New Discovery

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

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Sun Mar 24, 2019 7:36 pm

peacegirl wrote:

One of the reasons there has been so little progress in the free will/determinism debate is the issue of moral responsibility. If will is not free our entire penal system would collapse, for it is based on the idea that a person could have done otherwise (he could have chosen not to shoot that person) and therefore he can be punished for his wrongdoing.


iambiguous wrote:How could a penal system either collapse or not collapse other than as it was ever compelled to be given a human history that could never be other then what nature compels it to be as well?


peacegirl wrote: You are back to saying the same thing that you cannot not keep saying obviously. Your comment has been well taken.


I don't understand this. What I am thinking here and now, like your thought of a collapsing penal system, like the fate of the penal system itself historically, would seem to be all "at one" with the only possible manner in which existence/reality can unfold in a wholly ordered universe. One entirely in sync with the laws of matter. Of which the human brain itself is entirely "at one" with.

That's how I describe a determined universe given how I have come to understand it. And all I can do here is to openly and honestly confront the manner in which you and others think about it instead.

After all, if how I think about it is wrong and I do possess some measure of free will, I might come to change my mind. And this is because I believe that, in relationship to questions like this [as to questions revolving around moral and political narratives] "I" is an existential contraption rooted in a world of contingency, chance and change such that new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas might precipitate a new point of view.

I merely speculate in turn that, in an autonomous universe, this is also applicable to you.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:Human morality is just another set of dominoes that came into existence naturally as a result of mindless matter evolving in life on earth evolving into the human brain evolving into human consciousness evolving into "I" compelled to believe that it is choosing freely to distinguish right from wrong so that the penal system compelled into existence can unfold only as it was ever going to.


peacegirl wrote: Everything came into existence out of necessity. We are instructed, by our nature, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction which is also part of nature's design.


Exactly. Nature calls the shots up and down the line. Nothing that is matter, including a particular brain compelling a particular "I" to move in a particular direction of greater satisfaction, is exempt.

And yet somehow time and again I get this sense that to you there are exceptions. It revolves around the fact that unlike dominoes we "choose" our fate. Though, to you, fate is the wrong word.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:Determinism either encompasses all matter or human consciousness [encased in the human brain] is demonstrated to be a very different kind of matter.

Unless of course I'm wrong.


peacegirl wrote: Determinism does not swallow up choice. It allows for choice, although never free.


Well, if determinism is as I understand it, it swallowed up your choice to type these words; just as it swallows whole my choice to react to it as I am here and now.

Thus, when you note things like this...

peacegirl wrote: Everything comes from the brain as part of matter, including our choices. Where does autonomy (or free will) enter into it?


...I think, that is my point!

Which clearly indicates that I am not understanding yours.


The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.


Or: The reason I am confused is that I was never able not to be confused. And the author doesn't choose to point this out to me, he "chooses" to.

iambiguous wrote:Wrong because I had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but I chose not to instead.

Given some measure of autonomy.


peacegirl wrote: You had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but "capacity" does not mean you could have chosen to think about all this differently. Your mindset took you in a certain direction based on your life experiences and all of the factors that led you to making this particular choice. You had no free will or autonomy to choose other than what you chose.


Exactly how I would put it! Only instead of choose, I'd be compelled to opt for "choose".

And, given some measure of free will in the is/ought world, I would also suggest that "your mindset took you in a certain direction based on your life experiences and all of the factors that led you to making this particular choice".

The part I call dasein. "I" as an existential contraption taking particular subjective/subjunctive leaps to one or another set of moral and political prejudices. Prejudices then rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

In other words, the part that the objectivists here dread thinking might also be applicable to them. :o :shock:
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 32730
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:14 pm

Suppose in a wholly determined universe in sync with the laws of matter, the human brain, in being just more matter, compels any particular "I" to choose one [option] over the other? And then, further, is able to compel "I" to believe that she has actually chosen of her own volition to choose one rather than the other.

How do we determine definitively which is actually the case?

bahman wrote: Both are valid. We decide and then act. We however observe fantastic correlation between what we want and what we get. Therefore we deduce that we are correct with our observation.


Either we are free [existentially] to deduce that we are correct with our observation, or we were never able to deduce anything other than that which the laws of matter compel us to. How then do we go beyond deduction here and intertwine the parts "in our head" in actual experiments that would demonstrate definitively which it is?

Ths stuff that neuroscientists are doing right now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Instead, most of us here just "think up" things in our head about determinism and collate particular sets of assumptions into particular conclusions, the truth of which is predicated almost entirely on the initial set of assumptions themselves.

Me included.

iambiguous wrote:After all, in a dream you could choose one over the other and it is entirely the product of the chemical and neurological interactions in the brain.

bahman wrote: Dream is the result of subconscious mind activity. Conscious mind sometimes are informed about a dream.


Dreaming is the brain making choices while we are asleep. How is that the same or different from the brain making choices while we are awake?

That's the intriguing part, right?

Again, in a wholly determined universe, how is anything that you want not only what you are compelled to want? How is the feeling of being "trapped" not in turn wholly in sync with nature's way?


bahman wrote: We are partially free to do what we want in a deterministic world. I can raise my body whenever I want.


How is this really an answer to my question? You merely assert it as though that makes it true. You can raise your body in dreams too. Or, on drugs like LSD, believe that you raising it up through the roof. Or plagued by any number of metal illnesses and diseases of the brain, you can come to believe any number of things are true about your body that, in fact, are not true at all.
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: 32730
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:11 pm

peacegirl wrote:

One of the reasons there has been so little progress in the free will/determinism debate is the issue of moral responsibility. If will is not free our entire penal system would collapse, for it is based on the idea that a person could have done otherwise (he could have chosen not to shoot that person) and therefore he can be punished for his wrongdoing.


iambiguous wrote:How could a penal system either collapse or not collapse other than as it was ever compelled to be given a human history that could never be other then what nature compels it to be as well?


peacegirl wrote: You are back to saying the same thing that you cannot not keep saying obviously. Your comment has been well taken.


iambiguous wrote:I don't understand this. What I am thinking here and now, like your thought of a collapsing penal system, like the fate of the penal system itself historically, would seem to be all "at one" with the only possible manner in which existence/reality can unfold in a wholly ordered universe. One entirely in sync with the laws of matter. Of which the human brain itself is entirely "at one" with.


That is very true. The brain as part of and in sync with the laws of matter, can only move in one direction in this wholly determined universe.

iambiguous wrote:That's how I describe a determined universe given how I have come to understand it. And all I can do here is to openly and honestly confront the manner in which you and others think about it instead.

After all, if how I think about it is wrong and I do possess some measure of free will, I might come to change my mind. And this is because I believe that, in relationship to questions like this [as to questions revolving around moral and political narratives] "I" is an existential contraption rooted in a world of contingency, chance and change such that new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas might precipitate a new point of view.


Why is it necessary to make a distinction between a universe that is wholly determined (as we look back in hindsight) and being able to make choices based on contingency, chance and change? Once again, this "I" as part of the brain but also as the self, makes choices based on contingent circumstances. This "I" is not free even though it has the autonomy or freedom to choose one thing over another. The laws of matter do not force on us a particular choice which is what you seem to be implying.

iambiguous wrote:I merely speculate in turn that, in an autonomous universe, this is also applicable to you.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:Human morality is just another set of dominoes that came into existence naturally as a result of mindless matter evolving in life on earth evolving into the human brain evolving into human consciousness evolving into "I" compelled to believe that it is choosing freely to distinguish right from wrong so that the penal system compelled into existence can unfold only as it was ever going to.


