Determinism

therefore the fall waa really a quasi politicalcal effort to gain control and domination. through the manipulation of self impinged guilt unto the very created by the Creator. I wonder of the Holy Fathers saw this as a.scheme, or.they simply put it down to a magical existential imavoidaiility.

Was that close to an absolute proof of a.determined evolutionary stage of robbing man of even the semblance of free will yet holding him responsible none the less.; or was it a case of abstraction ex-nihilo of a semblance of compatible coincidental occurance which brought certain elements of both into a pre-conceived pre reflexive union, building up affinity rather then rather then intentional antogony?

So there is free-will, whether people want to accept that or not.

At the very least, there is blame. And that is because people do, instinctively, sub-consciously, search for causes. Causes can be anthropomorphic. Because people are responsible for their own actions. Although, again, people will deny self-responsibility.

Determinists would say that some people are ‘determined’ to take responsibility, and be responsible, whereas others are not.

However this is a contradiction. You cannot be ‘determined’ to be responsible. Being responsible, is the determination itself.

describe and articulate what the state of responsibility is like and entails, please. is it some kind of state of mind… or is it a physical action? is it merely a thought in which the string of words ‘i am responsible’ crosses someone’s mind? also, would i need to ‘feel responsible’, whatever that means, to be answerable for what i do? that is to ask, is there any difference in ‘feeling responsible’ and ‘not feeling responsible’ as it pertains to my recognizing consequences for my actions, remembering them, and modifying my behavior in the future to either experience again or prevent said consequences? from a third person perspective, could i look at the way person x is acting and be able to say ‘this guy believes in freewill’?

what is the ‘mental state’ of responsibility… what is the phenomenology of responsibility? is it a kind of qualia? what is this strange state that only exists if the string of words ‘there is freewill’ crosses my mind?

the short refutation of freewill is this; natural laws operate seamlessly and there can be nothing random in nature… no ‘breaches’ or temporary suspensions of causality so that some other set of natural laws can suddenly and spontaneously intervene and affect events and affairs such that they occur in some other way than they were going to occur had that breach not occurred. there is no cartesian second substance acting on the material world… and even granting that there was… there would have to be yet another set of natural laws overseeing such interaction between these two ontologically distinct substances that are themselves unable to be suspended or breached.

Everybody, every organism, is ‘responsible’ for itself and its own body, physically. Pain is a primary instinct. Self-preservation and survival is the core essence of self-responsibility. In humanity, after evolution, people develop a much higher and more complicated sense of self-responsibility. People presume that “taking care of yourself, living well” demonstrates more self-responsibility. People who cannot afford basic amenities, do not wash and clothe themselves, are less responsible, or have no self-responsibility, likened to a child or cripple, instead of an adult. People do not respect those without self-responsibility.

So, self-responsibility is a state of power, implying respect. If somebody cannot think for him/herself, again, this demonstrates a low state of self-responsibility or self-care.

Being very self-responsible means that you would be an adult, have a degree of power, individuality, intelligence, self-care, and self-sufficiency. Independent, not dependent on others.

That is a state of responsibility.

these answers are trivial contingencies of which every one there is at least one exception, if not more. i was looking for something more along the lines of a philosophical/metaphysical explanation, since that’s what the theory of freewill is derived from. concepts like ‘respect’ and ‘self preservation’ and ‘independence’ are an exercise in semantics and could be easily disassembled.

so i’m gonna gracefully bow out of this one.

Well crap, I was anxiously awaiting seeing the good old fashioned passionate ass whooping you were about to deliver :frowning:

lol. the period in which i enjoyed debate has long since passed, something that ended with the realization that language games can’t be ‘won’. my participation at philosophy fora is just habitual and something subject to whimsical moods which are constantly changing. i no longer ‘roll my sleeves up’, so to speak, and prefer to just casually shoot the shit if i’m going to be on a forum. but there is no denying i’m a classic forum addict. it’s so bad i often find myself almost catatonic, staring blankly at some post with hamburger train on repeat, blasting through my earbuds.

then this argument with myself follows: what the hell is this? who is this guy? should i say something? but why? well what the fuck are you doing here if you’re not gonna say anything? because i’m addicted, asshole! then you should get into it. and waste my time? but you’re wasting your time sitting here staring at the page, aren’t you? look, if you’re gonna waste your time, make your time important so you can at least say you wasted something substantial. yeah but what do i do if the guy starts asking me questions and i gotta waste more time explaining something. so fucking explain it to em! but why, dude?! i don’t even know this guy… what the fuck do i care what he knows or doesn’t know? hey, ask yourself that question, not me. but you are me, that’s why i’m asking. so now your talking to yourself? alright i’m gonna go do something else now while you sit here and stare at the page.

