like you’re questioning me. It sounds like you’re opposing me which will get us nowhere.
Okay, tell me what I'm supposed to be doing.

Why don't you write the questions for me to save us some time.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 06, 2021 6:40 pm

From Satyr on the KT free will thread:

Johann Gottlieb Fichte wrote:

The majority of men could sooner be brought to believe themselves a piece of lava on the moon, than to take themselves for a self. Anyone who is not yet at one with himself on this point has no understanding of any fundamental philosophy, and needs none. Nature whose machine he is, will lead him, even without his own cooperation, into all the occupations that are his to pursue. Philosophizing calls for independence, and this one can only ever confer on oneself. Without eyes, we ought not to wish to see; but nor ought we to maintain that it is the eye that sees.


After all, it's not for nothing that Mr. Intellectual Contraption would feel compelled -- pardon the pun? -- to quote from another rather well known abstractionist to discuss the "fundamental" relationship between nature, the human brain and philosophy.

From wiki: "Fichte's critics argued that his mimicry of Kant's difficult style produced works that were barely intelligible."

Not unlike the many posts we endure from any number of philosophical pedants at KT and ILP.

Satyr of course is intent on hammering Nature into his own reactionary political prejudices. Only he refuses to accept the possibility that it is Nature hammering him to hammer Nature into his own reactionary political prejudices.

But here am I taking him off the hook because I am still convinced that Nature is in command. Only of everything.
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: 40749
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:42 pm

peacegirl wrote:
So why did you say "what does definition have to do with it?"


iambiguous wrote:First assumption: That we live in a wholly determined universe and I was never able to not say it.

Second assumption: That we live in a world where [somehow] human brains have acquired the capacity to define things freely. I then ask others to take particular definitions of their own out into the world of human interactions and explore them "for all practical purposes" given the existence of conflicting goods.

Thus:

In other words, if Socrates was around today, and contributing to this thread, I'd ask him to take his definition of free will and evil and note how he would embed those definitions in his interactions with others. In particular in regard to a set of circumstances in which there were conflicting assessments of evil.


peacegirl wrote:His definition would probably be your definition because it's how determinism has always been defined. This has created a big chasm in the debate that cannot be rectified, for if the laws of matter are "causing" you to kill someone, then obviously you would want the free will to go against what nature is "causing" you to do. It's so obvious to me what the problem is, but you don't see it. You can't help yourself.


iambiguous wrote:Again, given the first assumption above...so what? Whatever definition he or I or you or others come up with...or whatever we "see"...it is embedded in the only possible reality. Now, admittedly, I don't know exactly what that means. Either because nature has not provided me with that knowledge or, if such knowledge is something I can pursue of my own free will [the real deal], it is almost certainly beyond calculating the odds of me grasping it given the gap I discuss above.


peacegirl wrote:Even if you don't grasp it, you don't need to. Not everyone grasps how a light bulb works, but they get the benefits.


Oh, so now the author's understanding of free will and evil is the equivalent of those who grasp how a light bulb works and those that don't?

Back again to the gap between those who are able to explain how a light bulb works and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to explain why it is able to work at all?

But, okay, where is the equivalent in the book of the author demonstrating how free will and evil work on par with someone able to demonstrate how a light bulb works.

iambiguous wrote:Then the part where he examines his own "greater satisfactions" in regard to the "causal chain" insofar as I understand it and as you understand it.


peacegirl wrote:When he stumbled upon his finding, he moved in the direction of putting his discovery down on paper so others could understand it. He moved in this direction for greater satisfaction. He was moving in sync with his nature. So are you. So is everyone else.


iambiguous wrote:Or, when nature compelled him to stumble upon it, nature's laws then compelled him to move in the only possible direction such that he was never able to feel a greater satisfaction other than that which nature had embedded chemically and neurologically in his brain.


peacegirl wrote: I can accept that.


Yes, you can accept many things that I post. Only you can't seem to accept that I can only be wrong about my reaction to the author because I was never able to not be wrong. And if I am never able to not be wrong then right and wrong reactions themselves are necessarily interchangeable in the only possible reality.

iambiguous wrote:Just as is the case with you and I. Again, given the first assumption above.

