peacegirl wrote: The principle that we always move in the direction of greater satisfaction IS SOUND, and the principle that nothing in this world has the power to make us do what we make up our mind not to do, IS SOUND.
Yes, and then this principle bumps into the principle that nature compels us to move only in the direction of that which it has, in turn, already compelled us to conclude is the direction of our greater satisfaction. That principle then thought to be no less SOUND than yours.
Then what?
Well, then nature either compels others to move in the direction of one point of view or the other.
peacegirl wrote: He also showed how conscience works given a different environment based on the two sided equation which you have no understanding of
Whose conscience, pertaining to what environment, pertaining to what two-side equation, pertaining to what actual chosen behaviors?
What on earth
does that mean?!!!
iambiguous wrote:But what peacegirl fails to provide [me] is the sort of empirical evidence that might encourage me to explore further the author's discovery as it relates to this so-called "progressive" future. Is there anything at all that I can do [or an experiment that I can perform] in order fathom how the near future is both the embodiment of "no free will" and of "choice"?
peacegirl wrote: You are using the word "choice" as if "free" is automatically assumed. We can have options iambiguous, and still not have free will. That's why he said the word choice is misleading because that would indicate we are free to choose this option or that option equally, or without compulsion, which is false.
Yes, the aliens residing in autonomous part of the universe have the actual option to
choose -- to either note how the author's own options reflected merely the psychological illusion of choice back then or to note how your own options today can never be more than nature compelling you to "choose" to come back into this exchange with me.
Only in my own rendition of determinism, it's nature all the way down. And then all the way back to an explanation for existence itslef.
iambiguous wrote:What on earth -- in terms of the behaviors we choose -- does she mean by that? In other words, "for all practical purposes."
peacegirl wrote: For all practical purposes, the fact that we are compelled to choose what gives us greater preference is the underpinning of his entire discovery, since under new conditions we can't prefer (in the direction of greater satisfaction) to hurt others without justification. It's the most practical knowledge of all!
Note to others:
Is it even possible, in terms of the behaviors that we do choose, to encompass the meaning of "for all practicle purposes" in a more obscure, obtuse and hopelessly abstract manner.
From my frame of mind [compelled or not] it encompasses instead precisely how the author's "discovery" above [encompassed in excerpts] is little more
than an "intellectual contraption".
She brings none of it down to earth, in my view.
iambiguous wrote:After all, what are neuroscientists who explore this experientially doing but probing actual brains in the process of choosing. Are there chemical and neurological processes going on biologically in the brain such that it can finally be determined once and for all if any particular choice is only that which it ever could have been?
peacegirl wrote: Exploring actual brains can do nothing to understand the behavioral aspect of what these brains do under environmental conditions. You believe that neuroscientists will have the answer when it's right in front of you. You're disrespecting him by saying it's in his head, without understanding anything he wrote. How ironic!
Yes, I agree that probing the brain of a particular woman with an unwanted pregnancy hooked up to fMRI technology is not the same as probing it in the context of the
choices/"choices" she makes on the way to the abortion clinic.
It's just a start until the technology is shrunk down to an instrument able to be taken into the clinic with her.
But how on earth is the author's discovery applicable to the brain of this woman making her choices. How on earth does he connect the dots between here and now and a progressive future where the hurt inflicted on the shredded fetus and the hurt inflicted on a woman forced to give birth somehow just go away. If, for now, only in the author's head?
iambiguous wrote:That's why I always come back to dreams. In my own dream states, "I" am utterly convinced the interactions are "in reality". My own dreams in particular because they almost always revolve not around the fantastic but around contexts that I completely familiar with -- childhood dreams, army dreams, war dreams, college dreams, political activist dreams, job dreams, family and friends dreams. They often involve people I once knew intimately. And "in the dreams" the events are unfolding not at all unlike they once did "in reality". And they are astoundingly elaborate. I find myself reading things, hearing things, experiencing things in great detail.
How to explain that?
peacegirl wrote: We know our dreams are not real but they serve a purpose. We also know we have no control over our dreams, just like we don't have control over other autonomic systems. What does this have to do the discussion?