I do not see humans as a set of dominoes because dominoes do not have the ability to contemplate and make choices (although not free ones). Being free to choose between options is all part of our natural inheritance but it does not allow for free will anywhere in the process. The "I" that is free to choose is embedded within the laws of matter, but that does not mean the "I" sidesteps this natural ability to think, ruminate, and ultimately decide.

peacegirl wrote: Everything came into existence out of necessity. We are instructed, by our nature, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction which is also part of nature's design.


iambiguous wrote:Exactly. Nature calls the shots up and down the line. Nothing that is matter, including a particular brain compelling a particular "I" to move in a particular direction of greater satisfaction, is exempt.


That is absolutely true. But the brain doesn't force a particular "I" to move in a particular direction WITHOUT THE "I" BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHOICE BEING MADE. To be able to say "NO" to a choice is also part of our natural inheritance.

iambiguous wrote:And yet somehow time and again I get this sense that to you there are exceptions. It revolves around the fact that unlike dominoes we "choose" our fate. Though, to you, fate is the wrong word.


Fate, the way it's often interpreted, is a resignation that one's choice doesn't matter because our choices will have no affect on the outcome. It is correct to say that given the choices that we have made, how things ultimately turn out (whether positive or negative) would be considered a matter of fate.

iambiguous wrote:Thus...

Determinism either encompasses all matter or human consciousness [encased in the human brain] is demonstrated to be a very different kind of matter.

Unless of course I'm wrong.


peacegirl wrote: Determinism does not swallow up choice. It allows for choice, although never free.


iambiguous wrote:Well, if determinism is as I understand it, it swallowed up your choice to type these words; just as it swallows whole my choice to react to it as I am here and now.

Thus, when you note things like this...

peacegirl wrote: Everything comes from the brain as part of matter, including our choices. Where does autonomy (or free will) enter into it?


iambiguous wrote:...I think, that is my point!

Which clearly indicates that I am not understanding yours.


Obviously, you don't. Just because humans have brains that allow us to choose between options does not grant us the free will to choose other than what we do, going back to our birth. Why is the concept that the "I" or self must move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction (offering us only one possible choice) so difficult to accept?

The word ‘choice’ itself indicates there are meaningful differences otherwise there would be no choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are confused is because the word choice is very misleading for it assumes that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion because the direction of life, always moving towards greater satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he, not someone else, considers better for himself, and when two or more alternatives are presented for his consideration he is compelled by his very nature to prefer not that one which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being better or more satisfying for the particular set of circumstances involved.


iambiguous wrote:Or: The reason I am confused is that I was never able not to be confused. And the author doesn't choose to point this out to me, he "chooses" to.


You are confused for whatever reason. Obviously, you were never able not to be confused at that moment. Choose or chooses? Don't understand.

iambiguous wrote:Wrong because I had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but I chose not to instead.

Given some measure of autonomy.


You had no choice iambiguous.

peacegirl wrote: You had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but "capacity" does not mean you could have chosen to think about all this differently. Your mindset took you in a certain direction based on your life experiences and all of the factors that led you to making this particular choice. You had no free will or autonomy to choose other than what you chose.


iambiguous wrote:Exactly how I would put it! Only instead of choose, I'd be compelled to opt for "choose".


However you want to frame it, you were compelled to "choose". Choose or "choose", your pick. :)

iambiguous wrote:And, given some measure of free will in the is/ought world, I would also suggest that "your mindset took you in a certain direction based on your life experiences and all of the factors that led you to making this particular choice".


Absolutely.

iamiguous wrote:The part I call dasein. "I" as an existential contraption taking particular subjective/subjunctive leaps to one or another set of moral and political prejudices. Prejudices then rooted in particular historical, cultural and experiential contexts.

In other words, the part that the objectivists here dread thinking might also be applicable to them. :o :shock:


Where does free will enter into any of this? The "I" is oftentimes subjective. There is conflict between people, their beliefs, their upbringing, their cultural and experiential contexts. And.... :-k
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Tue Mar 26, 2019 7:10 pm

iambiguous wrote: What I am thinking here and now, like your thought of a collapsing penal system, like the fate of the penal system itself historically, would seem to be all "at one" with the only possible manner in which existence/reality can unfold in a wholly ordered universe. One entirely in sync with the laws of matter. Of which the human brain itself is entirely "at one" with.


peacegirl wrote: That is very true. The brain as part of and in sync with the laws of matter, can only move in one direction in this wholly determined universe.


Once again, you conclude that we are in agreement about this. And yet clearly we are not in sync regarding the "for all practical purposes" implications of it for human interactions. You stress the part about the human brain/mind making a "choice" while I stress the part where that "choice" [in a determined universe] merely embodies for any particular "I" the psychological illusion of free will. The illusion itself being but one more manifestation of the laws of matter unfolding as they must.

iambiguous wrote:That's how I describe a determined universe given how I have come to understand it. And all I can do here is to openly and honestly confront the manner in which you and others think about it instead.

After all, if how I think about it is wrong and I do possess some measure of free will, I might come to change my mind. And this is because I believe that, in relationship to questions like this [as to questions revolving around moral and political narratives] "I" is an existential contraption rooted in a world of contingency, chance and change such that new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas might precipitate a new point of view.


peacegirl wrote: Why is it necessary to make a distinction between a universe that is wholly determined (as we look back in hindsight) and being able to make choices based on contingency, chance and change?


For the same reason it is necessary for you to ask me that: we were never really free not to.

In a wholly determined universe [as I understand it now], contingency, chance and change would be just different sets of dominoes toppling over only as they are compelled to given the physical, material, phenomenological laws embedded in all of nature's interactions.

It's just that some components of the universe are mindless and make no "choice" and others are mindful and do.

In fact, there may well be intelligent life in the universe that have advanced far beyond Earthlings in grappling with this. They may well be considerably closer to pinning down the whole truth once and for all. Even closer to grasping a complete understanding of existence itself.

But here and now that ain't us. Or, rather, to the best of my knowledge that ain't us.

peacegirl wrote: Once again, this "I" as part of the brain but also as the self, makes choices based on contingent circumstances. This "I" is not free even though it has the autonomy or freedom to choose one thing over another. The laws of matter do not force on us a particular choice which is what you seem to be implying.


But: How, in an entirely ordered universe, is everything that "I" think, feel, say and do, not ultimately contingent on the laws of nature themselves? When you keep insisting that, "[t]his 'I' is not free even though it has the autonomy or freedom to choose one thing over another", it makes no sense to me. How, instead, is "I" not "choosing" one thing over another?

The human brain/mind is either an exception here somehow or it's not.

iambiguous wrote: I do not see humans as a set of dominoes because dominoes do not have the ability to contemplate and make choices (although not free ones). Being free to choose between options is all part of our natural inheritance but it does not allow for free will anywhere in the process. The "I" that is free to choose is embedded within the laws of matter, but that does not mean the "I" sidesteps this natural ability to think, ruminate, and ultimately decide.


Either you will succeed one day in getting me to understand this as you do, or I will succeed in getting you to understand it as I do. Or someone else will succeed in changing both our minds. The only question then is this: will this unfold given some measure of autonomy on our part or are the laws of matter set up such that there is only one way in which it can unfold? We "choose" words here that we were never able to actually choose instead. You know, in the manner in which those who embrace human autonomy use the word.

peacegirl wrote: Everything came into existence out of necessity. We are instructed, by our nature, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction which is also part of nature's design.


iambiguous wrote:Nature calls the shots up and down the line. Nothing that is matter, including a particular brain compelling a particular "I" to move in a particular direction of greater satisfaction, is exempt.


peacegirl wrote: That is absolutely true. But the brain doesn't force a particular "I" to move in a particular direction WITHOUT THE "I" BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHOICE BEING MADE. To be able to say "NO" to a choice is also part of our natural inheritance.