Including this:


peacegirl wrote:Regardless of a person's movement through life, he is always moving in this direction. You are getting greater satisfaction from reading my posts. If you weren't, you would not be here.


iambiguous wrote:In other words, I can want to move in this direction but I cannot want to want to.


peacegirl wrote:You want to move in this direction otherwise you wouldn't be here, period. You may have no control over what you want, but even if you don't, it doesn't change anything.


And that's because nothing ever can change unless the laws of matter themselves change. And how exactly would we go about figuring that out?

iambiguous wrote:For me, though, I am interested in exploring the difference "for all practical purpose".

Consider:

Mary is said to have the free will to choose an abortion. Now, if someone argues that, no, she does not have free will but only the power to choose, how is that power not entangled in this:

"Mary can do what she wills but she cannot will what she wills.
Or: "Mary can do what she wants, but not want what she wants."


peacegirl wrote:Regardless of whether she can't will what she wants, she still is under a compulsion to act on what she wants.


Back again to how you configure Mary "wanting" as embedded in the psychological illusion of free will and her wanting given free will as the real deal into her "wanting"...the free will/no free will Mary. The part that, compelled or not, ever and always escapes me.

peacegirl wrote:That makes sense. I'm not sure where you think this contradicts the soundness of "greater satisfaction." If she wills to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose that avenue. If she does not will to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose not to have an abortion based on that. There is no right or wrong here. Is that what you're suggesting?


iambiguous wrote:Yes. But only given assumption number 2 above. Given assumption 1, nothing that happens to Mary can ever not make sense because everything that happens to her could never have not happened. You may as well ask if it makes sense for one domino to topple over onto another one when it was never able to not do so. Only with the dominoes in the human brain things get considerably more problematic. And mind-boggling.


peacegirl wrote:We are not dominoes in the human brain.


This can only be confirmed when science is able to fully explain how and why the matter in the human brain is different from the matter in the dominoes that we play games with. Either through God or through a definitive understanding of existence itself.

peacegirl wrote:Everything that happens to Mary could never have not happened, but you are disregarding the fact that nothing forced her against her will. Why do you never address this, which is a big part of the problem with the definition that you can't seem to give up, even temporarily.


How then does anything that happens to Mary not include the fact that everything that happens to her can only reflect compulsions embedded in the laws of matter. If it is a fact. I think that it is here and now but I have no way in which to demonstrate that it is. And much of what you and the author provide in the way of "evidence" and "proof" is a "world of words" reality that, in my view, is more a relflection of the "psychology of objectivism" as noted by me above.

iambiguous wrote:Thus Gandhi "can do what he wants, but still not want what he wants".

At least given my own assumptions about a wholly determined universe.

But when I ask this of you...

Again, take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

...all I get back [as per usual] is yet another general description intellectual contraption:


peacegirl wrote:Volition is having the ability to choose without external constraint. Free will can be used in the same way. "I did it of my own volition or free will. Nobody forced me; I did it because I wanted to. It is a folk terminology. So when I say I did something of my own free will, I only mean I did something of my own desire (or volition). It does not mean my will is free.


Great, yet another "general description intellectual contraption"!

Again:

...take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

iambiguous wrote:So, back to this:

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?

The parts where he himself become the equivalent of Einstein and Edison.


peacegirl wrote: A small group of people could begin using these principles, but it would not be easy because we live in a free will environment of blame and punishment. Actually, the ultimate proof is whether it works. I don't think a simulation would be necessary. How did we get to the moon without actually going to the moon based on the necessary navigation information? There comes a time that we have to take the plunge. If the principles are accurate, the outcome will also be accurate. First, people have to understand why his observations regarding "greater satisfaction" is the reason man does not have free will. They must also understand why, under changed conditions, conscience increases, not decreases. Then they need to understand how we must remove all things that are redolent of blame including government as we know it. They also need to understand that all hurt, or the possibility of being hurt, must be removed from the environment (which will require a revamping of the economic system) for there to be no justification to strike back or to hurt others so as not to hurt oneself (the law of self-preservation). It is only the first blow that we are removing because retaliation is justified. A first blow is not under these conditions. Once they see the validity and soundness of his discovery, it will not be hard to envision that a new world of peace and prosperity for ALL people is within reach, and the leaders of each nation will want to begin the transition to this new way of life. He was never given an opportunity to explain his findings, and the same disregard for his work is going on today. This book has never been distributed widely. Think about it. He typed his book on a manual typewriter; the old kind with the ribbon and the carriage? He didn't have a computer or the internet, but sadly, there is so much garbage on the internet, no one takes anybody seriously. We're all put in the same pot! :(


