According to you, the solution to world peace is finding our true nature, but then you further argue that we have no choice.
So… my question to you, from the perspective of an absolute determinist, why bother making this thread if you are correct? It’s illogical from your argument, to make a thread that tries to teach people what you’ve proven (even if you don’t post the thread) all of them will learn what you posted (by your proof)???
It’s illogical because nobody has a choice according to your proof, so, you sharing the proof suggests that people do have a choice. In contradicting yourself, by virtue of at a minimum, parsimony, you proved that you don’t even believe your own proof.
Of course people have a choice otherwise what would be the point of deliberation? But the choice, once it’s decided upon, could not have been otherwise since we can only move in one direction.
That’s one of the most classic freewill arguments that exists !!
Honestly, I think you are very confused!!
You say a person can make a choice (that’s not determinism but the way !!!')
Then you say that once they make a choice, it couldn’t have been any other way!!
Well yeah!! No shit!!
If we travel back in time to our exact past, we will just be us in our exact past.
This argument you’re presenting is a CLASSIC freewill argument!!! Whoa!?! Like seriously, this is …
Umm never mind …
So here’s the deal.
Yes, when a choice (freewill) is made, a singularity occurs at that decision point and makes it so that AFTER that point, that no other decision COULD have been made.!!!
Yeah, that’s true, every choice is bound by restraints.
If I like smoking cigarettes while taking a walk, I need an able body, with good lungs, cigarettes and a lighter. There is no such thing as a choice without restriction. It’s impossible.
That doesn’t mean that you are using the term absolute determinism correctly. Quite the contrary, you’re defining a modicum of freewill as absolute determinism, and thus, this whole thread is absurd.
I’m not talking about the conditions that are required for a choice to be made.
That is true because the conditions necessary have not been met. How can you smoke a cigarette if you don’t have a cigarette? This has nothing to do with what I’m talking about and I think you know it. By the way, you don’t need an able body or good lungs to smoke.
Just because we can make choices without external restraint does not grant us free will. There is no modicum of free will and please don’t misrepresent what I’m saying just because you don’t understand yet.
We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false. So without any further ado, let us begin.”
It’s only a contradiction if you are defining determinism the way you are, which is not completely accurate. Scroll up. That’s why a definition that clarifies certain things is so important to reconcile this longstanding conflict.
I already did show you the goods, you just wave your hands and say I didn’t show you the goods.
Determinism is when one thing is caused (determined) by something else. Absolute determinism is when there is zero percent autonomy.
You’re arguing absolute determinism.
Using the definition of absolute determinism I gave you the limit proof, which shows that some level of autonomy (freewill) must exist.
Next, all I have to do to crumble your entire house of cards is show that your own definitions are internally inconsistent, and to do that, all I have to do is show only ONE example of a mutually exclusive satisfaction, which I did.
You are arguing against a false definition around the word “cause”. Absolute determinism does not negate autonomy. This discussion has understandably become something irreconcilable the way it’s framed.
Agreed, but it’s not what you think it is. We can have autonomy and our choices be fully determined. Do you see why words can cause logical contraptions that have no basis in reality?
You did not Ecmandu. You would have to show that you can choose a dissatisfying option when a more satisfying option is available to you.
Can you at least preface this with “in my humble opinion”. That would go a long way.
You’re saying that (in saying we have autonomy that ultimately determined), that we can choose anything that we want, but it’s all just determined in an ultimate sense. What if I choose not to have everything determined in an ultimate sense?
Oh! You’re saying I don’t have autonomy there and only there, but I have autonomy everywhere else.
You’re argument is that no matter what any or everybeing does, nobody has a choice but for it all to be for the greater good (as you proved) You’re the one wearing rose colored glasses not me.
If you mean by the word autonomy an uncoerced external choice (not having a gun to your head), that does not grant us free will. We can use the phrase “I did something of my own free will” if it’s qualified. Again, the word cause is misleading. That’s the other side of the two-sided equation which we haven’t even touched upon. Before making a choice we have the option of choosing A or B (or anything we want that is within our reach) since nothing is preventing us from choosing either/or except for our preference toward one or the other (which is the meaningful difference desire is forced to take). Looking back, this makes any other option at that moment an impossibility because it would have given less satisfaction under the circumstances. If B is an impossible choice because it is less satisfying, we are not free to choose A.
