Mad Man P wrote: You can organize things in such a way that you create a system. Systems, as you complicate them, are governed by ever more distinct rules than their fundamental building blocks.
Protons, neutrons and electrons have rules but the biological systems that are made up of those things have their own set of distinct rules, then the organism made up of biological systems have their own rules... and so on and so forth.
We are many layers of systems deep when we get to human brains... so trying to understand how humans work by looking at how protons, neutrons and electrons work is at best a tremendous misunderstanding of our nature.
Even if this is entirely true, it doesn't explain why this set of rules and not another. Or demonstrate that the rules that exist either do or do not permit human minds to choose with some measure of autonomy.
Mad Man P wrote: Well evolution attempts to explain why these systems and not other systems came into being... as for your concept of autonomy, as you have presented it, seems to be logically impossible outside of solipsism...
Evolution [on earth] starts with figuring out how [presumably] mindless matter configured into living matter. And we don't even know for certain if life originated on earth or came from some object crashing into us eons ago. And then how living matter configured into human brains. And then how brains configured into minds. Minds on the level of human consciousness. Minds that, in my view, only a fool would insist they completely understand in relationship to the evolution of life in relationship to the existence of the universe in relationship to an understanding of existence itself.
As for my conception of autonomy...isn't that in turn embedded in a complete understanding of Reality itself? Not unlike, for example, yours?
How do we grapple with human logic beyond that which we are able demonstrate it is in fact logical to believe? And for that we would need an actual existential context. So, pick one.
Then folks like Gib come along and suggest that mind itself somehow set it all into motion.
Mad Man P wrote: You see, we need to define our terms and stick with those definitions in order to have a productive conversation... I need to understand what it is you are saying to me and you need to understand what I am saying to you.
I agree, but: How on earth could we possibly come up with a set of definitions applicable to grappling definitively with human autonomy when we do not appear to have the capacity even to determine [and then to demonstrate] that accomplishing something like this is in and of itself within our capacity autononously?
Think of all the definitions that we can acquire in relationship to understanding the sport of baseball and the sport of basketball. But if we shift the discussion to whether baseball is a better sport than basketball, what set of definitions could we come up with in order to understand logically the meaning of "better"?
Same with a discussion revolving around this discussion itself. What entirely rational definition of "auntonmy" could be pinned down to determine whether that discussion was or was not only as it ever could have been?
Now, I'll be the first to admit that technically my arguments here may well be flawed. But what else is there? Others are either able [freely or mechanically] to make me understand this or they are not. And if they can't they can always [freely or mechanically] give up on me and move on to others.
But I suspect that none of us are likely to grasp these relationships wholly. And [it seems] the only way this will be decided is if they succeed in convincing the world at large that their narrative here is either the optimal or the only rational/logical/epistemologically sound explanation in sync with a complete understanding of existence itself.
Mad Man P wrote: If you say 2+2=3 the first thing I'd ask you is how you define those terms.
if you say "...." I count 3 periods in the quoted section then I can see how you got your results, but you and I seem to have a different understanding of what that symbol means.
Again, we need a context. Two apples plus two apples equals four apples. Given the extent to which we can all agree on what those words mean. Or you can say that two apples plus two apples equals one jar of applesauce.
Or you can note that two doctors performing two abortions equals four doctors performing four abortions.
But if we shift to the morality of abortion and some argue that freedom equals the natural right of the fetus to be born while others insist that freedom equals the political right of pregnant women to kill them, which definition of freedom here is the most [or the only] rational, logical, epistemoligically sound definition?
And then when we shift gears again in examining our capacity to sustain this very exchange autonomously, which set of definitions is able to be demonstrated to be the most [or the only] rational, logical and epistemologically sound one around?
Mad Man P wrote: When you say "there can be no choice/autonomy in a deterministic universe" I have to check to see if those words means something different to you before we can argue about whether you added things up wrong or not.
Then I'm back to the autonomous aliens. The part that once again you have not yet commented on. This part:
Let's consider a hypothetical I raised with Gib...
Imagine that earth is in a part of the universe where everything -- everything -- is wholly determined by the laws of matter. Aliens from a part of the universe where autonomy prevails note the option that I chose. They are freely debating among themselves whether that was the right thing to do while pointing out that in making the choice myself, I was never really "metaphysically" able to choose other than what I did. But: my brain/mind has deluded me into thinking that "psychologically" I freely chose either 1 or 2.