iambiguous wrote:Simply unbelievable! At least in the real deal free will world.

I ask you this...

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?


peacegirl wrote: These were astute observations iambiguous. Experiments are not the only way to arrive at a truth epistemologically, although empirical proof is the ultimate test. The proof of the pudding is that this principle can be shown to work as science catches up and decides to either test it on a smaller scale, or take the plunge and begin the transition. What is there to lose but hate, crime, poverty, and war. =D> Through his observations, he demonstrated that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction WHICH IS WHY WILL IS NOT FREE. You can't wrap your head around that, yet you can't give me one example where this is not true because there are none. You are so stuck on your definition that it is impossible for me to penetrate. No wonder you feel free will is necessary otherwise you're just a domino with no autonomy (in your way of thinking). #-o Free will has been proven false but the problem of responsibility hasn't been resolved until this discovery came along. Sadly, very few people know about it.


Of course! Another general description intellectual contraption!!
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 40749
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:57 pm

phyllo wrote:
Peacegirl: who says that everyone will have lots of objects if they are not affordable?
If some people want cars and they can't have it them, then they will feel "hurt" by the economic system and by other people.


If cars are a basic necessity for a family to get by, they will get help to have a car. You are making an assumption that this is impossible because you’re basing your belief on the haves and have nots of this world which seem impossible to make right.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:14 pm

peacegirl wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Peacegirl: who says that everyone will have lots of objects if they are not affordable?
If some people want cars and they can't have it them, then they will feel "hurt" by the economic system and by other people.


If cars are a basic necessity for a family to get by, they will get help to have a car. You are making an assumption that this is impossible because you’re basing your belief on the haves and have nots of this world which seem impossible to make right.
You have this magic wand and you make all problems disappear.

I gave you credit for proposing a legitimate solution to some real problems but it really just seems to be a fantasy world.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12327
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:01 pm

peacegirl wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Peacegirl: who says that everyone will have lots of objects if they are not affordable?
If some people want cars and they can't have it them, then they will feel "hurt" by the economic system and by other people.


If cars are a basic necessity for a family to get by, they will get help to have a car. You are making an assumption that this is impossible because you’re basing your belief on the haves and have nots of this world which seem impossible to make right.


phyllo wrote:You have this magic wand and you make all problems disappear.

I gave you credit for proposing a legitimate solution to some real problems but it really just seems to be a fantasy world.


It's not phyllo, it's just that the revamping of the economic system so that nobody is without a basic standard of living throughout the entire world, cannot be explained in a post like this. You're expecting a lot from me without attempting to carefully read his work. Could you discuss Nietzsche or Socrates or Spinoza without studying their work backward and forward? You would look foolish if you did. I can only give you a taste of what the book is about, but this will make you think it's all fantasy. He urged people not to jump ahead.

CHAPTER SIX
THE NEW ECONOMIC WORLD

And now my friends, you are about to behold an actual
miracle as the knowledge that man’s will is not free and
what this means not only puts a mathematical end to the
possibility of war and crime, but completely changes the entire
economic system to one of complete security. As you begin reading
this chapter it is assumed that you thoroughly understand the
two-sided equation, otherwise, the rest of the book will appear like a
fairy tale. Remember, at one time landing men on the moon seemed
like nothing more than science fiction until it was understood how
this apparent miracle could be accomplished. From here on in each
move I make is equivalent to the forced moves in a chess game,
consequently, no attempt is necessary because checkmate cannot be
avoided nor can the Golden Age be stopped. In other words, it is
mathematically impossible to stop the development of something
everybody wants. If the rich and poor, the capitalistic and
communistic countries, plus everybody else not mentioned desire what
I am about to show, is it possible for this Golden Age not to become
a reality? How is it humanly possible to be dissatisfied with the
solution, when it is impossible not to be satisfied? I am going to
reduce the differences between people to a common denominator
which satisfies the whole human race