If the human brain as matter is but a force of nature and nature is but a manifestation of immutable laws applicable to all matter, then arguing as you do here is just another instance of that. Right? "I" could never buck nature and choose something out of sync with its laws. My "no" is nature's no!

iambiguous wrote:And yet somehow time and again I get this sense that to you there are exceptions. It revolves around the fact that unlike dominoes we "choose" our fate. Though, to you, fate is the wrong word.


peacegirl wrote: Fate, the way it's often interpreted, is a resignation that one's choice doesn't matter because our choices will have no affect on the outcome. It is correct to say that given the choices that we have made, how things ultimately turn out (whether positive or negative) would be considered a matter of fate.


Of course our "choices" matter. Robert Mueller's choice to conclude that Trump did not collude with the Russians [in a criminal context] makes all the difference in world regarding, say, the 2020 presidential election here in America. But if fate is defined as that which is "destined to happen, turn out, in a particular way" to what extent was Mueller and Trump and all the other players here ever able to think, feel, say or do anything other than what they were compelled to do over the past two years?

Were the events of the last two years ever able to be other than what they in fact were in a determined universe?

peacegirl wrote: Just because humans have brains that allow us to choose between options does not grant us the free will to choose other than what we do, going back to our birth. Why is the concept that the "I" or self must move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction (offering us only one possible choice) so difficult to accept?


It would appear [to me] that it is difficult for me to accept this here and now because I was never able to choose -- choose freely -- to rethink the exchange and to come around to your frame of mind.

Perhaps nature has that in store for me in the future. But the mystery still resides in understanding how that works exactly.

So, around and around we go...

peacegirl wrote: You are confused for whatever reason. Obviously, you were never able not to be confused at that moment. Choose or chooses? Don't understand.


For me it's "choose" or choose. Being confused in any particular context is either something I am able to rectify by choosing to rethink your points [enabling me to not be confused] or nature is ever and always compelling me to "choose" only that which its very laws demand.

In other words...

peacegirl wrote: You had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but "capacity" does not mean you could have chosen to think about all this differently. Your mindset took you in a certain direction based on your life experiences and all of the factors that led you to making this particular choice. You had no free will or autonomy to choose other than what you chose.


iambiguous wrote:Exactly how I would put it! Only instead of choose, I'd be compelled to opt for "choose".


peacegirl wrote: However you want to frame it, you were compelled to "choose". Choose or "choose", your pick. :)


You mean however I "want" to frame it. I "want" only what nature compels me to want given my own understanding of determinism.
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: 32730
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:50 pm

duplicate
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:50 pm

duplicate
Last edited by peacegirl on Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:54 pm

iambiguous wrote:
iambiguous wrote: What I am thinking here and now, like your thought of a collapsing penal system, like the fate of the penal system itself historically, would seem to be all "at one" with the only possible manner in which existence/reality can unfold in a wholly ordered universe. One entirely in sync with the laws of matter. Of which the human brain itself is entirely "at one" with.


peacegirl wrote: That is very true. The brain as part of and in sync with the laws of matter, can only move in one direction in this wholly determined universe.


Once again, you conclude that we are in agreement about this. And yet clearly we are not in sync regarding the "for all practical purposes" implications of it for human interactions.


If you don't know what the implications are "for all practical purposes", how can we be out of sync?

iambiguous wrote:You stress the part about the human brain/mind making a "choice" while I stress the part where that "choice" [in a determined universe] merely embodies for any particular "I" the psychological illusion of free will. The illusion itself being but one more manifestation of the laws of matter unfolding as they must.


Everything we do, think, and feel is embodied in a determined universe but identifying oneself as "I" does not necessarily cause a psychological illusion of free will. For average folks who never gave this subject much thought may believe we have free will.

iambiguous wrote:That's how I describe a determined universe given how I have come to understand it. And all I can do here is to openly and honestly confront the manner in which you and others think about it instead.

After all, if how I think about it is wrong and I do possess some measure of free will, I might come to change my mind. And this is because I believe that, in relationship to questions like this [as to questions revolving around moral and political narratives] "I" is an existential contraption rooted in a world of contingency, chance change such that new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas might precipitate a new point of view.


Determinism does not mean there aren't contingencies that we base our ideas and actions on. You are creating a false dichotomy between the idea of free will based on contingency, and determinism based on no contingency. That's folly.


peacegirl wrote: Why is it necessary to make a distinction between a universe that is wholly determined (as we look back in hindsight) and being able to make choices based on contingency, chance and change?


iambiguous wrote:For the same reason it is necessary for you to ask me that: we were never really free not to.

In a wholly determined universe [as I understand it now], contingency, chance and change would be just different sets of dominoes toppling over only as they are compelled to given the physical, material, phenomenological laws embedded in all of nature's interactions.


Then why do you keep bringing up free will? Our choices are based on contingent experiences as we move about through our everyday lives. The choices we make are the only choices we could have made. I don't like the domino analogy because it isn't analogous in the most important aspect.

iambiguous wrote:It's just that some components of the universe are mindless and make no "choice" and others are mindful and do.


And that's a big difference! We have minds that think and can therefore change a particular trajectory, dominoes cannot.

iambiguous wrote:In fact, there may well be intelligent life in the universe that have advanced far beyond Earthlings in grappling with this. They may well be considerably closer to pinning down the whole truth once and for all. Even closer to grasping a complete understanding of existence itself.


Maybe, but this discovery offers a better understanding of human nature because the premises that lead to it are sound.

iambiguous wrote:Here and now that ain't us. Or, rather, to the best of my knowledge that ain't us.I


My imparting this knowledge can prevent war and crime. I am not trying to understand the nature of existence. You changed topics.

peacegirl wrote: Once again, this "I" as part of the brain but also as the self, makes choices based on contingent circumstances. This "I" is not free even though it has the autonomy or freedom to choose one thing over another. The laws of matter do not force on us a particular choice which is what you seem to be implying.


iambiguous wrote:But: How, in an entirely ordered universe, is everything that "I" think, feel, say and do, not ultimately contingent on the laws of nature themselves? When you keep insisting that, "[t]his 'I' is not free even though it has the autonomy or freedom to choose one thing over another", it makes no sense to me. How, instead, is "I" not "choosing" one thing over another?

The human brain/mind is either an exception here somehow or it's not.


The "I" is part of the brain that allows for recognition. This "I" is not free to choose what it doesn't want. It is just an identification to distinguish itself from other "I's".

iambiguous wrote: I do not see humans as a set of dominoes because dominoes do not have the ability to contemplate and make choices (although not free ones). Being free to choose between options is all part of our natural inheritance but it does not allow for free will anywhere in the process. The "I" that is free to choose is embedded within the laws of matter, but that does not mean the "I" sidesteps this natural ability to think, ruminate, and ultimately decide.


iambiguous wrote:Either you will succeed one day in getting me to understand this as you do, or I will succeed in getting you to understand it as I do. Or someone else will succeed in changing both our minds. The only question then is this: will this unfold given some measure of autonomy on our part or are the laws of matter set up such that there is only one way in which it can unfold? We "choose" words here that we were never able to actually choose instead. You know, in the manner in which those who embrace human autonomy use the word.