Would they not note in turn that the question you posed to me and the manner in which I chose to answer was only ever as it could have been down on a planet existing in a part of the universe in which everything -- everything -- unfolds only as it ever could have.Well, in a wholly determined universe, the minimum requirement would seem to the existence of matter able to delude itself that it is freely choosing among various options. Or matter having evolved into human brains actually able to precipitate a human consciousness that has somehow acquired the capacity to choose of it's own volition.
Now, who among us here is able to demonstrate that it is unequivocally one rather than the other?
Mad Man P wrote: No one can demonstrate anything unequivocally... so that's a silly question to hinge this on.
On the contrary. Having to acknowledge that gap between what we think we know here and now about these things and all that there is to be known about the existence of existence itself could not possibly be of more importance.
It is just so exasperating to admit that, isn't it? Then we are stuck with figuring out a way to narrow that gap. Knowing that this may well not even be within the capacity
of the human mind here and now. Yet there are those among us will go to the grave convinced that their own "philosophy of life" or their own understanding of "existence itself", was the right one.
But, again, that speaks more to the existential parameters of human psychology to me. And even here that may well only be as it ever could have been
Mad Man P wrote: We could however examine the logical consistency of such perspectives as well as the practical value of said definitions.
Okay, choose a context. Note a set of circumstances where human beings interact and come up with a set of definitions that will allow us to fully understand them, describe them, pass judgment on them.
Mad Man P wrote: You, for example, seem to have defined autonomy in such a way that it is made LOGICALLY impossible outside of solipsism...
what value is there in such a definition? what use does that have?
Its value either lies in the manner in which I have concluded autonomously that it is valuable to me or that conclusion itself is the only one that I was ever able to come to.
Mad Man P wrote: Like say "you are an empathetic person" might be one of your characteristics.
Is this a characteristic I freely chose to embody, or is the entirety of my character a material, physical, phenomenal mechanism wholly in sync with the laws of matter?
I don't know. But you seem to think that you do. But you have no way [beyond a world of words in my view] in which to demonstrate it.
Or, rather, nothing that has so far convinced me.
Mad Man P wrote: I am not attempting to convince you... I'm attempting to make sense.
Then it comes down to the extent to which you are able to demonstrate that the sense you do make of all this, is that which all rational men and women are obligated to make. Or to demonstrate that the obligation itself is either in sync with human autonomy or in sync with a wholly determined universe.
Folks like Gib here [if I understand him] seem to argue that "metaphysically" we are not free. But that the evolution of matter is such that "psychologically" the human "I" is at least able to note that they made a choice. Even if that was the only choice they ever could have made.
Mad Man P wrote: If you refuse to be reasonable or refuse to apply a charitable interpretation to what I say by ignoring the context in which it was said, for example, I'm perfectly happy to leave you unconvinced.
Again, making me the issue -- the problem -- here. If we assume human autonomy then I am freely making the wrong assumptions because you are making the right ones. The sensible ones. And if human interactions are wholly determined given the actual existence of the immutable laws of matter, my failure to grasp "choices" here as you and others do, was never going to not be the case.
Indeed, how are the philosophical tools that we call logic and knowledge applicable in discussions such as this?
Mad Man P wrote: If they cannot be brought to bear, that marks the end of our conversation...
But how do we determine the extent to which any of us do bring them to bear was within our capacity not to?
Mad Man P wrote: Edit:
It occurs to me that I did not provide an explanation as to why I say your definition is only logically possible given solipsism.
It's quite simply this:
If autonomy means to choose your own character, then there is no character to the thing that chooses, which means it cannot be defined, if it cannot be defined it has no borders, if it has no borders it is "reality"... whatever reality we take ourselves to be in, whether entirely materialistic, dualistic, supernatural, deterministic or utterly random it is all of that reality. It cannot be merely a "part" of that reality because then we could define "the part" that it was but the moment it has a character, it is no longer autonomous... I imagine you would say it is enslaved to it's own character.
Utterly, utterly abstract. So, again:
Choose a context. Note a set of circumstances where human beings interact and come up with a set of definitions that will allow us to fully understand them, describe them, pass judgment on them.That will allow us to make an attempt to determine and to demonstrate that one's "character" is not just another aggregation of dominoes intertwined with all the other aggregation of dominoes going back to a complete understanding of existence itself.