<snip>

By the
time the transition gets under way, there will be a greatly diminished
difference between the rich and the poor; and when the Golden Age
gets officially launched, the difference will be even smaller because
there is a limit to what a person can buy and a limit to what he can
invest in, and because prices must come down. Are you beginning to
see the wisdom?
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Apr 06, 2021 11:45 pm

peacegirl wrote:
So why did you say "what does definition have to do with it?"


iambiguous wrote:First assumption: That we live in a wholly determined universe and I was never able to not say it.

Second assumption: That we live in a world where [somehow] human brains have acquired the capacity to define things freely. I then ask others to take particular definitions of their own out into the world of human interactions and explore them "for all practical purposes" given the existence of conflicting goods.

Thus:

In other words, if Socrates was around today, and contributing to this thread, I'd ask him to take his definition of free will and evil and note how he would embed those definitions in his interactions with others. In particular in regard to a set of circumstances in which there were conflicting assessments of evil.


peacegirl wrote:His definition would probably be your definition because it's how determinism has always been defined. This has created a big chasm in the debate that cannot be rectified, for if the laws of matter are "causing" you to kill someone, then obviously you would want the free will to go against what nature is "causing" you to do. It's so obvious to me what the problem is, but you don't see it. You can't help yourself.


iambiguous wrote:Again, given the first assumption above...so what? Whatever definition he or I or you or others come up with...or whatever we "see"...it is embedded in the only possible reality. Now, admittedly, I don't know exactly what that means. Either because nature has not provided me with that knowledge or, if such knowledge is something I can pursue of my own free will [the real deal], it is almost certainly beyond calculating the odds of me grasping it given the gap I discuss above.


peacegirl wrote:Even if you don't grasp it, you don't need to. Not everyone grasps how a light bulb works, but they get the benefits.


iambiguous wrote:Oh, so now the author's understanding of free will and evil is the equivalent of those who grasp how a light bulb works and those that don't?


It's an analogy. It is not imperative that people understand why man's will is not free (although it's not that difficult) to benefit from this new way of life, once they become citizens.

iambiguous wrote:Back again to the gap between those who are able to explain how a light bulb works and all that would need to be known about existence itself in order to explain why it is able to work at all?


They are two different questions: one is HOW something works and the other is WHY.

iambiguous wrote:But, okay, where is the equivalent in the book of the author demonstrating how free will and evil work on par with someone able to demonstrate how a light bulb works.


I already answered you. His claims came from careful observations regarding human behavior. He understood how conscience works and how it can be raised to a level that will have a greater control over our actions. Conscience is God given ... however you think of God. It is not something we can lose although conscience can allow behaviors that humans deem "morally wrong" because they hurt people. The only way conscience allows these behaviors is because they can be justified. In the new world we are removing these justifications thereby preventing conscience from permitting anything close to striking a FIRST blow to another. It would be the worst possible choice given the option not to hurt anyone. We can only move in the direction of greater preference, remember?

iambiguous wrote:Then the part where he examines his own "greater satisfactions" in regard to the "causal chain" insofar as I understand it and as you understand it.


peacegirl wrote:When he stumbled upon his finding, he moved in the direction of putting his discovery down on paper so others could understand it. He moved in this direction for greater satisfaction. He was moving in sync with his nature. So are you. So is everyone else.


iambiguous wrote:Or, when nature compelled him to stumble upon it, nature's laws then compelled him to move in the only possible direction such that he was never able to feel a greater satisfaction other than that which nature had embedded chemically and neurologically in his brain.


peacegirl wrote: I can accept that.


iambiguous wrote:Yes, you can accept many things that I post. Only you can't seem to accept that I can only be wrong about my reaction to the author because I was never able to not be wrong. And if I am never able to not be wrong then right and wrong reactions themselves are necessarily interchangeable in the only possible reality.


