iambiguous wrote:How can the laws of nature applicable to all matter not be in sync with objectivity regarding this matter unfolding from the past into the present into the future? Only as it must.
peacegirl wrote: The laws of nature are in sync only as they must, but by the way you are defining determinism, you are holding the past responsible for your actions, which is false since nothing from the past can cause you to do anything since we only have the present. IOW, how can the past make you do anything when this word doesn't define anything real?
iambiguous wrote:If the laws of nature encompass all matter [including brain matter] unfolding from the past into the present into the future only as these laws compel it to, what isn't nature responsible for?
Nothing at all.
iambiguous wrote:And how would not the laws of matter be wholly responsible for any definitions that any particular brains -- as matter -- are compelled by nature to think up?
Nothing at all. I’ve said it countless times that we have no control over what we think up and what we choose.
iambiguous wrote:I'm still perplexed [compelled or otherwise] by how you reconfigure [compelled or otherwise] these relationships "in your head" into the "choices" that we make that "for all practical purposes" would seem to unfold only as they must.
That’s true. I’m just clarifying what happens when we make a choice. You can’t tell me that you aren’t the one making the choice, can you?
iambiguous wrote:My point is that given our understanding of the laws of nature applicable to mindless matter, we can create things like the computer and the internet. You do the right things and they exists. You do the wrong things and they don't.
But what of mindful matter? What of human brains in the is/ought world and in discussions such as this? How do we demonstrate right and wrong then?
peacegirl wrote:I answered this. There is no right and wrong except for this hurting of others.
iambiguous wrote:There you go again making these "exceptions".
All he said was that there is no behavior that can be judged in a moralistic way. The problem is this hurting of others even though he said in actuality there is no right or wrong when seen in total perspective because we have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction.
iambiguous wrote:This mysterious "choice" that "I" makes in the present that is both somehow compelled by nature and not compelled by nature. And over and over and over again, it can be pointed out that in regard to human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments, what some construe to be right behaviors others construe to be wrong behaviors. And precisely because in behaving either way someone gets hurt.
There are ways to determine which person is doing the hurting, and when they know they are at fault (striking a first blow), they will find it unsatisfactory to continue.
iambiguous wrote:I challenge you to bring this part...
However, there is no mathematical standard as to
what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of
others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire
hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those
schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope
with a hostile environment that will no longer be.
....down to earth. Note a particular context in which behaviors come into conflict over hurting others and note how this might be "removed" by the author's discovery.
In other words, assuming that we do possess some measure of autonomy and all of these words that we are typing back and forth were not only as they ever could have been typed back and forth.
Firstly, all hurt in the economic system must be removed. IOW, as long as we are justified in hurting others so that we are not losers, this principle won't be effective because the hurt to us that justifies us hurting them has not been removed. But when the hurt to us is removed, then hurting someone would become a first blow which could not be justified under the changed conditions.
iambiguous wrote: How does the author demonstrate 1] that his own political prejudices regarding human interactions are necessarily in sync with progressive behavior and 2] that this progressive future will unfold [must unfold] when enough of us down the road "choose" to embrace his discovery...requiring nature itself to be in sync with his own understanding of the best of all possible worlds years -- decades? centuries? -- from now.
How does he actually demonstrate this in ways that experiments can be conducted, experiences can be probed, predictions can be made, results can be replicated by others, in the course of applying his discovery to the things that they either "choose" in a determined universe or choose in a world where some measure of autonomy does in fact exist.
Where's the proverbial beef?!
peacegirl wrote:I gave you the first three chapters. Did you even attempt to read them? Can you explain the two-sided equation? I already explained that if the formula is correct, then the real life application is a step away and cannot fail whether it's in a simulated environment, or the world environment.
iambiguous wrote:My only recourse here is to repeat myself:
How does the author demonstrate 1] that his own political prejudices regarding human interactions are necessarily in sync with progressive behavior and 2] that this progressive future will unfold [must unfold] when enough of us down the road "choose" to embrace his discovery...requiring nature itself to be in sync with his own understanding of the best of all possible worlds years -- decades? centuries? -- from now.
How does he actually demonstrate this in ways that experiments can be conducted, experiences can be probed, predictions can be made, results can be replicated by others, in the course of applying his discovery to the things that they either "choose" in a determined universe or choose in a world where some measure of autonomy does in fact exist.