There's only one way anything can unfold, and that's the way it has unfolded. That doesn't mean that you are fated by matter to do that which you choose not to do.

peacegirl wrote: Everything came into existence out of necessity. We are instructed, by our nature, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction which is also part of nature's design.


iambiguous wrote:Nature calls the shots up and down the line. Nothing that is matter, including a particular brain compelling a particular "I" to move in a particular direction of greater satisfaction, is exempt.


peacegirl wrote: That is absolutely true. But the brain doesn't force a particular "I" to move in a particular direction WITHOUT THE "I" BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHOICE BEING MADE. To be able to say "NO" to a choice is also part of our natural inheritance.


iambiguous wrote:If the human brain as matter is but a force of nature and nature is but a manifestation of immutable laws applicable to all matter, then arguing as you do here is just another instance of that. Right? "I" could never buck nature and choose something out of sync with its laws. My "no" is nature's no!

Yup, that's absolutely true. Wherever the argument takes us is how it had to unfold, but if what I say makes any sense to you, then our interaction may take on a new perspective. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

iambiguous wrote:And yet somehow time and again I get this sense that to you there are exceptions. It revolves around the fact that unlike dominoes we "choose" our fate. Though, to you, fate is the wrong word.


peacegirl wrote: Fate, the way it's often interpreted, is a resignation that one's choice doesn't matter because our choices will have no affect on the outcome. It is correct to say that given the choices that we have made, how things ultimately turn out (whether positive or negative) would be considered a matter of fate.


iambiguous wrote:Of course our "choices" matter. Robert Mueller's choice to conclude that Trump did not collude with the Russians [in a criminal context] makes all the difference in world regarding, say, the 2020 presidential election here in America. But if fate is defined as that which is "destined to happen, turn out, in a particular way" to what extent was Mueller and Trump and all the other players here ever able to think, feel, say or do anything other than what they were compelled to do over the past two years?

Were the events of the last two years ever able to be other than what they in fact were in a determined universe?


Of course not. Everything had to be just the way it was, and will continue to unfold according to deterministic laws, but to say that it isn't us making the choice is false. Trump made certain choices that hurt his Presidency. Although he could not not have made them, that does not mean they weren't made by him.

peacegirl wrote: Just because humans have brains that allow us to choose between options does not grant us the free will to choose other than what we do, going back to our birth. Why is the concept that the "I" or self must move in the direction of what gives us greater satisfaction (offering us only one possible choice) so difficult to accept?


iambiguous wrote:It would appear [to me] that it is difficult for me to accept this here and now because I was never able to choose -- choose freely -- to rethink the exchange and to come around to your frame of mind.

Perhaps nature has that in store for me in the future. But the mystery still resides in understanding how that works exactly.

So, around and around we go...


Let me state what determinism doesn't mean: Determinism does not mean we don't make choices. It also doesn't mean our choices are set in stone before by some external force. It only means we are only able to move in one direction, the direction that we believe is better for ourselves given our particular set of circumstances. It is impossible to move against our own nature which is why this is an invariable law.

peacegirl wrote: You are confused for whatever reason. Obviously, you were never able not to be confused at that moment. Choose or chooses? Don't understand.


iambiguous wrote:For me it's "choose" or choose. Being confused in any particular context is either something I am able to rectify by choosing to rethink your points [enabling me to not be confused] or nature is ever and always compelling me to "choose" only that which its very laws demand.


Once again, you are making a false distinction, as if to say "choosing" to rethink my points in any way gives you autonomy or free will. =;

iambiguous wrote:In other words...

peacegirl wrote: You had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but "capacity" does not mean you could have chosen to think about all this differently. Your mindset took you in a certain direction based on your life experiences and all of the factors that led you to making this particular choice. You had no free will or autonomy to choose other than what you chose.


iambiguous wrote:Exactly how I would put it! Only instead of choose, I'd be compelled to opt for "choose".


peacegirl wrote: However you want to frame it, you were compelled to "choose". Choose or "choose", your pick. :)


iambiguous wrote:You mean however I "want" to frame it. I "want" only what nature compels me to want given my own understanding of determinism.


You can't not want what nature compels you to want because they are one and the same. :)
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby iambiguous » Thu Mar 28, 2019 6:28 pm

peacegirl wrote: The brain as part of and in sync with the laws of matter, can only move in one direction in this wholly determined universe.


iambiguous wrote:Once again, you conclude that we are in agreement about this. And yet clearly we are not in sync regarding the "for all practical purposes" implications of it for human interactions.


peacegirl wrote: If you don't know what the implications are "for all practical purposes", how can we be out of sync?


Given my own understanding of determinism, anything/everything I know or don't know, like anything/everything you know or don't know, is always in sync with the laws of matter inextricably unfolding like nature's clockwork.

So, whether we seem to be either in sync or out of sync about anything is simply part of the "brute facticity" that is existence itself.

iambiguous wrote:You stress the part about the human brain/mind making a "choice" while I stress the part where that "choice" [in a determined universe] merely embodies for any particular "I" the psychological illusion of free will. The illusion itself being but one more manifestation of the laws of matter unfolding as they must.


peacegirl wrote: Everything we do, think, and feel is embodied in a determined universe but identifying oneself as "I" does not necessarily cause a psychological illusion of free will. For average folks who never gave this subject much thought may believe we have free will.


Again, you speak of something not being "necessarily caused" when, from the perspective of many determinists, even "choosing" to point that out is a necessary component of whatever is behind the existence of existence itself.

"I" don't freely identify myself as anything. Instead, the evolution of life on earth has culminated in brain matter able [inherently/genetically/biologically] to convince "I" that it does choose things of its own volition.

peacegirl wrote: Determinism does not mean there aren't contingencies that we base our ideas and actions on. You are creating a false dichotomy between the idea of free will based on contingency, and determinism based on no contingency. That's folly.


I am creating only what I was never able to not create. What "I" construe to be "contingency, chance and change" in my own moral narrative is only my brain functioning in my waking hours as it functions in my dreams at night.

And to speak of "folly" in a wholly determined universe as though you were ever free to speak of something else instead, is precisely the sort of thing that free-will advocates embrace.

I am engaging in "folly" because I don't share your own understanding of the "choices" that we make. While at the same time never really being free to share it. At least with respect to nature marching on inevitably.

But least I am willing to concede that I may actually have some measure of free will. I just don't know how to pin that down once and for all here and now.

In a wholly determined universe [as I understand it now], contingency, chance and change would be just different sets of dominoes toppling over only as they are compelled to given the physical, material, phenomenological laws embedded in all of nature's interactions.


peacegirl wrote: Then why do you keep bringing up free will?


Because, in a wholly ordered universe, I'm compelled to?

peacegirl wrote: Our choices are based on contingent experiences as we move about through our everyday lives. The choices we make are the only choices we could have made. I don't like the domino analogy because it isn't analogous in the most important aspect.


Meanwhile, that which you "choose" to construe to be the most important aspect here is the only thing you were ever able to "choose". Dominoes don't "choose". But then human brains don't choose either.

Thus...

iambiguous wrote:It's just that some components of the universe are mindless and make no "choice" and others are mindful and do.


peacegirl wrote: And that's a big difference! We have minds that think and can therefore change a particular trajectory, dominoes cannot.


In my view, not for all practical purposes. The dominoes don't "choose" to topple over as they must, while we don't freely choose to do anything other than what we are compelled to do by nature.

The autonomous aliens see someone setting up the dominoes only as she was ever able to and then watch the dominoes topple over only as they were ever able to.

Then they note how you are compelled to point out that this is a big difference.

peacegirl wrote: My imparting this knowledge can prevent war and crime. I am not trying to understand the nature of existence. You changed topics.