I didn't say your reaction was wrong in the sense that you could have acted otherwise. That does not make you right when you accuse the author of intellectual dishonesty. These accusations by you are getting out of hand.

iambiguous wrote:Just as is the case with you and I. Again, given the first assumption above.

peacegirl wrote:Regardless of a person's movement through life, he is always moving in this direction. You are getting greater satisfaction from reading my posts. If you weren't, you would not be here.


You are getting greater satisfaction from being here otherwise you wouldn't. This has nothing to do with the rightness of your position and the wrongness of mine.

iambiguous wrote:In other words, I can want to move in this direction but I cannot want to want to.


peacegirl wrote:You want to move in this direction otherwise you wouldn't be here, period. You may have no control over what you want, but even if you don't, it doesn't change anything.


iambiguous wrote:And that's because nothing ever can change unless the laws of matter themselves change. And how exactly would we go about figuring that out?


I don't think you read my posts carefully.

The laws of our nature do not change, but we can veer in a different direction with greater understanding about how human beings tick.

Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history would believe
it possible that the 20 century will be the time when all war, crime,
and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a
permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in
in the 20 century (1918-1991). Though we are well into the 21
century, this discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by
our world’s leading scientists]. When first hearing this prophesy,
shortly after Hitler had slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with
contempt because nothing appeared more ridiculous than such a
statement. But after 15 years (8 hours a day) of extensive reading
and thinking, my dissatisfaction with a certain theory that had gotten
a dogmatic hold on the mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous
months in the deepest analysis and I made a finding that was so
difficult to believe it took me two years to thoroughly understand its
full significance for all mankind and three additional years to put it
into the kind of language others could comprehend.

It is the purpose
of this book to reveal this finding — a scientific discovery about the
nature of man whose life, as a direct consequence of this
mathematical revelation, will be completely revolutionized in every
way for his benefit bringing about a transition so utterly amazing that
if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to unfold, without
demonstrating the cause as to why these must come about, your
skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this a work of
science fiction for who would believe it possible that all evil (every bit
of hurt that exists in human relation) must decline and fall the very
moment this discovery is thoroughly understood. This natural law,
which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so successfully
behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no wonder the
development of our present age was required to find it.

By discovering
this well concealed law and demonstrating its power a catalyst, so to
speak, is introduced into human relations that compels a fantastic
change in the direction our nature has been traveling, performing
what will be called miracles [b]though they do not transcend the laws of
nature
[/b].
The same nature that permits the most heinous crimes, and
all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so sharply in a
different direction that all nations on this planet, once the leaders and
their subordinates understand the principles involved, will unite in
such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If this is
difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss what
I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what I tried
to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the
reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as
impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which
is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and
compared to our present understanding of human nature.

War seems
to be an inescapable feature of the human condition which can only
be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark
between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human
life as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a
sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an
unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to
suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or
have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.
The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his
mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who
dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and
unfounded.

Down through history there has always been this skepticism before
certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that
they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also
be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this
reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong
because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the
mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to
predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist
who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison when
he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right. Einstein
when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right
— and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they
were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am
doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then
only am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive
or dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive
over something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four.
Just bear in mind how many times in the course of history has the
impossible (that which appeared to be) been made possible by
scientific discoveries which should make you desire to contain your
skepticism enough to investigate what this is all about.


iambiguous wrote:For me, though, I am interested in exploring the difference "for all practical purpose".

Consider:

Mary is said to have the free will to choose an abortion. Now, if someone argues that, no, she does not have free will but only the power to choose, how is that power not entangled in this:

"Mary can do what she wills but she cannot will what she wills.
Or: "Mary can do what she wants, but not want what she wants."


What she does with what she wills is the focus of this discovery. Based on her life experiences, Mary will do what she believes is best for herself, IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION. There will be no more telling people what to do since no one is in another's shoes, though abortion will decline as unwanted pregnancies decline.

peacegirl wrote:Regardless of whether she can't will what she wants, she still is under a compulsion to act on what she wants.


iambiguous wrote:Back again to how you configure Mary "wanting" as embedded in the psychological illusion of free will and her wanting given free will as the real deal into her "wanting"...the free will/no free will Mary. The part that, compelled or not, ever and always escapes me.