You couldn’t win with him in any arena since he’s ‘determined’ not to lose :wink:

That’s the way to be! Don’t ever change :smiley:

So which caused the other?

What is not wasting time? :confusion-waiting:

Yes, but my point revolves more around those autonomous aliens noting 1] I misinterpreted peacegirl and 2] noting in turn how, given that earth is embedded in a wholly determined segment of the universe, there was never any possibility that I would have [could have] not misinterpreted her.

I type the word freedom here. I chose to type it here and now. No one forced me to. But: Was there ever a possibility that, 24 hours ago, matter unfolded in the universe such that I might have chosen to type another word instead? That I was ever free to? Going all the way back to that which explains matter itself as a component of existence?

Thus given my own understanding of determinism – which may well be wrong – it’s not whether or not she was “contradicting neuroscience or determinism”, but whether or not her posts here were compelled to be as they were/are given that the laws of matter are applicable to all human brains precipitating all human interactions. Including this unfolding exchange.

Okay, but the manner in which this is broached by her is seen by me as in fact the same sort of blame meted out by those who embrace some measure of human autonomy. Instead, in a wholly determined universe, all of our understanding, acknowledging, blaming, thinking, feeling, assuming, realizing, behaving, changing etc., would seem [by me] to be entirely scripted by nature itself.

Nothing is not determined.

Except that here and now no one seems able to actually pin that down.

People embrace the idea, the feeling that they are choosing their own life “freely”; but only because human thoughts and feeling – human psychological reactions – are in and of themselves wholly determined.

The mystery of mindful matter.

Yes, but notice how she never actually brings this “peace and prosperity and progress” down to earth. Instead, she has this idea in her head about how human beings should interact, and then, somehow, she has managed to think herself into believing that once others grasp what she and “the author” – her father? – are telling us, then, in fact, this is what the future will be. And this makes no sense to me at all in a wholly determined universe. Or, rather, given the way in which I have thought myself into thinking about it.

If they don’t, won’t, can’t “give it up” of their own autonomous volition, what no earth does “giving up” anything even mean?

Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he’s done it before. He jumps into a thread, “sets me straight”, and then abandons the discussion.

Not that he could have ever done otherwise in a wholly determined universe. So, when you do think about it only as you ever could have thought about it, that let’s him off the hook, right? :wink:

Then back to the huffing and the puffing…

I think I’ve got him on the ropes! :laughing:

Well, if human interactions are but the embodiment of nature itself unfolding only as it ever could, plan or no plan, nothing can ever be attributed to me as “my fault”. But, then, on the other side of the coin, nothing that I accomplish or achieve can ever be other than what it was always going to be as well.

It always works both ways. For both the “winners” and the “losers”.

But how frustrating it must be in acknowledging that, either way, no one seems able to demonstrate beyond all doubt which one it really is.

But then the beauty of human thoughts and feelings is that, given the evolution of life on Earth into conscious minds, all one need do is but to believe it is either one or the other.

Believing it makes it true. In your head. And some many most are able to take that all the way to the grave with them. Indeed, some many most even believing [here and now] that on the other side waits immortality and salvation.

We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?

Okay, but what predisposes all of this in a wholly determined universe? Is there anything in this exchange – any word, any argument, any post – that could ever have not been other than what it must be?

I keep coming back to the assumption that the human mind itself is just matter having evolved into the human brain actually able to convice “I” that it is something other than the brain itself. It is matter able to “will” to “choose” to “think” to “feel” to “behave” in an “autonomous” and “free” manner. But that is only just another manifestation of the laws of matter. Laws which scientists and philosophers and theologians [among others] grapple with, but seem to be no where near pinning down.

From my way of thinking, in a wholly determined universe, “better” and “worse” are just two more dominoes that the brain was compelled to concoct in the only way it can ever concoct anything at all.

Unless of course that’s not true at all.

