Oh look I’m not the only one who thinks “iambiguous” is deliberately ambiguous. I wonder why s/he chose the name ambigious.
Iambigous likes to harp on and attack others positions; like to rewrite what they say; likes to misquote and misdirect, but has abolutely NOTHING to say where him/herself
On the contrary, the topic of this thread revolves precisely around our own understanding of determinism. And as I understand it “here and now” any attempt on your part to explain PHT to the protesters outside the abortion clinic is inherently/necessarily embedded in the only possible reality. Would Saint agree or not?
On the other hand, given my current understanding of free will, any argument presented to the protesters relating to conflicting moral and political prejudices, is rooted existentially in the arguments I make in my signature threads. Which you never address either because nature has never unfolded such that you would address them or you are free to address them but have no adequate rebuttals. So you steer clear of all arguments that are not intellectual contraptions by and large. Just as Saint did.
Again, given Saint’s understanding of determinism, do you not want to play that way because nature has not unfolded so as to compel you to play that way? And am I free to opt to grow up and play by adult rules – even like it – or am I opting only for what I could only opt for given Saint’s understanding of the laws of matter?
Really, thank your lucky stars that nature has reduced you down to puerile retorts like this. Otherwise, in the real deal free will world, your embarrassment might be, well, all but unbearable.
Again, from my frame of mind, in a world where free will is an option, John may or may not rape Jane. Depending on, among other things, if a discussion he has with another about it results in his changing his mind. He was freely intending to rape Jane but Joe talks him out of it. Or something happens to him – a new experience – that prompts him to change his mind.
We can talk about free will/determinism in intellectual contraptions or we can bring our conclusions down out of the clouds and intertwine them in actual sets of circumstancers.
As though in a free will world there aren’t factors that might stop him from doing it.
As though in a wholly determined universe all of this would not unfold in the only possible reality.
We all come into the world with those drives. But we all don’t rape. And that is either because nature compels some to rape and not others, or because the lives that we live in ever evolving historical, cultural and interpersonal contexts, given free will, allow for any number variable permutations allowing for any number of possible options.
Reasons predicated entirely on the laws of matter in the only possible reality or reasons derived from a mind that for reasons we still do not fully understand allow for minds to be changed given any number of existential factors in any number of possible combinations.
Okay, then explain exactly how the human brain composed of matter that evolved over billions of years from the Big Bang, acquired the capacity to shape and to control the chemical and neurological interactions intertwined in the mind in order to do what [seemingly] no other matter has ever done: to think freely of it’s own volition in order to opt for one set of behaviors rather than another.
Note your own assessment of how these interactions in our dreams – the brain creating a reality on automatic pilot – reconfigures into a wide awake brain shaping the destiny of “I” in a way other than as the sleeping brain does.
And I’m always the very first one to note that my own wild ass guess here is just that. After all, how could it not be given the gap discussed above.
No, it is those like Saint and obsrvr524 who seemed/seem to argue that things like RM/OA and all the other alphabet soup assessments – “PHT” and “MIJOT” and “CRH” – are so on the money that it allows obsrvr524 to mock those who refuse to share his own non fatalistic assumptions about, among other things, Trump and the Commies.
Attacking the theory of evolution on an thread about determinism is like taking a carrot to a knife fight.
WOuld you like it diced or shreaded?
Puzzling but lets press on.
(This is a non-question because it was not the human brain that “DID IT”. You need to think more clearly. Despit the question being poorly phrases I what you are trying to ask.)
Biological systems have been modifying matter for 3.5 billion years. It is a system called natural selection, which tends to result in ever more complex systems. But the trait that organisms were able to chose between different actions is at the very heart of the system and is more or less a completely necessary factor from the earliest times, since a bad choice means a failure of the next generation upon which evolution immediately depends.
It would be easier to demonstrate this in terms of determinism. It would be much harder to explain how the fuck this system resulted in free will.
So I am doubly puzzled by why this question appears here.
Just because you are laughably onbsessed with socialism (even though you’ve not got the first notion of what it is), and think that they are out to get you does not mean that some things you say are not correct.
I very reasonably described to him exactly how determinism can be used to explain this change in mind, and he responded negatively.
I wonder if his disquiet about the possibility that decisions are determined by foregoing conditions forces him to caricature determinism as fatalism, because he scared of the idea there there is no radical free will.
Surely this is just childish argument from adverse conequences.
So rather than think reasonably he choses to thrash out.
I have to say that his apparent denial of compatibilism and his pressing for radical free will has far more adverse consequences that simply accepting that we all make choices based on our motivations, and that any radically free choices would be meaningless and random.
Determinism is not a predicted future but one in which actions have definable consequences, and he ought to be grateful for that simple truth.