I can't help you here because you are still creating a false dichotomy between the free will Mary and the no free will Mary. There's no such thing as the free will Mary, therefore her wanting to either have an abortion or not comes from antecedent factors that are leading her to choose to do what is best for her, as I already mentioned.

peacegirl wrote:That makes sense. I'm not sure where you think this contradicts the soundness of "greater satisfaction." If she wills to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose that avenue. If she does not will to have an abortion (which she cannot control), she will choose not to have an abortion based on that. There is no right or wrong here. Is that what you're suggesting?


iambiguous wrote:Yes. But only given assumption number 2 above. Given assumption 1, nothing that happens to Mary can ever not make sense because everything that happens to her could never have not happened. You may as well ask if it makes sense for one domino to topple over onto another one when it was never able to not do so. Only with the dominoes in the human brain things get considerably more problematic. And mind-boggling.


peacegirl wrote:We are not dominoes in the human brain.


iambigous wrote:This can only be confirmed when science is able to fully explain how and why the matter in the human brain is different from the matter in the dominoes that we play games with. Either through God or through a definitive understanding of existence itself.


This author proved that the human brain is different from the dominoes. We have a say in what we choose. We are not puppets on a string. I think Sam Harris uses that analogy. We are controlled by laws that compel us to move toward greater satisfaction and we also have the power to say no to something we don't want to do. No puppet can do that.

peacegirl wrote:Everything that happens to Mary could never have not happened, but you are disregarding the fact that nothing forced her against her will. Why do you never address this, which is a big part of the problem with the definition that you can't seem to give up, even temporarily.


iambiguous wrote:How then does anything that happens to Mary not include the fact that everything that happens to her can only reflect compulsions embedded in the laws of matter. If it is a fact. I think that it is here and now but I have no way in which to demonstrate that it is. And much of what you and the author provide in the way of "evidence" and "proof" is a "world of words" reality that, in my view, is more a relflection of the "psychology of objectivism" as noted by me above.


I have no idea why you keep bringing up objectivism. And I never said that everything that happens to her does not reflect compulsions embedded in her psyche. She is compelled to do whatever she does based on what she believes is the best choice given that most of our knowledge regarding a choice is limited in scope.

iambiguous wrote:Thus Gandhi "can do what he wants, but still not want what he wants".

At least given my own assumptions about a wholly determined universe.

But when I ask this of you...

Again, take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

...all I get back [as per usual] is yet another general description intellectual contraption:


I don't know what you want. Free will and volition in the context here are synonymous. They are terms that describe one's ability to choose. But that doesn't mean will is actually free, as you know.

Definition of volition
1: the power of choosing or determining : WILL
2: an act of making a choice or decision
also : a choice or decision made

peacegirl wrote:Volition is having the ability to choose without external constraint. Free will can be used in the same way. "I did it of my own volition or free will. Nobody forced me; I did it because I wanted to. It is a folk terminology. So when I say I did something of my own free will, I only mean I did something of my own desire (or volition). It does not mean my will is free.


iambiguous wrote:Great, yet another "general description intellectual contraption"!

Again:

...take your own definition of free will and volition, and describe in some detail how you differentiate them in regard to behaviors that you choose.

iambiguous wrote:So, back to this:

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?

The parts where he himself become the equivalent of Einstein and Edison.