There it is. The part that I keep coming back to. You need some way to reconfigure the world around us today into a better, more progressive place for human beings to live. You can't actually do that "in reality", so you need to "think up" a way to understand the choices we make so that if others come to think of them in the same way, that better, more progressive world is possible.

Indeed, if only folks like Don Trump and Vladimir Putin could grasp that now.

And the "topic" I come back to is how, in a determined universe, nothing that you or I or anyone else here thinks, feels, says or does can ever be other than what nature, based on how it is linked to an understanding of existence itself, compels the future to unfold such that all the human brain can do is to necessarily play its part.

And then the part where this future is squared with the manner in which, even given human autonomy, "progressive" behaviors are embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

iambiguous wrote:Either you will succeed one day in getting me to understand this as you do, or I will succeed in getting you to understand it as I do. Or someone else will succeed in changing both our minds. The only question then is this: will this unfold given some measure of autonomy on our part or are the laws of matter set up such that there is only one way in which it can unfold? We "choose" words here that we were never able to actually choose instead. You know, in the manner in which those who embrace human autonomy use the word.


peacegirl wrote: There's only one way anything can unfold, and that's the way it has unfolded. That doesn't mean that you are fated by matter to do that which you choose not to do.


In your head, you are able to reconcile here what to me are contradictory points of view. But, like me, you have no way in which to demonstrate it other than by way of an "argument". You can predict a better future but you are unable to organize others to actually start bringing it about. Or are you?

But, either way, it is only as it was ever meant to be given the laws of matter unfolding inexorably as nature's "mechanism" for sustaining existence itself.

peacegirl wrote: Everything came into existence out of necessity. We are instructed, by our nature, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction which is also part of nature's design.


iambiguous wrote:Of course our "choices" matter. Robert Mueller's choice to conclude that Trump did not collude with the Russians [in a criminal context] makes all the difference in world regarding, say, the 2020 presidential election here in America. But if fate is defined as that which is "destined to happen, turn out, in a particular way" to what extent was Mueller and Trump and all the other players here ever able to think, feel, say or do anything other than what they were compelled to do over the past two years?

Were the events of the last two years ever able to be other than what they in fact were in a determined universe?


peacegirl wrote: Of course not. Everything had to be just the way it was, and will continue to unfold according to deterministic laws, but to say that it isn't us making the choice is false. Trump made certain choices that hurt his Presidency. Although he could not not have made them, that does not mean they weren't made by him.


Again, you mean "choice". Those autonomous aliens watching the Trump presidency unfold entirely as nature scripted it. It is like us watching a movie and thinking that the characters up on the screen are choosing to do what they do...and not what nature scripted the writers and the directors to compel them to do. And even when we read how, in some films, the actors "improvised" their lines, nature knows better.

Only nature is not really around to be interrogated by, among others, neuroscientists. Any more than God is around to be interrogated by theologians.

Things happen in our head connected to "out in the world" in a way we have barely scratched the surface in exploring.

So [in my view] folks like you create a shortcut. You "think up" an argument that explains things based entirely on others accepting the definiition and the meaning of the words that the assessment itself consists of.

That comforts and consoles you psychologically. And there is no way that others can actually prove that the argument is wrong.

But then this is no less an existential contraption of my own.

iambiguous wrote:For me it's "choose" or choose. Being confused in any particular context is either something I am able to rectify by choosing to rethink your points [enabling me to not be confused] or nature is ever and always compelling me to "choose" only that which its very laws demand.


peacegirl wrote: Once again, you are making a false distinction, as if to say "choosing" to rethink my points in any way gives you autonomy or free will. =;


Right, and then [like me] you will insist that in a determined universe I could never have not made that distinction. And then somehow that is linked to the progressive future.

And beauty of all this from my frame of mind is that [in a determined universe] all you need do is to believe that it is true. Just as nature compelled you too. So, for reasons that go back to an understanding of existence itself, nature has chosen you to have the peace of mind that folks like me can only dream of.

On the other hand, what can I possibly know about what nature has in store for me down the road. Maybe immortality?

iambiguous wrote:In other words...

peacegirl wrote: You had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but "capacity" does not mean you could have chosen to think about all this differently. Your mindset took you in a certain direction based on your life experiences and all of the factors that led you to making this particular choice. You had no free will or autonomy to choose other than what you chose.


iambiguous wrote:Exactly how I would put it! Only instead of choose, I'd be compelled to opt for "choose".


peacegirl wrote: However you want to frame it, you were compelled to "choose". Choose or "choose", your pick. :)


iambiguous wrote:You mean however I "want" to frame it. I "want" only what nature compels me to want given my own understanding of determinism.


peacegirl wrote: You can't not want what nature compels you to want because they are one and the same. :)


Over and again: Exactly what I would say!

Only nature hasn't allowed me to think up a better, more progressive future if only others are compelled to think as I do.

On the other hand, maybe nature will change its mind. Whatever that means.
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: 32730
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:19 pm

peacegirl wrote: The brain as part of and in sync with the laws of matter, can only move in one direction in this wholly determined universe.


iambiguous wrote:Once again, you conclude that we are in agreement about this. And yet clearly we are not in sync regarding the "for all practical purposes" implications of it for human interactions.


peacegirl wrote: If you don't know what the implications are "for all practical purposes", how can we be out of sync?


iambiguous wrote:Given my own understanding of determinism, anything/everything I know or don't know, like anything/everything you know or don't know, is always in sync with the laws of matter inextricably unfolding like nature's clockwork.

So, whether we seem to be either in sync or out of sync about anything is simply part of the "brute facticity" that is existence itself.


Everything that happens or has happened or will happen is in part of the "brute facticity" that is existence itself. Does that mean we can't progress? Does that mean that we are mere cogs in a wheel? Although what occurs could only be that which could occur does not mean that our "unfree" choices are meaningless.

iambiguous wrote:You stress the part about the human brain/mind making a "choice" while I stress the part where that "choice" [in a determined universe] merely embodies for any particular "I" the psychological illusion of free will. The illusion itself being but one more manifestation of the laws of matter unfolding as they must.


peacegirl wrote: Everything we do, think, and feel is embodied in a determined universe but identifying oneself as "I" does not necessarily cause a psychological illusion of free will. For average folks who never gave this subject much thought may believe we have free will.


iambiguous wrote:Again, you speak of something not being "necessarily caused" when, from the perspective of many determinists, even "choosing" to point that out is a necessary component of whatever is behind the existence of existence itself.


It should be understood by now that all that we do is a necessary component of whatever is behind the existence of existence itself. But there is a thing called cause and effect. There are things that cause other things to occur. That's what I meant by the comment above.

iambiguous wrote:"I" don't freely identify myself as anything. Instead, the evolution of life on earth has culminated in brain matter able [inherently/genetically/biologically] to convince "I" that it does choose things of its own volition.


No one does anything of their own free will, although the phrase can be used informally to mean "of my own desire." You refer to the belief that "I" choose things of its own volition to mean something that cannot be altered because it's inherent in our biological make-up. What is inherent in our biological make up is not the folk idea that we have free will, but that we move away from dissatisfaction to satisfaction every moment of our existence. As I already stated, the idea that we can choose freely is not a false observation if it is qualified to mean "I chose eggs over cereal" because I desired eggs more than I desired cereal at that moment, and nothing external constrained me from choosing what I most desired.

peacegirl wrote: Determinism does not mean there aren't contingencies that we base our ideas and actions on. You are creating a false dichotomy between the idea of free will based on contingency, and determinism based on no contingency. That's folly.


iambiguous wrote:I am creating only what I was never able to not create. What "I" construe to be "contingency, chance and change" in my own moral narrative is only my brain functioning in my waking hours as it functions in my dreams at night.


