Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,
Feral kids don't jump off cliffs and flies don't dive under water.
They have identities that to them is ultimate truth
^
Ecmandu wrote:Silhouette,
Feral kids don't jump off cliffs and flies don't dive under water.
They have identities that to them is ultimate truth
promethean75 wrote:"Further conceive, I beg, that an Artimas, while continuing in motion, should be capable of thinking and knowing, that it is endeavoring, as far as it can, to continue to move. Such an Artimas, being conscious merely of its own endeavor and not at all indifferent, would believe itself to be completely free, and would think that it continued in motion solely because of its own wish. This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." - Spinoza
Nice. Going to moot. Should be done more often. One quibble: it's not just that one would be determined by external forces, it would include internal forces. Unless one is saying that all forces are external to consciousness (which is sort of like an epiphenomenalism claim). If my internal forces are determined by past internal forces and external forces, then my organism goes this way or that way, but it is all predetermined. Few determinists would say that other people and natural forces external to us completely control us. They would just argue that internal and external causes are the same in that they are determined by the moment before.barbarianhorde wrote:Provisionary statement:
We become free-willed when we attain a proper consciousness regarding the forces that constitute us.
Argument against:
We are still always determined by these exterior forces.
Argument against that:
Impossible to demonstrate, therefore moot.
promethean75 wrote:Urwrong, this is what everybody is getting stuck at. Nothing is 'determined' in the way of there being some entity in nature that has a preconceived idea of what will happen before it happens. Nature isn't a 'determiner', but this can't mean that there is no causation.
What were doing is anthropomorphizing nature when we think we can refute causation by attacking the concept of 'determine'... which would be to attribute something to nature that it can't have/do. It's a red herring. Nature doesn't plan or foresee anything... but causation does not need these things to exist.
'Determinism' is just a convenient word to call the position, but technically it confuses the matter.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:Nice. Going to moot. Should be done more often. One quibble: it's not just that one would be determined by external forces, it would include internal forces. Unless one is saying that all forces are external to consciousness (which is sort of like an epiphenomenalism claim). If my internal forces are determined by past internal forces and external forces, then my organism goes this way or that way, but it is all predetermined. Few determinists would say that other people and natural forces external to us completely control us. They would just argue that internal and external causes are the same in that they are determined by the moment before.barbarianhorde wrote:Provisionary statement:
We become free-willed when we attain a proper consciousness regarding the forces that constitute us.
Argument against:
We are still always determined by these exterior forces.
Argument against that:
Impossible to demonstrate, therefore moot.
I think there are problems with claiming one knows determinism is the case, since determinism, if it is the case, makes knowledge claims very questionable. They are compelled. They would seem right. Etc.
I can't do anything about determinism vs. free will. But I can (or I am compelled to) make decisions that increase the range of responses I make and the skills with which I make these choices.
There is a difference between a rigid person who has only a few ways of responding and someone who is flexible and skilled - even if free will does not exist. One can also choose to (or be compelled to) decide that one will get out of one's own way. Eliminate guilt, go for things one wants, more towards more freedom. This freedom is not a degree of free will, but a more flexible and fitting to one's desires and needs situation for oneself. Prison, for example, is, for most, very limited. There can be jobs and relationships that are prisons in a metaphorical sense. Learning, skill aquisition, deciding to look at things in oneself and society one might find unpleasant, can lead to greater freedom. Again, with the whole issue of free will vs. determinism black boxed.
It's a bit of a tangent but this part caught my eye most. It is amazing how many 'paths' try to get one free from oneself. Buddhism with its disidentification, modern psychiatric/pharmaceutical approaches to the so called negative emotions, new age approaches, and even both the Left and the Right have political correctnesses about what one should feel, desire, not feel, not desire, express, not express...and so on. All this training to be one's own jailer or to exile parts of oneself or to suppress, deny, feel ashamed of as a rule, feel guilty about.barbarianhorde wrote:Free to oneself, of course.