peacegirl wrote: A small group of people could begin using these principles, but it would not be easy because we live in a free will environment of blame and punishment. Actually, the ultimate proof is whether it works. I don't think a simulation would be necessary. How did we get to the moon without actually going to the moon based on the necessary navigation information? There comes a time that we have to take the plunge. If the principles are accurate, the outcome will also be accurate. First, people have to understand why his observations regarding "greater satisfaction" is the reason man does not have free will. They must also understand why, under changed conditions, conscience increases, not decreases. Then they need to understand how we must remove all things that are redolent of blame including government as we know it. They also need to understand that all hurt, or the possibility of being hurt, must be removed from the environment (which will require a revamping of the economic system) for there to be no justification to strike back or to hurt others so as not to hurt oneself (the law of self-preservation). It is only the first blow that we are removing because retaliation is justified. A first blow is not under these conditions. Once they see the validity and soundness of his discovery, it will not be hard to envision that a new world of peace and prosperity for ALL people is within reach, and the leaders of each nation will want to begin the transition to this new way of life. He was never given an opportunity to explain his findings, and the same disregard for his work is going on today. This book has never been distributed widely. Think about it. He typed his book on a manual typewriter; the old kind with the ribbon and the carriage? He didn't have a computer or the internet, but sadly, there is so much garbage on the internet, no one takes anybody seriously. We're all put in the same pot! :(


iambiguous wrote:Simply unbelievable! At least in the real deal free will world.

I ask you this...

Okay, note instances in the book where he proves his conclusions about free will and evil are on ground as solid as the proofs we get from mathematicians and physicists and chemists and other natural scientists. Proofs from them that result in any number of actual engineering feats and new technologies. Where is the equivalent of that in the book?

How would experiments be conducted or predictions be made or experiences be wholly described and explained that would substantiate his claims in the book?


peacegirl wrote: These were astute observations iambiguous. Experiments are not the only way to arrive at a truth epistemologically, although empirical proof is the ultimate test. The proof of the pudding is that this principle can be shown to work as science catches up and decides to either test it on a smaller scale, or take the plunge and begin the transition. What is there to lose but hate, crime, poverty, and war. =D> Through his observations, he demonstrated that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction WHICH IS WHY WILL IS NOT FREE. You can't wrap your head around that, yet you can't give me one example where this is not true because there are none. You are so stuck on your definition that it is impossible for me to penetrate. No wonder you feel free will is necessary otherwise you're just a domino with no autonomy (in your way of thinking). #-o Free will has been proven false but the problem of responsibility hasn't been resolved until this discovery came along. Sadly, very few people know about it.


iambiguous wrote:Of course! Another general description intellectual contraption!!


I can't help you iambiguous. If you think everything he wrote is an intellectual contraption, then this book is obviously not for you!
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:08 pm

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

Determinism, in the most common philosophical sense of the term, is “the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way” (Cambridge Online Dictionary, 2019). This means that everything that happens was bound to happen including human actions, and this implies that choice is some sort of illusion. If determinism is true, this shatters our fundamental understanding of ourselves and the universe, not to mention our moral practices. Nevertheless, the conclusion determinists themselves come to concerning its implications for moral responsibility are not always the same.


"Some sort of illusion".

Is that like saying that a woman has "some sort of pregnancy"? Wouldn't it seem more likely that we either do or do not have the capacity to opt of our own volition, will, choice, preference, liberty, purpose, deliberation, etc., to behave in one manner rather than another.

Only it's not for nothing that the free will/determinism debate is clearly one of science's and philosophy's greatest antinomies.

This thing:

Antinomy: a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox.

We just don't know for certain, right? Instead, there are only those at both ends of intellectual spectrum who insist that we do know. Why? Because they know.

I merely focus in myself on the part that seems most important of all: free will or the lack thereof in regard to holding ourselves responsible for the behaviors we choose that result in human pain and suffering for others. If nature is entirely in command here, nothing that we do is ever not only what we ever could have done.

Good for the losers, bad for the winners, right?

Morally speaking, determinists are mainly divided into two camps, namely compatibilists and incompatibilists. The incompatibilists argue that determinism completely negates the possibility of agent causation, and therefore moral responsibility.


That's me of course.

On the other hand, compatibilists claim that moral responsibility is still applicable under determinism. They are both contrasted to libertarians, who defend moral responsibility through believing in free will, dismissing determinism.


Here we go again: grappling with and attempting to grasp how on earth the compatibilists pull that rabbit out of the hat. In other words, being compelled by the laws of matter to grapple with and attempt to grasp that which I was never able not to.
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: 40749
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:51 pm

iambiguous wrote:Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

Determinism, in the most common philosophical sense of the term, is “the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way” (Cambridge Online Dictionary, 2019). This means that everything that happens was bound to happen including human actions, and this implies that choice is some sort of illusion. If determinism is true, this shatters our fundamental understanding of ourselves and the universe, not to mention our moral practices. Nevertheless, the conclusion determinists themselves come to concerning its implications for moral responsibility are not always the same.


