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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [b]no![/b]
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?
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…
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…
You mean however I “want” to frame it. I “want” only what nature compels me to want given my own understanding of determinism.
If you don’t know what the implications are “for all practical purposes”, how can we be out of sync?
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.
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.
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.
And that’s a big difference! We have minds that think and can therefore change a particular trajectory, dominoes cannot.
Maybe, but this discovery offers a better understanding of human nature because the premises that lead to it are sound.
My imparting this knowledge can prevent war and crime. I am not trying to understand the nature of existence. You changed topics.
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”.
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.
You can’t not want what nature compels you to want because they are one and the same.
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.
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.
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.
Because, in a wholly ordered universe, I’m compelled to?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No iambiguous. I can call something folly even though I know it could not have been otherwise.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And that’s what we’re doing. That’s what has always been done. And that’s how it will continue to unfold.
Human behaviors follow their nature, and when the environmental conditions change for the better, conflicting goods and political economy will not be an issue.
Of course there’s a way to start bringing it about. It’s spelled out in the economic chapter.
You’re right, and now nature’s mechanism is giving us answers so that existence will be sustained.
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.
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.
True, but we’re getting closer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.
