Determinism

Sculptor · June 24, 2021, 10:28pm

I think he already killed his own grandmother.

Sculptor · June 24, 2021, 10:29pm

We wont hold our breath

Sculptor · June 24, 2021, 10:29pm

Whilst you are there, can be place a bet for me??

Ecmandu · June 24, 2021, 10:34pm

You folks are looking at 4th dimensional time.

There are infinite dimensions.

I’m not lying to you on this.

A soul has the capacity to remember all its old memories even if it changes the timeline.

You folks are dinosaurs. That’s meant as an ad hom.

Sculptor · June 25, 2021, 10:29am

Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo.

If you can travel in time then place me a bet, or buy me a lottery ticket. Otherwise keep your craziness to yourself.

Ecmandu · June 25, 2021, 2:13pm

To a 5th dimensional being… all of space and time are just objects, like a fucking pear. Watch men in black 3 to see what 5th dimensional beings are like.

Think about this…

There are infinite dimensions.

I’m not a cuck and I’m not crazy.

iambiguous · June 25, 2021, 5:06pm

Compelled by the laws of matter or not, we are still stuck here: youtu.be/qYe8cGy9TeI

Now, I’m either agreeing with ecmandu above because…

1] my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter in ways no one is really able to understand [scientifically, philosophically or otherwise], never “permitted” me to not agree with him, or…

2] in ways no one is really able to understand, mindless/lifeless matter somehow configured into mindful/living matter that, through the biological evolution of life on Earth, has culminated into, well, us. Matter that is not only self-conscious but is able to somehow freely opt to either agree or disagree with the self-conscious conclusions of others.

3] whatever it is that you “think”, think or “think” instead.

iambiguous · June 25, 2021, 5:12pm

Sculptor, don’t forget about me here. You’re up:

Sculptor:

iambiguous:
Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

It is this view of determinism [above] that allows Hume to see humans holding active creative power. Thus, in Hume’s philosophy, agents are not passive entities simply acting according to some script written for them at the first cause. For Hume, on the contrary, humans are free agents with consciousness, motivations and desires. He writes, “We are conscious, that we ourselves, in adapting means to ends, are guided by reason and design, and that’tis not ignorantly nor casually we perform those actions, which tend to self-preservation, to the obtaining pleasure, and avoiding pain” (Treatise, p.176). Therefore, as much as humans are determined by various causes in the universe, they also hold a determining power as they actively take part in cause and effect relationships.

Okay, how, experientially/experimentally, would he go about demonstrating this? Neuroscientists and others exploring these relationships today are still unable to pin down if what it is said Hume believes here is true. Again, unless of course someone here can link me to that definitive assessment. Although, come on, if science, philosophy and/or theology had been able to resolve it all definitively would it or would it not be discussed around the globe on any number of media outlets.
.
Everyday living demonstates this. What Neuroscience shows is that although we are all creative agents we are nonetheless determined by our experience.
It’s called Compatibilism.
But you seem to have had your eyes closed to it.

iambiguous:

Okay, but did I “close my eyes” to it because my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matters, compelled me to? Or did I close my eyes to it because having the capacity to think compatibilism through more rationally I might accept it instead? Or did I “close my eyes” to it in a way that peacegirl – and you? – suggest that I have? In other words, I gain greater satisfaction in closing my eyes to it even though given the manner in which I – here and now – have come to understand determinism, any satisfaction at all that I feel is as well rooted entirely in my brain functioning only as the laws of nature compel it to?

But back to Mary’s abortion.

Given your own understanding of compatibilism, was there ever the possibility that Mary would/could not have aborted her unborn baby/clump of cells?

Oh, and is this exchange going to be sustained intelligently or are you going to revert back to Shemp when I refuse to finally come around to your way of thinking about this? After all, I flat out admit that my own assessment here can never really be more than just a “wild ass guess”.

