So, I’m suppose to tell you what it [u][b]means[/u][/b] to be obligated – subjectively obligated – to “the game”. Noting in turn what the bush is here and what beating around it means.
But since any meaning I might convey here is embedded in the existential contraption that is “I” pertaining to questions like that, I am already acknowledging that gap between “I” here and now and all that can be known about answering a question such as this given a complete understanding of existence itself.
Again, let’s bring this all down to earth. What particular game in what particular context construed from what particular point of view? What might be the bush there and what might beating around it consist of?
Forget X and Y. Forget electrons. Bring this assessment down to earth by describing what you construe to be cause and effect with respect to human interactions.
X and Y and electrons is bringing it down to earth. How much closer to earth can I get than electrons?
Exhibit an example that you think is down to earth and then I will shoehorn it into probable outcomes.
Well, the one I tend to focus on is abortion. It’s literally a life and death issue that is well known to almost everyone.
Here there is cause and effect/correlation in the either/or world: life on earth—> human biology—> sex—> unwanted pregnancy—> abortion.
sex—> unwanted pregnancy—> abortion.
sex—> ectopic pregnancy—> surgery.
sex—> wanted pregnancy—> birth.
sex—> unwanted pregnancy—> miscarriage.
sex—> wanted pregnancy—> miscarriage.
sex—> unwanted pregnancy—> mother dies in freak accident.
sex—> wanted pregnancy—> mother dies in freak accident.
sex—> unwanted pregnancy—> mother commits suicide.
sex—> unwanted pregnancy—> father kills mother in fit of rage.
sex—> no pregnancy—> woman hit by train.
no sex—> pregnancy—> christianity is born.Where the electron will be is not predictable. Outcomes are not predictable. Rewind it and it will unfold differently.
Yes, and in a wholly determined universe all of these interactions unfold only as they ever could have. If time could be unwound hypothetically the same things would unfold over and over again. An “eternal recurrence” as it were.
Same with the subatomic particles here.
But: Configure human autonomy into this and how are all bets not off? In the is/ought world.
Whereas cause and effect in the is/ought world is [in my view] predicated more on what I construe to be existential contraptions. And they are often considerably more subjective/subjunctive.
But: From my way of thinking, in a wholly determined world, this distinction is essentially an illusion.
Right.
So, here, what would the bush be and how might one beat around it?
But if you cannot grasp the distinction I do make here between the either/or and the is/ought worlds given some measure of human autonomy, we need to spend more time pursuing that. On another thread perhaps?
I get the difference, but I don’t get why you keep saying it.
Because, given human autonomy, beating around the bush regarding any particular set of conflicting goods in the is/ought world, can be explored in turn from conflicting moral and political perspectives.
People are said to be beating around the bush given conflicting assumptions regarding what that means in any particular context. Re abortion “the point” is said to be either the alleged “natural right” of the fetus to be born vs. the alleged “political right” of a women to chose abortion.
So, who exactly is beating around the bush here in arguing for or against the abortion of a particular unborn baby?
It’s just that matter evolving into life
Wrong. Life cannot come from nonlife. Something from nothing is absurd.
Right, like beyond the “world of words” that is bursting at the seams with all the assumptions you make here, you can actually know this!!
How can you not know it?? If atoms are nonlife and you’re made of nonlife, then you are nonlife… unless the pixie sprinkled some magic dust making you alive.
You just claim to know it. But how on earth would you actually demonstrate it such that neuroscientists, physicists, biologists etc., all concur that your own take on these relationships reflects the whole truth? Let alone how this assessment is “for all practical purposes” relevant in grasping why we choose the behaviors that we do from day to day in a universe that may or may not be wholly determined.
You claim things like “the ceramic and fully-automatic models of the universe are both absurd” as though the claim itself settles it.
Freewill can only be realized in the context of things that are not free.
And how in a wholly determined universe is anything at all free?
If the universe is wholly determined, how could you possibly be aware of that? Determinism can only be realized in the context of freewill.
That’s the imponderable here for many. How can matter evolve into life evolving into consciousness aware of itself as matter evolving into consciousness aware of itself.
Or, for others, one of another rendition of mind/God evolving into matter evolving into consciousness becoming aware of itself as mind evolving into matter evolving into consciousness becoming aware of itself.
Come on, let’s face it: If someone were actually able to demonstrate that they grasp the interactions here ontologically [teleologically?] they’d be on every news format around the globe.
“EXISTENCE ITSELF EXPLAINED BY CONSCIOUS MIND AND/OR MATTER”
Is that you, perhaps?
Instead [given my own assumptions] we have mindless matter on earth evolving into mindful matter able to in fact “choose” things that nature compels them to. But: are our choices really any different [for all practical purposes] from the choices made by animals further down the evolutionary chain? They choose almost entirely by “instinct”. Our species however has encountered all manner of historical, cultural and experiential variables that come into play. The part where genes intertwine with memes.
How then is this to be understood?
Geese get pissed off, jealous, proud, egotistical, depressed, yet don’t have the brains god gave a goose lol. It’s possible that plants could experience emotions in ways we don’t understand. Heck, it could be possible to piss of the earth. How far do you want to take it? All you are is chemicals; star dust shit.
So, this is either something that you think you know and believe is true “in your head” “here and now”, or it is something that you are fully capable of demonstrating that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
That’s all we have so far. And that assumes some level of autonomy.
Tell us what you think is true here, sure. By all means. But don’t just expect us to accept that you thinking it is true need be as far as one goes.
The pertinent question is what can be demonstrated to irrational men and women such that they are obligated to believe it? Rational men and women are not the problem
Or the pertinent question might be that, if rational and irrational beliefs are all subsumed in the fact that beliefs themselves are wholly determined, what does it really mean to make this distinction at all?
If that were the case then you couldn’t ask because you couldn’t exist as anything more than a dumb machine.
If human brains/minds are just another manifestation of “the laws of matter” we might be thought of as nature’s “smart machines”. But when we think of ourselves as smart machines inventing “smart phones” we don’t think that the phones themselves are calling the shots. Instead, some insist that unlike the phones we do choose consciously to do one thing rather than another. But what if that is all essentially an illusion? What if nature has evolve to the point where matter is able to think that it thinks freely of its own volition but in fact thinks only as it was ever able to think being wholly in sync with the “immutable laws of matter”?
Has anyone on Earth untangled all of this going back to the understanding of existence itself?
Sure, maybe. And maybe it’s you. So, take your assessments here to those who think about these things for a living. See what they say about your own assumptions here. Then get back to us.
How does one demonstrate red to a blind man such that he is obligated to believe it?
And this is situated in the either/or world. One is blind or one is not blind. Something is construed as a legitimate demonstration here or it is not. Red might be conveyed to blind person as associated with heat or passion, blue with coolness and calm. The communication is always either more or less effective. But: in a wholly determined universe it is what it is. Period. It could never have been other than that.
Why are you so hungup on pre-determinism? It’s contrary to science and contrary to common sense. It could never only have been other than that.
How on earth in a particular context is one to differentiate determinism from pre-determinism? How is this distinction related to the assumption some make that in a determined universe all matter [including mindful matter] interacts only as it was/does/ever will interact.
In other words…
Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself.
If you can’t see that existence isn’t a thing that can exist, then I’m out of ideas of conveyance. I don’t know what to do.
This may well be the mother of all “general descriptions” regarding an explanation for existence. How exactly would you go about making a youtube video able to demonstrate that “existence isn’t a thing that can exist”?
Illustrate this particular text please.