I already told you that this blueprint of a better world is difficult to simulate because we live in a free will environment of blame and punishment therefore we can't easily separate the variables to prove that a no blame environment would produce the results that we're looking for, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. We could also jump right to the Great Transition (which would take place worldwide) when scientists recognize that these principles are correct.
iambiguous wrote:Now, nature will either compel you to wiggle out of actually responding to these points once again, or it won't.
I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. I'm trying to answer you as best as I can.
iambiguous wrote:That, in my view, is basically how words work in the author's "discovery". They are attached through definitions to other words defending the meaning of more words still.
peacegirl wrote: What makes up a definition, and who says your definition is the most accurate?
iambiguous wrote:Again, a definition in regard to what? And my point is that there are definitions for the words we use here able to be linked to the world around us. Definitions that seem to be applicable to all of us.
But what about the definitions of "determinism" and "free will" and "compatibilism"? How do we pin down the one and only definition that all of us must use when confronting behaviors we either "choose" given the psychological illusion of free will or choose because somehow it can be demonstrated that the matter we call the human brain is qualitatively different from all other matter that comes before it.
peacegirl wrote: The human brain is qualitatively different than other species but this has nothing to do with the fact that we are part of the natural world and function within it.
iambiguous wrote:So these qualitative differences exist but for all practical purposes nothing changes. The matter in our brain is still no less a necessary part of the natural world unfolding per the immutable laws of matter.
Only "I" get to "choose" to type these words that I was never able not to type.
Nothing changes in our brain, but our choices change --- all in accordance with natural law and what gives us greater satisfaction --- when the environment changes. You have no idea of all the changes that are going to take place to produce this worldwide paradigm shift that will benefit everyone.
peacegirl wrote: The more specific we are in defining these terms, the better we can communicate.
iambiguous wrote:What you mean of course is that the more nature compels us to define words more specifically the more nature will still unfold only as it ever could have.
Actually the fact that you continue to speak of nature as if you have no "I" or agency, is confounding the issue.
iambiguous wrote:In other words...
We just don't know if those subjective interpretations themselves are not in fact embedded/embodied as well in the illusion of human autonomy.
peacegirl wrote: We have the autonomy, or freedom, to make choices when nothing external is constraining us. Call it autonomy if you will. It doesn't matter. What matters is that once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise.
[/quote]
iambiguous wrote:Again and again: even in a world where free will prevails, once a choice is made it stays made. That's just common sense
Not according to some people. They believe we could have made a different choice which is why they feel justified in blaming the individual for his bad choices.
iambiguous']But if we are a part of nature and nature unfolds in sync with its own inherent material laws, than nothing can be external to it. Yet somehow you and the author in the moment of "choosing" itself are external to it. Or, rather, so it seems to me.[/quote]
In actuality, unless we are prevented from making a choice by force, we have the ability to choose. The compatibilists define choices that are constrained by external conditions such as having a gun to your head or having OCD, which is an internal constraint, as being less free than people who are not constrained by these conditions. But these made up definitions are artificial because regardless of the difficulty of the choices we make, we are not free in any way, shape, or form.
[quote="iambiguous wrote:But that is "demonstrated" to us in a world of words said to be defined only as all the rest of us are obligated to define them in turn. Even though obligations themselves are but another inherent manifestion of nature having evolved into human brains compelled to make them.
And maybe due to the fact that people want to stick with a definition that is embedded in their brains, this discovery may take many more years to come to light.
iambiguous wrote:Your own brain being compelled to note things like this:
...we could not not prefer what we prefer, but nature didn't cause us to prefer it, just as the past didn't cause us to prefer it. We preferred what we preferred because of the many things that influenced our choice at that moment including our heredity, our environment, our brain state, etc.
And all of those things that influence us...how are they not in turn but more manifestations of nature and the laws that propel it?
I never said they weren't. That's why I can't blame you or anyone else for not being interested. I have to accept what is because no one can prefer what they don't prefer, or want to learn more about what they don't want to learn more about.
iambiguous wrote:I still don't grasp this distinction you make if the human brain is no less subject to the laws of matter.
peacegirl wrote: It's a subtle difference but an important one. If I get knocked down by a crane, I played no part in the decision. That's similar to the domino example, but when I choose between options, I am making the decision in the direction of greater satisfaction, not something external to me (the way you describe nature forcing a decision on me).
iambiguous wrote:You got knocked down by the crane because nature compelled you to "choose" to be where the crane could knock you down. And you "chose" to be there because nature compelled you to think/feel/believe that being there embodied your greater satisfaction.