We know that in our dreams we are no less convinced that we are freely choosing to behave as we do. Or, rather, that's the way it is in my dreams. Only upon waking do we become cognizant that this "reality" was created entirely by the brain in our brain.
Only how do we demonstrate in turn that our becoming cognizant of the dream upon waking is no less a necessary manifestation of nature having remarkably evolved into matter able to accomplish this?
Where is the author's explanation for that?
And if you actually see no connection between the points I raise about dream reality and waking reality in a wholly determined universe, then, well, damned if I know.
iambiguous wrote:If the brain is necessarily in sync with the laws of matter then anything it concludes about the is/ought world is merely another manifestation of the either/or world. The future will be only what in can be -- only what it must be. You and I are just along for the inevitable ride. We are basically nature's dominoes that "choose".
peacegirl wrote: We are just along for the ride. We have no control over what gives us greater satisfaction, and in that sense the future will be only what it can be -- only what it must be. That's true, but our choices are part of the necessary unfolding which will lead us in a direction that will bring sustenance and peace to the entire world.
Back again to that mysterious manner in which [here] you are in sync with my own frame of mind, but...
...but then make our "choices" both 1] a part of a necessary unfolding of history into that which it can only ever be
and 2] able to particpate in the author's "progressive" future in the moment of "choosing" to before the
true "no free will world" kicks in.
In other words, whatever that means. And, no, for me, it's not just "for all paractical purposes". Even as an intellectual contraption itself it makes no sense to me.
But, I'm willing to acknowledge two things...
1] that the problem is me...your explanations are more reasonable than mine but I am unable to grasp them...though only as nature compels this to be
2] that we both have some measure of autonomy here...and that your reasoning is still more sophisticated than mine
iambiguous wrote:But never choose in the sense that free will advocates are compelled to believe.
Or so it seems to me. And she simply refuses to explore the points I raise about dasein and conflicting goods and political economy. In part because, once again, these things would pertain only to a world in which at least some measure of human autonomy exists.
peacegirl wrote: Iambiguous, you refuse to read the book.
peacegirl, you refuse to provide me with the sort of evidence that demonstrates to me that the author is able to bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth...such that I am enticed to explore his discovery in full
Besides, nature has yet to compel me to read it.
Right?
peacegirl wrote: The economic chapter is filled with how conflicting goods and political conflict will be eliminated only because everyone will never be poverty stricken where they need to hurt others (whether it's hurting individuals or countries) for self-preservation. I'm not going to spoon feed this knowledge to you.
Okay, step by step, in regard to the global economy today, note how the author is convincing in persuading us to see this transformation more clearly.
Also, just out of curiosity, how did he react to the manner in which Marx and Engels also envisioned a progressive future predicated on the historical evolution of political economy into a classless society which as well minimized the pain and suffering of humanity?
Theoretically.
Of course they actually brought their own speculations down to earth by noting the actual evolution of political economy over the course of human interaction down through the ages. Focusing on the means of production and the manner in different types of human communities predicated social and political interactions -- the superstructure --
on these fundamental forces. The infrastructure. The economic base.
peacegirl wrote: You're the one that's losing out because of your stubborn resistance to reading what you don't believe is possible. That's your problem, not mine.
Over and over and over again you level this sort of accusation at me --- in much the same manner that those who embrace free will would.
The irony then being completely lost on you.
peacegirl wrote: And, btw, I will answer posts that are between you and others. I don't want to answer posts from you directly because you make false accusations about the author and you tell me these premises are assumptions, which they are anything but.
Keep telling yourself that. After all, it's not like you actually have the option not to. But that's between you and nature.
But [compelled or not] I'm sticking to my own assumption. That, psychologically, this exchange with me is creating more and more cracks in your own objectivist font.
And that won't be tolerated. Not for now. And I know this because it took years before the cracks finally led to the crumbling of my own objectivist font. Fonts, actually. God. No God.
No one I suspect would ever want to end up construing things as grimly as I do "here and now". I sure as shit don't.