Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.
Of course what gets tricky here is that, depending on your beliefs, beliefs themselves may or may not be only as they ever could have been. Here no accounts are either ordinary or not ordinary. Words like “ordinary” are merely sounds that nature compelled the matter having evolved into human brains to invent in sync with all the rest of matter connected by threads — strings? – going back to God or the Big Bang. Which are themselves no less inherent/necessary components of the one and the only reality.
And what could possibly be more profoundly problematic than this? Whether we do have the real deal free will or it is all only as it ever could have been, we’re still “stuck” or stuck groping about to understand whether 1] existence had a First Cause or 2] it wasn’t caused at all but has always simply been there. And now here.
Really, take some time to actually think this through. How can there be nothing and then something and then everything? How can something always exist and never be caused to exist? Either way, it’s ultimately unfathomable.
Come on, get real. Extending the laws of physics to the human brain “in your head” by merely thinking yourself into believing it is true is no where near close to explaining how exactly those heavy elements produced as a result of exploding stars evolved into living matter evolved into self-conscious minds able to reconfigure those elements into the computer technology used to create an internet resulting in the creation of threads like this at philosophy forums like ILP.
We don’t even really know if the explanation is within reach of the human brain.
Again, back to dreams. Who here has dreams in which “in the dream” they do not act with intent? And yet in my own dreams this intent is produced chemically and neurologically given the genetic parameters of the human brain itself. The brain creates these dream worlds. You and I are just along for the ride.
Then we awaken in the morning and, what, the brain switches over to real deal free will mode?
Sure, maybe. I would never pretend that only the manner in which I understand it is the way that all others must understand it or become “one of them”. Them ever and always being wrong precisely because they refuse to accept what he does. And, again, he offers us no substantive proof [either philosophically or scientifically] that his rendition of the free will/determinism debate is either the optimal or the only rational assessment.
Furthermore, even if we agree that free will is the real deal, he refuses to come here and discuss the nature of “intent” with me in regard to moral and political value judgments. His genes/memes intellectual contraption and my dasein/conflicting goods/political economy intellectual contraption.
Given particular sets of circumstances.
I challenge him to come here and discuss this with me. Now that, for all practical purposes, banishment is a thing of the past here at ILP. And while the members discuss and debate possible new moderation rules.
We can sustain it on the philosophy board or take it to rant. I’m good either way.
Reading this is like shitting nails. He thinks will is the same as an outcome of a will and he is finding yet another round-a-bout way to try to smear the idea that free will is a paradox, equating it to some kind of fanatical denial of human agency and mind control.
LOL, is it willful or is it determined???you kooks make me chuckle. sooo, free-will is simply…a will that is wilful and hence determined and hence free… and the way we know it is a free will is because man acts and this is his will =D> =D> =D>
CHECK MATE MOTHERFUUUUCKER!
SCULPTOR ARE YOU ON SHITETHYSELF TOO???YOU FUCK
woaahhh woahh boy, get back in the queue…he spent years cussing you up in multiple giant threads and replying to you hundreds of times and I am yet to await a chance to debate this genius…i must be a retard maniac but I am confused as to why they beat on you and out-raced themselves to show they are smarter than yourself yet I have been put on a collective deaf telephone game…it really boggles my mind why I am such a retard that they wont even address me when they sweated out hundreds of posts addressing you and your arguments…Kvasir is so disgusted by me, he cant even bring himself to show everybody how wrong I am yet he wrote to you and did his best to show how dumb you are,yet me…i am too disgusting to even ridicule and expose as a dullard EASILY…one day I will get it.
=D> =D> =D> just kidding, fuck those dullards and fuck their deluded conspiracies…fucking neo-nazi autistic kooks wanting to cull people and throw the jews into ovens…too much internet for my retarded head…too many geniuses.
Go ahead, click on some and then get back to us. Let us know if there is now a definitive conclusion that has been reached in the scientific community establishing once and for all whether you “chose” to read these words only as the embodiment of the “psychological illusion of free will”, or you chose to read them having opted to of your own volition given all of the other things you could have opted to choose instead.
As for nihilism and science, yeah, there are those who argue that even what appear to be the objective facts embedded in the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical world etc., – the either/or world – are essentially meaningless and illusory.
Well, given the real deal free will world, I’m not one of them. I’m a moral nihilism convinced that human interactions in the is/ought world are rooted more subjectively/subjunctively in the arguments I make in my signature threads.
And, again, I challenge Satyr to come here to discuss and debate our respective philosophies in regard to both free will and conflicting goods.
he is a kook with no consistency, a materialistic atheist Canadian kook, a neo-nazi European, and an ancient mystic Ancient Greek all in one…an insane goon and more importantly a big time, first-grade bullshitter…just like yourself.
what the fuck are you even talking about, it makes fuck-all sense. I wanted to debate you and you ran like an autistic kook coward you are and now you bring some incoherent psychoanalysis and think I will explain myself to you retard??? bow my head, get on my knees and pleasure you??? admit publically I am worthless and insane so I can have your redemption???what the fuck are you smoking?
Now that’s the PY we all know and love. And, with any luck, you post caustic Kidstuff drivel like this only because that is what nature compels you to.
Still, if perchance one day you are willing to explore my proposal above – in a real deal free will world – blow our minds and go there.
I dont need Schopenhauer or Hume to know you are a dullard. Same way I dont need to fly about America to tell its whites are deeply racist and selfish. And weak.
The creation of this thread, however, revolves more around the extent to which it can be determined that any definition that I do give reflects but the psychological illusion of free will on my part or, instead, encompasses my capacity to freely, of my own volition, opt to define it one way rather than another. Suggesting that, given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge [in a world teeming with contingency chance and change] I might change my mind and define it another way.
Now, again, blow our minds, by actually responding to the points I raise here in a manner that at least resembles the intent of those who created ILP in the first place.
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 1&t=176529
where is the definition of dasein in this thread??? please, I might have missed it. you talk about dasein but where do you define it exactly there???