And maybe it was just a matter of luck that I was at the wrong place at the wrong time even though we know that nothing really happens by chance.
iambiguous wrote:Now the crane operator was compelled by nature to knock you down. But some are compelled by nature to think that he knocked you down on purpose. Nature then compels them to go to the police who are in turn compelled to arrest him so that nature can compel the court system to put him on trial.
And yet in the midst of all these "choices" there is a flicker of "I" that is somehow "external" to nature.
There is nothing external to nature. Whatever would unfold would unfold naturally, but the difference is that in the new world there would be no blame even if the company was at fault and even if I broke my neck, no police calls blaming the operator, no insurance claims other than no fault. No accusations whatsoever.
iambiguous wrote:Which nature has now complelled you to fail to demonstrate. Or so nature now compels me to insist.
I am at a disadvantage because you have not met me halfway. I am stuck trying to explain a major discovery without you actually taking the time to read the first three chapters CAREFULLY. Yet you are more than quick to tell me what this discovery is not.
peacegirl wrote: You keep telling me his definition is just another intellectual contraption. If you believe that, then please stick to the definition that you believe is correct. What more can I do?
iambiguous wrote:How can I not but stick to the meaning that nature has compelled me here and now to believe is correct? I don't profess this capacity at the moment of "choosing" itself to be external to nature.
I don't either. That's why determinism is a NATURAL law, but when you say nature compelled me to do this or that, you are making it sound as if you are not making the choice. You are shifting all of your responsibility for making the choice (not moral responsibility) to nature, as if nature isn't embedded in you. You are part of the law, not separate from it. Nature can't make you choose what you yourself don't want to choose. Maybe if I say this enough times, you'll get it but I'm not banking on it.
iambiguous wrote:But if you are compelled to believe by nature that the author was compelled by nature to define all of his words such that no further demonstrations are needed to insure our "progressive future", then you're the lucky one. Nature has provided you with a frame of mind that comforts and consoles you. It has provided me with no such thing at all. Quite the opposite. At least until someday [perhaps] when, in the moment of "choosing", nature will compel me to be outside of it long enough to delude myself into believing that I am not just another of its dominoes.
It's probably easier for me to grasp because I grew up with this knowledge without the burden of the conventional definition, but you have to deconstruct what you have learned to embrace something new, which is difficult.
peacegirl wrote: The past doesn't cause. God doesn't cause. The Big Bang doesn't cause.
iambiguous wrote:In other words, nature has yet to compel me to define cause here as it has compelled you to.
True. A lot of deconstruction needs to occur but it won't if you don't understand the two undeniable principles that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction (which you have yet to disprove) and that nothing can force us to do what we make up our mind not to do. If you want to give a rebuttal to these two principles, go right ahead. If you can't prove him wrong, then the accuracy of these two principles holds. These principles lead to the two-sided equation (the actual discovery) which is in Chapter Two. I predict we will never get there because you are so sure that his writing is an assumption and an intellectual contraption.
peacegirl wrote: The first cause is misleading. We live in the present, and our choices are based on the considerations of the moment using our past memories to influence our choices in the here and now. This is a tougher concept to explain than I ever imagined.
iambiguous wrote:Look, as long as you keep your arguments revolving around "concepts" all you'll ever need are words to define.
Words that reflect what is going on in reality. Definitions mean nothing otherwise.
iambiguous wrote:But what [so far] nature has not provided me with is an argument able to settle it once and for all. Though it has compelled others [like you] to be convinced that how they see everything is how everyone else is obligated to see it too.
Go figure nature, right?
peacegirl wrote: Do you not see what you're doing? You're shifting your responsibility to nature, as if nature is this entity that is forcing a choice on you WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. That's not how it works.
iambiguous wrote:Only when nature compels you to understand that how you insist it all works when your brain as an inherent component of nature compels you to shift the blame to me will you recognize that what you construe to be your "permission" at the moment of "choice" here is really just the psychological illusion of choice that nature has in turn compelled you to embody
I'm not shifting the blame to you iambiguous. You can't help yourself, and I know that, but when you say nature made you...you are shifting your responsibility (your choice) to something else. I hit the accelerator of the car. I am responsible for hitting the accelerator, although I can't be blamed for killing two children because I did this in the direction of greater satisfaction, over which I had no control. But this is not the end of the story. We can prevent the desire to take chances that lead to this kind of tragedy. But you're not interested. What can I say?
iambiguous wrote:Only I'm at least willing to acknowledge that I have no capacity to demonstrate that this is true. Why? Well, because, among other things, I am not a neuroscientist probing actual brains functioning in the the act of choosing. I [like you] am stuck instead with a world of words that define and defend other words in that gap between what "I" think I know here and now and all that there actually is to be known about all of this.