Not: free from oneself.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:"That's a very determined quark!"
Negus.
"That's a very determined law of physics!"
See where I'm going?
This is also what I believe Faust meant in his excelent list. Science is a matter of consensus.
Also why the yell of euphoria. "Eureka!"
It is a joy. Not a, how you say, a subjugation. Like "oh, I have discovered my master." Not at all.
Science is something you get away with. That's Elon's Achiles's Heel. He was educated into the subservience class. So he fears his science.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:It's a bit of a tangent but this part caught my eye most. It is amazing how many 'paths' try to get one free from oneself. Buddhism with its disidentification, modern psychiatric/pharmaceutical approaches to the so called negative emotions, new age approaches, and even both the Left and the Right have political correctnesses about what one should feel, desire, not feel, not desire, express, not express...and so on. All this training to be one's own jailer or to exile parts of oneself or to suppress, deny, feel ashamed of as a rule, feel guilty about.barbarianhorde wrote:Free to oneself, of course.
Not: free from oneself.
There is a general assumption, often also by atheists, that it was an advance to go from paganism/shamanism/animism/pantheism to the monotheisms. I think this was a serious backstep. There are portions of the NT that I think are useful, though a lot of stuff that is not, but the replacement of those more complicated and human religions with the monotheisms has been a disaster.barbarianhorde wrote:This Idea is found in certain pagan gods, to get it all the way off topic in tangent - and I believe this might be the very necessity of religion to exist - to give a home to the dirt. Otherwise the dirt is the home, and thats just shitty, and unhealthy. Even though it may be the final truth, it isn't the highest truth.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:There is a general assumption, often also by atheists, that it was an advance to go from paganism/shamanism/animism/pantheism to the monotheisms. I think this was a serious backstep. There are portions of the NT that I think are useful, though a lot of stuff that is not, but the replacement of those more complicated and human religions with the monotheisms has been a disaster.barbarianhorde wrote:This Idea is found in certain pagan gods, to get it all the way off topic in tangent - and I believe this might be the very necessity of religion to exist - to give a home to the dirt. Otherwise the dirt is the home, and thats just shitty, and unhealthy. Even though it may be the final truth, it isn't the highest truth.
barbarianhorde wrote:See for example.
All of the other posters took the approach of "it is so therefore I say it". Thats not free will.
Free will is what Im doing. Show you how it all ties up into precisely me, what I say, my personal brilliance, my way of tying things together -
this requires power, a degree of self knowledge that allows separation from all theory, all pre existing models.
Thats what it is, free will. To be free of all pre-existing models in the most fundamental motivation.
There can't be any nonsense left in the mind to attain this autonomy. All thought needs to add up. So this is why I said before what I said to Artimas, that free will follows from discipline. It cant be given, it must be taken. And yeah that taking is determined by other forces - but also by the possibility of free will. That is, nothing stands in its way.
It isn't determined that there cant be freedom. Therefore there is, eventually, most likely to be freedom.
The same with Being. It isn't determined there must be nothing. Because nothing has no determining power.
barbarianhorde wrote:Ive read a bunch of pages of this debate and its great.
Almost all aspects are covered.
Except this tiny one, literally tiny:
If all is determined by outside forces, or forces inside that don't essentially belong to the determined thing, how are all these forces even recognizable in the form of a thing, which appears to have an entity?
I believe we arrive either at RM:AO or at VO.
Ecmandu wrote:barbarianhorde wrote:Ive read a bunch of pages of this debate and its great.
Almost all aspects are covered.
Except this tiny one, literally tiny:
If all is determined by outside forces, or forces inside that don't essentially belong to the determined thing, how are all these forces even recognizable in the form of a thing, which appears to have an entity?
I believe we arrive either at RM:AO or at VO.
This is basically what my OP is, reworded. My op states that sentience cannot occur at the polar extremes of either absolute determinism or absolute freewill, which I stated, leaves a remainder on both sides, some freewill and some determinism: compatibalism
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]