"Some sort of illusion".

Is that like saying that a woman has "some sort of pregnancy"? Wouldn't it seem more likely that we either do or do not have the capacity to opt of our own volition, will, choice, preference, liberty, purpose, deliberation, etc., to behave in one manner rather than another.

Only it's not for nothing that the free will/determinism debate is clearly one of science's and philosophy's greatest antinomies.

This thing:

Antinomy: a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable; a paradox.

We just don't know for certain, right? Instead, there are only those at both ends of intellectual spectrum who insist that we do know. Why? Because they know.

I merely focus in myself on the part that seems most important of all: free will or the lack thereof in regard to holding ourselves responsible for the behaviors we choose that result in human pain and suffering for others. If nature is entirely in command here, nothing that we do is ever not only what we ever could have done.

Good for the losers, bad for the winners, right?

Morally speaking, determinists are mainly divided into two camps, namely compatibilists and incompatibilists. The incompatibilists argue that determinism completely negates the possibility of agent causation, and therefore moral responsibility.


That's me of course.

On the other hand, compatibilists claim that moral responsibility is still applicable under determinism. They are both contrasted to libertarians, who defend moral responsibility through believing in free will, dismissing determinism.


Here we go again: grappling with and attempting to grasp how on earth the compatibilists pull that rabbit out of the hat. In other words, being compelled by the laws of matter to grapple with and attempt to grasp that which I was never able not to.


This discovery reconciles the fact that man’s will is not free with moral responsibility. The conundrum which continues to perplex philosophers is the problem of moral responsibility, which has given rise to compatibilism; a twisted way to keep determinism intact but still allow for blame and punishment. If man’s will is not free, then it’s not free under any condition not just what compatibilists define as being free. Having a choice that is devoid of outside pressure or serious mental incapacity is not synonymous with freedom of the will. There is no free will anywhere to be found. The good news is that even though determinism wins, mankind also wins once we have a true grasp of how this knowledge leads to a beneficial change in human conduct.
Last edited by peacegirl on Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:18 am

Antinomy?

There is no antinomy between the will and determinism. The only thing that throws a spanner in the works in the word "FREE".
But you have to ask what is the word free doing in the phrase "free will", free of what? free from what? free by what measure? Free how?

When you answer those questions you realise how fake absolute freedom is. And when you arrive at the other end you are the inevitable compatibilist - a species of a determinist.
Sculptor
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:39 am

Sculptor wrote:Antinomy?

There is no antinomy between the will and determinism. The only thing that throws a spanner in the works in the word "FREE".
But you have to ask what is the word free doing in the phrase "free will", free of what? free from what? free by what measure? Free how?

When you answer those questions you realise how fake absolute freedom is. And when you arrive at the other end you are the inevitable compatibilist - a species of a determinist.


Again, it’s back to definition. Free will is the ability to choose otherwise, but that’s impossible. You can define free will as anything you want to make it appear compatible, but it’s only because of a semantic sleight of hand.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1650
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Sculptor » Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:08 pm

peacegirl wrote:
Sculptor wrote:Antinomy?

There is no antinomy between the will and determinism. The only thing that throws a spanner in the works in the word "FREE".
But you have to ask what is the word free doing in the phrase "free will", free of what? free from what? free by what measure? Free how?

When you answer those questions you realise how fake absolute freedom is. And when you arrive at the other end you are the inevitable compatibilist - a species of a determinist.


Again, it’s back to definition. Free will is the ability to choose otherwise, but that’s impossible. You can define free will as anything you want to make it appear compatible, but it’s only because of a semantic sleight of hand.


I think the meaning of free, is clear enough. What is important is what can it mean in the context of the will.
What motivates the will? What informs the will? Can you command your will? How? Is Schoppenhaur correct that the buck stops at the will?
Sculptor
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]