So now you're setting up a precondition that only neuroscientists can make a discovery? You're so off base. Your logic is getting you in trouble. Yes, you are stuck in a world of words where you can't escape.
iambiguous wrote:Then back to the really nitty-gritty part here:
I challenge you to note even one thing here that folks like us [here and now] can do to verify this account. Something that is beyond all doubt "scientifically confirmed" to be true about this future.
peacegirl wrote: For starters read the book. Maybe you will still have doubts but it will give you a much better understanding.
iambiguous wrote:No, for starters...
"I challenge you to note even one thing here that folks like us [here and now] can do to verify this account. Something that is beyond all doubt "scientifically confirmed" to be true about this future."
peacegirl wrote: This is an unfair accusation because this knowledge was not just thought up. It was anything but. It took this man's entire adult life to recognize the significance of what he discovered.
iambiguous wrote:Then you post another "world of words" assessment from the author.[/qutoe]
How can we communicate with each other without words? Yes, language is limited but we can get close enough to what we are tying to express through clear and precise definitions of every word we are using. That's what this author did. He actually has an entire chapter called Words, Not Reality. He knew the danger of using words that were not reflective of anything real.
iambiguous wrote:But, again, in all those words...
"I challenge you to note even one thing here that folks like us [here and now] can do to verify this account. Something that is beyond all doubt "scientifically confirmed" to be true about this future."
How is his "scientific miracle" manifested in a way that becomes clearer to us? How is it described in such a way that we can grasp its application to and implication for our own lives?
It can't change the world until this discovery is brought to light. Then plans can be implemented to get the Great Transition (from a free will environment to a no free will environment) started. But it can still benefit you by the realization that none of us are to blame. It invokes true compassion for everybody without giving up rehabilitative action if necessary, including incarceration to protect the public. This new world can't come about quickly. It will be done gradually as more people become citizens of the new world where they will be controlled by a much higher law than the manmade laws now in use.
iambiguous wrote:All the while demonstrating in turn how, at the moment in which we "choose" to react to it, we are somehow both at one with nature and simultaneously beyond nature compelling us to choose only what the laws of matter propel us to.
We are not beyond the laws of our nature that compel us to move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Where did you get the idea that before a choice is made it somehow both at one with nature and beyond nature. That's a false interpretation.
iambiguous wrote:Thought up in order to convince oneself that there really is a substitute for God in what may well be an essentially meaningless universe. The whole point is to feel comforted and consoled in believing it in and of itself.
It's really just another rendition of Scientology to me. Only its intention are more idealistic. It's not just something "thought up" to make a lot of money.
peacegirl wrote: This work has nothing to do with Scientology, which tells people what to do. This knowledge tells no one what to do. And it certainly isn't about making a lot of money.
iambiguous wrote:It has everything to do with a frame of mind that makes startling assumptions about the past, present and future...and then offers up no hard evidence to confirm that what is believed to be true in the heads of the adherents, is able to be demonstrated such that all reasonable men and women have no choice but -- for all practical purposes -- to accept that the teachings are able to be made applicable to their day to day lives here and now.
peacegirl wrote: There's enough hard evidence in the book for it to be given the attention it deserves. This has nothing to do with assumptions or what is believed to be true in the heads of the adherents.
iambiguous wrote:Then provide us with that which you construe to be the best examples of this.
Note to others who have read parts or all of the book:
Does the author [in your view] provide hard evidence to back up his theoretical assumptions about this progressive future?
There's not one person who has read these three chapters CAREFULLY. NOT ONE. There has been not one relevant question in all of this time. No rigorous analysis at all. This is a big problem with philosophy forums since I doubt there has ever been a time that someone would come online and espouse that they are sharing a genuine discovery. Even if they did read the first three chapters carefully, this is just the beginning of understanding how this new world can actually come about, which is explained in the economic chapter. Think about this: Assuming that the discovery is valid and sound, but people are treating it like junk because they are jumping to the conclusion that it can't be true (without studying the work), how can it be brought to light if this is the general consensus of those whose opinions count more than the actual proof? You might say, "Where is the proof"? The proof comes from astute observation (through many years of studying human behavior) and accurate inductive reasoning. Epistemology includes this path to truth as one of the methods that can be used. Obviously, empirical evidence is the ultimate judge and when it is shown to work, it will be the biggest news event in history. I know that's a bold statement but I'm that confident that we are on the precipice of a new world that will change history in a huge way.