Your brain is obviously construing whatever it is going to construe in your own moral narrative. I am only pointing out that determinism does not mean we don't base our actions on contingency, chance and change. We often make choices based on contingent events chance events, and sudden changes in events that propel us in new directions.

iambiguous wrote:And to speak of "folly" in a wholly determined universe as though you were ever free to speak of something else instead, is precisely the sort of thing that free-will advocates embrace.


No iambiguous. I can call something folly even though I know it could not have been otherwise.

iambiguous wrote:I am engaging in "folly" because I don't share your own understanding of the "choices" that we make. While at the same time never really being free to share it. At least with respect to nature marching on inevitably.


The word folly means lack of understanding. I used the word correctly because it involves a lack of understanding on your part, even though you refer to it as a lack of sharing my understanding.

iambiguous wrote:But least I am willing to concede that I may actually have some measure of free will. I just don't know how to pin that down once and for all here and now.


You'll never be able to pin it down because we don't have the free will you're talking about. Moreover, there is no way anyone can prove that we have this kind of free will. But I can still say, "I did something of my own free will" without it being contradictory --- as long as it's qualified.

peacegirl wrote: Then why do you keep bringing up free will?


iambiguous wrote:Because, in a wholly ordered universe, I'm compelled to?


You are not compelled in advance of you doing it. Tomorrow you may not be compelled to bring up free will, if your desire is not to bring it up.

peacegirl wrote: Our choices are based on contingent experiences as we move about through our everyday lives. The choices we make are the only choices we could have made. I don't like the domino analogy because it isn't analogous in the most important aspect.


iambiguous wrote:Meanwhile, that which you "choose" to construe to be the most important aspect here is the only thing you were ever able to "choose". Dominoes don't "choose". But then human brains don't choose either.


Of course human brains choose. Would we be given the ability to contemplate options and not be able to choose one of those options? It would be making a mockery of contemplation.

iambiguous wrote:Thus...

iambiguous wrote:It's just that some components of the universe are mindless and make no "choice" and others are mindful and do.


peacegirl wrote: And that's a big difference! We have minds that think and can therefore change a particular trajectory, dominoes cannot.


iambiguous wrote:In my view, not for all practical purposes. The dominoes don't "choose" to topple over as they must, while we don't freely choose to do anything other than what we are compelled to do by nature.


It's still a poor analogy. If I was in a pile-up on the highway (God forbid), you could use this comparison but that's about it.

iambiguous wrote:The autonomous aliens see someone setting up the dominoes only as she was ever able to and then watch the dominoes topple over only as they were ever able to.Then they note how you are compelled to point out that this is a big difference.


It is a big difference where the difference counts. I don't care about what the autonomous aliens have to say. It's all made up. :lol:

peacegirl wrote: My imparting this knowledge can prevent war and crime. I am not trying to understand the nature of existence. You changed topics.


iambiguous wrote:There it is. The part that I keep coming back to. You need some way to reconfigure the world around us today into a better, more progressive place for human beings to live. You can't actually do that "in reality", so you need to "think up" a way to understand the choices we make so that if others come to think of them in the same way, that better, more progressive world is possible.


That's called being visionary. It is not changing what is, but it is allowing new ideas to take us to a place where we can envision what could be.

iambiguous wrote:Indeed, if only folks like Don Trump and Vladimir Putin could grasp that now.


It's not about the political world we're in now. This knowledge is such a radical about face that you cannot even imagine (based on your present vantage point) how this world can actually become a reality without a thorough understanding of the application of these principles.

iambiguous wrote:And the "topic" I come back to is how, in a determined universe, nothing that you or I or anyone else here thinks, feels, says or does can ever be other than what nature, based on how it is linked to an understanding of existence itself, compels the future to unfold such that all the human brain can do is to necessarily play its part.


And that's what we're doing. That's what has always been done. And that's how it will continue to unfold.

iambiguous wrote:And then the part where this future is squared with the manner in which, even given human autonomy, "progressive" behaviors are embedded in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.


Human behaviors follow their nature, and when the environmental conditions change for the better, conflicting goods and political economy will not be an issue.

iambiguous wrote:Either you will succeed one day in getting me to understand this as you do, or I will succeed in getting you to understand it as I do. Or someone else will succeed in changing both our minds. The only question then is this: will this unfold given some measure of autonomy on our part or are the laws of matter set up such that there is only one way in which it can unfold? We "choose" words here that we were never able to actually choose instead. You know, in the manner in which those who embrace human autonomy use the word.


peacegirl wrote: There's only one way anything can unfold, and that's the way it has unfolded. That doesn't mean that you are fated by matter to do that which you choose not to do.


iambiguous wrote:In your head, you are able to reconcile here what to me are contradictory points of view. But, like me, you have no way in which to demonstrate it other than by way of an "argument". You can predict a better future but you are unable to organize others to actually start bringing it about. Or are you?


Of course there's a way to start bringing it about. It's spelled out in the economic chapter.

iambiguous wrote:But, either way, it is only as it was ever meant to be given the laws of matter unfolding inexorably as nature's "mechanism" for sustaining existence itself.


You're right, and now nature's mechanism is giving us answers so that existence will be sustained.

peacegirl wrote: Everything came into existence out of necessity. We are instructed, by our nature, to move in the direction of greater satisfaction which is also part of nature's design.


iambiguous wrote:Of course our "choices" matter. Robert Mueller's choice to conclude that Trump did not collude with the Russians [in a criminal context] makes all the difference in world regarding, say, the 2020 presidential election here in America. But if fate is defined as that which is "destined to happen, turn out, in a particular way" to what extent was Mueller and Trump and all the other players here ever able to think, feel, say or do anything other than what they were compelled to do over the past two years?

Were the events of the last two years ever able to be other than what they in fact were in a determined universe?


peacegirl wrote: Of course not. Everything had to be just the way it was, and will continue to unfold according to deterministic laws, but to say that it isn't us making the choice is false. Trump made certain choices that hurt his Presidency. Although he could not not have made them, that does not mean they weren't made by him.


iambiguous wrote:Again, you mean "choice". Those autonomous aliens watching the Trump presidency unfold entirely as nature scripted it. It is like us watching a movie and thinking that the characters up on the screen are choosing to do what they do...and not what nature scripted the writers and the directors to compel them to do. And even when we read how, in some films, the actors "improvised" their lines, nature knows better.


You keep going back to the idea that determinism means that we have no choices. Looking back, yes, we could not have chosen otherwise but we are given choices every time we consider one option versus another. We're not robots that are programmed before a choice is made. That's the big argument in the free will/determinism debate. Necessarily, you do not have to do anything nature demands that you do unless you desire to. IOW, nature cannot compel you against your will to do anything you don't desire to do.

iambiguous wrote:Only nature is not really around to be interrogated by, among others, neuroscientists. Any more than God is around to be interrogated by theologians.


You are right, but we are able to make astute observations and accurate inferences. Looking inside the brain is not the only way to find the truth about human nature.

iambiguous wrote:Things happen in our head connected to "out in the world" in a way we have barely scratched the surface in exploring.


True, but we're getting closer.

iambiguous wrote:So [in my view] folks like you create a shortcut. You "think up" an argument that explains things based entirely on others accepting the definiition and the meaning of the words that the assessment itself consists of.

That comforts and consoles you psychologically. And there is no way that others can actually prove that the argument is wrong.

But then this is no less an existential contraption of my own.