Again, on this thread, it’s not how I see it, but whether the manner in which I think I see it [here and now] is but an inherent, necessary manifestation of the laws of nature unfolding only as they ever could have.

And, if that is the case, what “on Earth” would not be obligatory?

In other words, suppose, two week from now, I will have changed my mind and come to agree with everything that, say, peacegirl thinks about these relationships.

Will that in turn be only what was every going to unfold – what was only ever able to unfold – in this exchange?

Well, assume it’s not determined and working within that context, how would you see it?

Determinism doesn’t only result one way or any predictable way. If you want to make that delineation you should use the proper term containing that qualifier: pre-determinism.

X causes Y, but it was just as likely to cause A or B or anything else. There is no way to know which effect X will cause. Rewind the universe 1 hour and it will unfold differently. X causes Y, but why X causes Y can never be known, and all the evidence says there is no why.

Why is the electron here and not over there? There is no reason. If there were a reason, there would be a pattern, but the pattern is random, so there is no reason.

And if there were a reason, then the cause of that reason would have a reason and so on forever, so there is no way to get to the absolute cause of everything that it determines. Either it isn’t there or tat tvam asi.

You don’t know what the possibilities were 24 hours ago. Nobody did.

You only knew what “had to happen” after it had happened.

Let that sink in for a while. What’s determined is only determined when it actually happens and not before.

I fought Silhouette for dozens of pages about that. It doesn’t seem to click with Determinists.

There’s no way to know whether it “had to have been” or not. It’s merely an (illogical, irrational) assumption. Determinists take for granted that things are “Determined”.

Then they can’t tell you what’s Un-determined. Hard to reason with such irrational people…

Are you implying a particular thing that it tells others about me? must it be that?

I think it could mean a number of things. Some seem fine to me, some not.

Here’s why I do that. Rightly or wrongly I find that you have trouble actually understanding the point of what people are saying, except as it reflects on your core question. So, I experience that you often do not respond to what I write, but repeat what you have written many times before as if it applies. Sometimes it does, often it does not, always I already knew your position, so it does not further the discussion.

If you think I will not read your response, you might not spend time trying to defend your position and you might not repeat what we have all read many times. You might just sit with what I said, mull it over, consider it in a different way. I was not optimistic, but that was my hope.

I have engaged you in long, long interactions. So I have shown I am capable of interacting over long periods to your posts.

I find it passive-aggressive when you ask the gallery questions, rather than simply stating what you think it means. It might not be passive aggressive, you might really be simply curious to get their interpretation. I think your philosophy allows for a great deal of passive aggressiveness, since you can always say you can’t be sure. Sort of erasing what you say as you write it. That may be swaying me to think that you are being passive-aggressive when you ask others questions like the above.

It is certainly one way people are passive aggressive, asking the question as if the answer is obvious, but not taking responsibility for saying directly what they think it means. But it might not be in this case.

It might also not be the case that you think there is one possible thing my doing what I did means. Perhaps you realize that my saying I would not read your response could mean lots of things, especially in a context where I have engaged for long long sequences with you before. I hope you did mull it over. I only saw your response above in Seredippers post. I didn’t read yours. So, there is always that chance to mull, even now.

and like those who believe there is a ‘free will’, the determinists would also be wrong. both positions are nonsensical. with the philosophy of ‘freewill’ there occurred a transposition of adjectives originally used to describe intentional and ambitious acts (e.g., he has a strong will) into properties belonging to some entity (will), which was something different than the body. this entire confusion revolves around calling into question an agency which doesn’t exist. one doesn’t have a ‘will’, just like one doesn’t have a ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ or a ‘soul’. the use of these words as entities rather than as descriptions for behaviors is the source of such philosophical confusions.

you’ll see in this excellent summary - which i frequently post anywhere i find this argument in progress - why to use the phrase ‘determine’ is misleading when trying to devise an alternative position to ‘freewill’.

wouldn’t all behavior be obligatory in a determined universe? :slight_smile:
which means that as one realizes this, if one does, then one might feel less blame,
which I believe was one of peacegirl’s points. That we will be affected by the knowledge of determinism, over time, to no longer blame. It will have always been inevitable when we do. And would include blaming me for setting him straight and leaving the discussion.

Oddly, I was actually in a fairly compassionate mood when I wrote that post. I thought they were talking past each other. Thought there was a small chance I could brigde.

I think I’ll go back to snarky.