From my frame of mind what you are doing here is making nature the equivalent of the man holding a gun to your head. Nature becomes the “external” force giving you no choice but to choose what it compels you to do. But nature and you are one and the same from my point of view. The laws of nature compel you to “choose” only what you must. Without actually holding a gun to your head. In fact, you, the man with the gun and nature are all seamlessly [re the laws of matter] of but one necessary unfolding reality.
In other words, regarding the part I do not understand, what was unfolding inside your head before and then after these two “choices”? How is free will – the lack of it – understood by you in both instances?
What was unfolding inside my head was before I said I was going to bow out was basically frustration with the lack of progress.
But how is this emotional state not in and of itself just another manifestation of nature embodied in your brain embodying the laws of matter.
Haven’t you ever said you were never going to do something again, and then you did it again?
Sure, but it still comes down to whether these flip-flops were ever actually something I was able to choose to make.
I don’t have identifiable reasons why I decided to post after I posted that I was bowing out. Maybe I felt more relaxed and at that moment I changed my mind when you were the only one posting. Maybe I saw something in your post that I wanted to respond to. We can change our mind up to the very last instant before we make a choice.
What if the alleged identifiable reason [not able to be substantiated by any of us] was embedded in the laws of matter? You change your mind at the last minute because [and only because] nature compelled you to.
Saying I appreciate something does not reflect the sort of thing that would be raised by those who just believe in free will. I can still say “I appreciate” without turning it into language that I can’t use.
But how are these words not in turn just more of the same: the embodiment of nature compelling you to “choose” them. How is your expression of appreciation different from how a free will advocate would encompass it? The inflection [to me] is basically the same.
A libertarian would think I had a choice, where I know I didn’t. It’s not about the inflection, it’s about the underlying belief system.
Or: A libertarian would be compelled by nature to think you had a choice. His/her underlying belief system would be just like yours: entirely natural.
Also, I have no clear understanding at all of what particular point nature has compelled you to make. As usual [with you and the author] it’s just words defining, then giving meaning to, then defending more words.
Nature hasn’t compelled me to choose something; nature has compelled me to desire to choose something.
Exactly: Before, during and after a choice that you make, “I” is compelled by nature. You choose something precisely because nature has compelled you to desire to choose it.
Only, sure, another part of “me” scoffs at this, convinced that, in a manner no one really understands fully, “I” am capable of choosing the words that I type. Even if I am compelled [by the laws of spelling] to chose particular sets of letters to comprise.
You ARE capable of choosing the words that you type. Capability means you have the capacity to choose.
Which just takes me back to the distinction made between “choosing” words and choosing words.
We can’t “choose” words that are not part of our repertoire. If every move we make is not done of our own free will, and every thought is not done of our own free will, we have no choice in anything we do. Contemplation is also part of the causal chain, which moves us in only one direction.
Now it’s “repertoire”. Another word you were compelled to choose to confuse me. Thus moving this exchange along in the only possible direction it can go.
A lot of it is repetitive and we just don’t see eye to eye.
Once you make a choice you are responsible for that choice. Most choices are benign. It only becomes a problem when your choices impinge on others.
Or: Once I am compelled by nature to choose the one behavior that is in sync with nature’s inherent laws, my “reponsibility” [perceived by both myself and others] becomes just another necessary manifestion of reality unfolding only as it ever could have.
That’s perfectly fine to say, although “your responsibility perceived by others” is a judgment that will not occur under the changed conditions.
How can our reaction to anything not occur but only as it must if the changed conditions themselves occur only as they must?
I can’t blame you for neglecting to read the first three chapters and acting like you know what it’s about. It doesn’t mean I have to like your accusations.
Again, I am compelled by nature to ask: What choice do you have in reacting as you do other than in how nature compels you to? Instead, you settle for this mysterious “choice” that your own particular “I” has in the moment before the choice that you make is finally understood by you to be the embodiment of no free will.
No, you are misunderstanding.
Or: I am compelled by nature to only misunderstand.
Before you do something that requires serious thought, you contemplate, right? There is no mysterious “I” that comes to a decision. All I am saying is that this law prevents the act of crime BEFORE it takes place, not AFTER. Why? After contemplating should I rob this person or not, for example, the desire to rob will be less satisfying than not to. If this person chooses not to rob, do we need to do those things that were required in a free will society such as incarcerate, rehabilitate, punish, seek justice and recompense?
Until you can explain to me how human contemplation before, during and after a choice to rob someone is not at one [from start to finish] with the laws of matter themselves you lose me.