There was no short cut. This author spent the last half of his adult life reading, studying, observing, and analyzing his findings. There is definitely a way to prove that the argument is wrong. If, under the changed conditions, a person could still desire to hurt others when all justification is removed, then he would be wrong. Empirical proof will be the ultimate judge.

iambiguous wrote:For me it's "choose" or choose. Being confused in any particular context is either something I am able to rectify by choosing to rethink your points [enabling me to not be confused] or nature is ever and always compelling me to "choose" only that which its very laws demand.


peacegirl wrote: Once again, you are making a false distinction, as if to say "choosing" to rethink my points in any way gives you autonomy or free will. =;


iambiguous wrote:Right, and then [like me] you will insist that in a determined universe I could never have not made that distinction. And then somehow that is linked to the progressive future.


People can be corrected, and if it moves us forward I call that progress. How else can we learn if we can't correct our mistakes or misunderstandings? No one is saying that you could have thought differently.

iambiguous wrote:And beauty of all this from my frame of mind is that [in a determined universe] all you need do is to believe that it is true. Just as nature compelled you too. So, for reasons that go back to an understanding of existence itself, nature has chosen you to have the peace of mind that folks like me can only dream of.

On the other hand, what can I possibly know about what nature has in store for me down the road. Maybe immortality?


I have peace of mind knowing that this discovery is not just a pipe dream. It is not just a religious belief. It is not just dogma.

iambiguous wrote:In other words...

peacegirl wrote: You had the capacity to choose to think about all this differently but "capacity" does not mean you could have chosen to think about all this differently. Your mindset took you in a certain direction based on your life experiences and all of the factors that led you to making this particular choice. You had no free will or autonomy to choose other than what you chose.


iambiguous wrote:Exactly how I would put it! Only instead of choose, I'd be compelled to opt for "choose".


peacegirl wrote: However you want to frame it, you were compelled to "choose". Choose or "choose", your pick. :)


iambiguous wrote:You mean however I "want" to frame it. I "want" only what nature compels me to want given my own understanding of determinism.


peacegirl wrote: You can't not want what nature compels you to want because they are one and the same. :)


iambiguous wrote:Over and again: Exactly what I would say!

Only nature hasn't allowed me to think up a better, more progressive future if only others are compelled to think as I do.

On the other hand, maybe nature will change its mind. Whatever that means.


You don't have to think up a better, more progressive future because it's already been thought up based on sound principles. This is not about getting people to think as I do. That is called persuasion. This is revealing facts about our nature never before understood. Once we see how this new world can be achieved, people will be compelled to move in this direction because they will want what they see.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:48 pm

[Edited because this post was determined to be edited]
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:26 pm

promethean75 wrote:[Edited because this post was determined to be edited]


That is true. Just curious, did you read the pdf? I thought you would have responded by now. If it was too much reading, I do understand.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Fri Mar 29, 2019 11:36 pm

i did not. but it doesn't matter. i'm an epistemological nihilist hung up in agrippa's trilemma, so you can't tell me nothin'.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Ecmandu » Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:54 am

promethean75 wrote:i did not. but it doesn't matter. i'm an epistemological nihilist hung up in agrippa's trilemma, so you can't tell me nothin'.


Agrippas trilemma stated that induction proofs or inferential proofs are impossible to prove.

The most famous inferential proof is the proof of the well ordered set in counting numbers ...

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...

Or to divide by 2

2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16...

Etc...

Infinite well ordered sets with an infinite amount of them.

Because we can't actually count them (because they're infinite) we can't actually prove that they are well ordered sets, yet, we know beyond all reasonable and unreasonable doubt, that they are.

There's your solution to the trilemma!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8911
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:53 pm

promethean75 wrote:i did not. but it doesn't matter. i'm an epistemological nihilist hung up in agrippa's trilemma, so you can't tell me nothin'.


So nothing matters to you? I understand skepticism, I'm not sure I understand nihilism.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby bahman » Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:07 pm

peacegirl wrote:
promethean75 wrote:i did not. but it doesn't matter. i'm an epistemological nihilist hung up in agrippa's trilemma, so you can't tell me nothin'.

So nothing matters to you? I understand skepticism, I'm not sure I understand nihilism.

The reality is indifferent, nihilism. Good or evil doesn't really matter. Everything we do is partially matter of what we have experienced and most importantly matter of genetic. That is what you believe, we prefer good because of genetic, that is how we are programmed.
The sincerity in mind is the door to divine knowledge.
User avatar
bahman
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:23 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Santiago » Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:09 pm

peacegirl wrote:I origianally created a thread on determinism but it has brought everything in but the kitchen sink. I am here to state with absolute knowledge and conviction that man’s will is not free. I have not been able to show the amazing knowledge that hides behind this door. I am not here to debate. I am here to explain. People can agree or not agree but I am not going to defend what I know to be true mathematically, scientifically, and undeniably!


Wow... undeniably true, eh? Absolute certainty!

Ha!

"Mathematical truths, scientific truths - hard facts!"

Yeah, hmmm as if math and science are the only ways to arrive at truth. Don't get me wrong; science and math are great fields of endeavor, but do you how many times mathimiticians and scientists get things wrong. More often than not, I would imagine. Trial and error, special emphasis on the word *error*.

The topic of free-will vs determinism has been hotly contested ever since the very beginning of rational discourse and is still so among modern academics. To be completely intolerant to one side or the other is not conducive to the search for truth. Many accusively point the finger at the dogma and superstition of the church that hindered intellectual development in the past, but ironically that same sort of obtuse zeal is spilling over into the field of science, resulting in what is now known as scientism. Scientists are the new priests and materialism is the new unquestionable doctrine. Anything a scientist says is infallible.

Has it not occurred to those who debate this topic that perhaps the truth is a combination of both? That we do have free-will, just not absolute free-will.

Limited autonomy.

This seems most plausible, in my opinion.
User avatar
Santiago
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:15 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:24 pm

bahman wrote:
peacegirl wrote:
promethean75 wrote:i did not. but it doesn't matter. i'm an epistemological nihilist hung up in agrippa's trilemma, so you can't tell me nothin'.

So nothing matters to you? I understand skepticism, I'm not sure I understand nihilism.

The reality is indifferent, nihilism. Good or evil doesn't really matter. Everything we do is partially matter of what we have experienced and most importantly matter of genetic. That is what you believe, we prefer good because of genetic, that is how we are programmed.


It sounds like nihilists are indifferent because they have no hope for anything better.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby promethean75 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:08 pm

yeah no, there's no such thing as 'nihilism' because people can't not have values. it's rather just a term that philosophers throw around when they're on the offensive; they need a title to give to what doesn't agree with them and their values. individual people, entire ages, ideologies, political systems... all these will be branded 'nihilistic' by whom ever perceives themselves to be at odds with them. there's really nothing more to it than that. you can confirm this by making note of how two opposing thoroughly worked out philosophical systems might do battle and essentially cancel each other out. take maybe idealism and hedonism. each of these philosophies have a long history of development, each with its set of philosophers and carefully worked out arguments. each of them believe they have the 'truth', and will call the other one the nihilistic position. but let's suppose that nothing really does matter and there's no 'right way' to do anything. then both positions would be wrong... not wrong in valuing what they do, but wrong in stating as a matter of fact that these values are 'good' and those other values are 'bad'. one simply can't pass judgement on what has no end and no ultimate purpose (nature), so any expression of a philosophy of value is nothing more than a very narrow, very shortsighted, very desperate attempt to hold on to an orientation that keeps one grounded and gives one a little 'purpose' and 'cause' in an indifferent universe. but more importantly one needs to feel like one is fighting against some evil, since without doing so one could have no pride... and one needs pride more than anything else; of all the things that give us temporary respite from the nothings that we really are, pride is the surest thing, the purest tonic that will do the trick.