[i]The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly
correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to;
nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise
had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because
of the general ignorance that prevailed for although it is correct in the sense
that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates
that his will is free. In fact I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’
frequently myself which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning
to see how words have deceived everyone?
“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”
This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.
[/i]
You aren’t being explicit. To be autonomous does not conflict with determinism. I know my will is not free and still say I am autonomous when I am making an independent choice.
autonomy: the ability to make your own decisions without being controlled by anyone else
Yes, you are on the right track. Nobody has a choice and under changed environmental conditions the desire to hurt another will not be the greater preference. Remember, we can only go in one direction and when that direction is the desire to hurt no one, our problem is solved.
Are you not jumping to conclusions AGAIN when you haven’t even read the book?
Well, in a “wholly determined universe” as I have [necessarily] come to understand it, the only answer that I am able to give comes directly from nature.
Right?
How anything is used is normal. Why? Because it can only have ever been used as it in fact was used.
Right?
Thus…
Unless of course I am not able to want anything other than that which nature compels me to. And then [again] around and around and around we go.
So what? “In your head” that makes the unknown unknowns go away. As though that need be as far as it goes. As though that actually does make them go away!
And you know what you are talking about because the psychological comfort and consolation that you cling to with the author and his “progressive future” has become the center of the universe for you now. Everything that grounds your own particular “I” in this particular assessment of these particular principles is what is now at stake here. I can’t know what I am talking about because if I do all of this might come crashing down all around you.
Again, as though merely insisting that this is true need be as far as you and the author go. You demonstrate nothing substantial. You can’t take someone through their day and explore the choices that they make other than by way of fitting them all into the intellectual assumptions you make about having or not having a free will. Nothing can be pinned down either experientially or experimentally.
As though the things that we think we need to do are not in turn only the things that nature compels us to think that we need to do. You want to make our “choices” the exception to the rule somehow. But I’m simply unable to understand why and how you think you accomplish this – can accomplish this – in a determined unviverse.
I’m off the beaten path only because nature put me there. I call myself a nihilist only because at this point in time nature compels me to. Instead, my assessment of moral nihilism in ILP revolves around the assumption that I am in fact [up to a point] autonomous. I am able of my own volition to conclude that moral and political values are rooted existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. And embedded out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially.
And that the behaviors you deem to be a prerequisite for “peace and prosperity” are precisely the behaviors that others hold in contempt.
My point is that in a determined universe as I understand it here and now those who are left for dead and those who leave them for dead are like the characters and the guests in West World.The characters are wholly programmed to think and feel and say and do only what they must. While the guests presume that they are free to do these things autonomously. The show then explores what happens when the two worlds begin to intertwine.
But: in a determined universe [again, as I understand it] there is no distinction between the characters and the guests. They are all compelled to think and feel and say and do things as nature commands given the immutable laws of matter.
Well, you blew over the limit proof, as if i had never made it.
When I pointed out that mutually exclusive satisfactions exist, and thus made your argument internally inconsistent. You blew that over with a massive quote that didn’t address something that simple.
And now you’re saying people not only always make the best possible decision by universal law (implying that this is the best possible universe regardless of what we think because you “proved it”)
You’re also arguing that people can actually make very basic choices about what they want: one word for you: undesired addictions, otherwise known as diseases, considered incurable currently.
Let’s look at other stuff that goes on in the world!
A man loves his family, never wants to hurt them, then he gets a brain tumor and murders his whole family. These kinds of things really do occur.
I don’t think you have much experience with the sheer breadth of life, however, you certainly have no trouble making sweeping statements about it, that for basically anyone besides you (now granted my limit proof requires abstraction, so I’ll let it drop) knows is false self evidently: that we all have a choice of the better of two options.