so as you can see nihilism is the most important strawman ever conceived of by philosophers. without it, they'd have nothing to do.
promethean75
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:10 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:17 pm

promethean75 wrote:yeah no, there's no such thing as 'nihilism' because people can't not have values. it's rather just a term that philosophers throw around when they're on the offensive; they need a title to give to what doesn't agree with them and their values. individual people, entire ages, ideologies, political systems... all these will be branded 'nihilistic' by whom ever perceives themselves to be at odds with them. there's really nothing more to it than that. you can confirm this by making note of how two opposing thoroughly worked out philosophical systems might do battle and essentially cancel each other out. take maybe idealism and hedonism. each of these philosophies have a long history of development, each with its set of philosophers and carefully worked out arguments. each of them believe they have the 'truth', and will call the other one the nihilistic position. but let's suppose that nothing really does matter and there's no 'right way' to do anything. then both positions would be wrong... not wrong in valuing what they do, but wrong in stating as a matter of fact that these values are 'good' and those other values are 'bad'. one simply can't pass judgement on what has no end and no ultimate purpose (nature), so any expression of a philosophy of value is nothing more than a very narrow, very shortsighted, very desperate attempt to hold on to an orientation that keeps one grounded and gives one a little 'purpose' and 'cause' in an indifferent universe. but more importantly one needs to feel like one is fighting against some evil, since without doing so one could have no pride... and one needs pride more than anything else; of all the things that give us temporary respite from the nothings that we really are, pride is the surest thing, the purest tonic that will do the trick.

so as you can see nihilism is the most important strawman ever conceived of by philosophers. without it, they'd have nothing to do.


Thanks for your explanation as to what nihilism is. But are you saying that anyone who tries to show how to rid our world of evil (which this author is doing) is only out of pride?
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby MagsJ » Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:52 pm

Recently approved post
Santiago wrote:
peacegirl wrote:I origianally created a thread on determinism but it has brought everything in but the kitchen sink. I am here to state with absolute knowledge and conviction that man’s will is not free. I have not been able to show the amazing knowledge that hides behind this door. I am not here to debate. I am here to explain. People can agree or not agree but I am not going to defend what I know to be true mathematically, scientifically, and undeniably!


Wow... undeniably true, eh? Absolute certainty!

Ha!

"Mathematical truths, scientific truths - hard facts!"

Yeah, hmmm as if math and science are the only ways to arrive at truth. Don't get me wrong; science and math are great fields of endeavor, but do you how many times mathimiticians and scientists get things wrong. More often than not, I would imagine. Trial and error, special emphasis on the word *error*.

The topic of free-will vs determinism has been hotly contested ever since the very beginning of rational discourse and is still so among modern academics. To be completely intolerant to one side or the other is not conducive to the search for truth. Many accusively point the finger at the dogma and superstition of the church that hindered intellectual development in the past, but ironically that same sort of obtuse zeal is spilling over into the field of science, resulting in what is now known as scientism. Scientists are the new priests and materialism is the new unquestionable doctrine. Anything a scientist says is infallible.

Has it not occurred to those who debate this topic that perhaps the truth is a combination of both? That we do have free-will, just not absolute free-will.

Limited autonomy.

This seems most plausible, in my opinion.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18745
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:41 pm

MagsJ wrote:Recently approved post
Santiago wrote:
peacegirl wrote:I origianally created a thread on determinism but it has brought everything in but the kitchen sink. I am here to state with absolute knowledge and conviction that man’s will is not free. I have not been able to show the amazing knowledge that hides behind this door. I am not here to debate. I am here to explain. People can agree or not agree but I am not going to defend what I know to be true mathematically, scientifically, and undeniably!


Wow... undeniably true, eh? Absolute certainty!

Ha!

"Mathematical truths, scientific truths - hard facts!"

Yeah, hmmm as if math and science are the only ways to arrive at truth. Don't get me wrong; science and math are great fields of endeavor, but do you how many times mathimiticians and scientists get things wrong. More often than not, I would imagine. Trial and error, special emphasis on the word *error*.


I know that mathematicians and scientists can get things wrong. No one is immune, but unfortunately they are looked up to as gods. How dare anyone especially someone outside of their field, dispute their conclusions? It's ruining progress. :(

MagsJ wrote:The topic of free-will vs determinism has been hotly contested ever since the very beginning of rational discourse and is still so among modern academics. To be completely intolerant to one side or the other is not conducive to the search for truth. Many accusively point the finger at the dogma and superstition of the church that hindered intellectual development in the past, but ironically that same sort of obtuse zeal is spilling over into the field of science, resulting in what is now known as scientism. Scientists are the new priests and materialism is the new unquestionable doctrine. Anything a scientist says is infallible.


You are preaching to the choir MagsJ.

MagsJ wrote:Has it not occurred to those who debate this topic that perhaps the truth is a combination of both? That we do have free-will, just not absolute free-will.

Limited autonomy.

This seems most plausible, in my opinion.


Once again, if determinism is true (i.e., that we could not have done otherwise), free will --- as its opposite --- is false. We can't have both unless you are using a definition of free will that is not the definition in question. The problem is how determinism is defined, not that determinism is false. You, like iambiguous, use the word autonomy in a way that makes it appear that if we are controlled by deterministic law, we have no freedom. We are robots. I am free to talk to you at this moment because nothing external is infringing on my ability to make this choice if I so desire. I am using the word "free" correctly, but that does not mean my will is free to do other than what I'm doing, which is the free will that libertarians believe we have.
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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby MagsJ » Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:48 pm

I am not the author of that post PG.. I simply ensured that it wasn't lost within the postings of new ones.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18745
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: New Discovery

Postby peacegirl » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:00 pm

MagsJ wrote:I am not the author of that post PG.. I simply ensured that it wasn't lost within the postings of new ones.


Thanks for including it. Maybe it will help clarify things.

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader
must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and
false, but understand the difference between a mathematical relation
and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly
confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to
clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated
through the years. For purposes of clarification please note that the
words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’, and are
interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.


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: 1413
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: New Discovery

Postby Artimas » Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:32 pm

So do you agree with what I stated before, is this accurate?


We have thought/will to do whatever we want with to the limits of our imagining, But choice is limited by objective reality. Will is thinking and mind, which has little to no bounds, it's the only freedom we have technically, our minds and solitude. We can't project or do anything we want with those thoughts though, due to preferences, choice being limited, etc

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: New Discovery

Postby Santiago » Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:13 am

Peacegirl,

There are differing variations of determinism, such as "soft-boiled determinism."

What I mean by "the truth of the matter could be a combination of both" is that some things we believe or do could be determined or influenced by factors apart from the will, while other things are the result of the will.

For example, I subscribe to the position of free-will (more specifically: limited autonomy), that we have the ability to do certain things based in self-generated willing, but I also believe we can acquire genetic predispositions and socially acquired dispositions that unwittingly cause us to perceive or behave in certain ways. One can, of course, override some of these things, if he or she becomes aware of them and desires to do so.

Free-will is something so intuitively and patently obvious. For anyone to obstinately deny it and, furthermore, to promote the position of militant determinism, with such alacrity, it causes one to wonder...

Not having any free-will... It's, actually, a rather morbid and unhealthy notion.

I understand that, as philosophers, we have a duty to acknowledge the truth, whether it be beautiful or ugly, comforting or ghastly, but to go on an intellectual crusade, promoting determinism, with such zeal, is questionable...
User avatar
Santiago
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:15 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]