For one thing, I’m not a neuroscientist. And I sure as shit don’t have access to how the human condition itself fits into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.

peacegirl · June 25, 2021, 5:26pm

Iambiguous: Compelled by the laws of matter or not, we are still stuck here: youtu.be/qYe8cGy9TeI

Now, I’m either agreeing with ecmandu above because…

1] my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matter in ways no one is really able to understand [scientifically, philosophically or otherwise], never “permitted” me to not agree with him, or…

Peacegirl: No one is blaming you for your inability to understand, but that doesn’t negate the law of greater satisfaction — which is the reason will is not free. Furthermore, your lack of understanding does not negate the fact that nothing has the power to make you do what you make up your mind not to do. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

Iambiguous: 2] in ways no one is really able to understand, mindless/lifeless matter somehow configured into mindful/living matter that, through the biological evolution of life on Earth, has culminated into, well, us. Matter that is not only self-conscious but is able to somehow freely opt to either agree or disagree with the self-conscious conclusions of others.

Peacegirl: We are not able to “freely” opt. Free in this sense only means that there is no obvious compulsion or physical constraint that would limit our choice. But how can any choice be free when it is impossible to make any other choice than the choice made?

iambiguous · June 25, 2021, 5:43pm

Look, given the real deal free will world as I understand it here and now, you can’t even acknowledge that you are no less like all the rest of us in not being privy to how lifeless/mindless matter was able to configure into the human species here on planet Earth. Let alone how it all ties in with good and evil.

Our exchange is now completely bizarre to me. My own point, given a determined universe as “I” understand it here and now, would be encompassed in the question “[b]ut how can any choice be free when it is impossible to make any other choice than the choice made”?

But: any “satisfaction” I feel in asking it is no less subsumed in the only possible reality.

While admitting flat out that even given free will as I understand it, this can only truly be a really, really wild ass guess on my part given the gap I discuss above.

peacegirl · June 25, 2021, 6:49pm

iambiguous:

peacegirl:

We are not able to “freely” opt. Free in this sense only means that there is no obvious compulsion or physical constraint that would limit our choice. But how can any choice be free when it is impossible to make any other choice than the choice made?

Look, given the real deal free will world as I understand it here and now, you can’t even acknowledge that you are no less like all the rest of us in not being privy to how lifeless/mindless matter was able to configure into the human species here on planet Earth. Let alone how it all ties in with good and evil.

Peacegirl: Your reasoning that we must understand the origins of how mindless matter reconfigured into the human species, is not a prerequisite for understanding these undeniable principles. You are presenting a strawman.

Iambiguous: Our exchange is now completely bizarre.
My own point, given a determined universe as “I” understand it here and now, would be encompassed in the question “[b]ut how can any choice be free when it is impossible to make any other choice than the choice made”? But: any “satisfaction” I feel in asking it is no less subsumed in the only possible reality.

Peacegirl: There is no movement in life that does not partake of this law [of greater satisfaction] or it wouldn’t be a law.

Iambiguous: While admitting flat out that even given free will as I understand it, this can only truly be a really, really wild ass guess on my part given the gap I discuss above.

Peacegirl: There is no gap that needs to be filled in regard to the two undeniable principles that were put forth.

Sculptor · June 26, 2021, 10:04am

Part 1 of the answer is evolution
Part 2 “good and evil” are simply supervening qualities that energe from human praxis. Good is a conept to decribe what pleases; and evil that which pleases not. The are realtive and subjective to each. What pleases one may not please another.

Actions are determined. They are free is not compelled by external pressures, but expressed by determined choices.

Why the “but”? Is there a problem here?

Eh?

iambiguous · June 26, 2021, 7:14pm

I’m sorry, but, given free will as I understand it, how can I have any respect for a mind that is able to so profoundly delude itself in regard to the staggering mystery that must be embedded in the existence of minds themselves? Principles becoming “undeniable” because, in my view, she needs them to be in order to have the author able to provide her with a foundation she can anchor herself to.

Just one more in a long line of TOE here.

Speculating about the existence of existence itself as though that could never be anything other than a strawman!!

Note to nature:

You explain it to me.

iambiguous · June 26, 2021, 7:20pm

Before we get to this…

Sculptor:

iambiguous:

peacegirl:

We are not able to “freely” opt. Free in this sense only means that there is no obvious compulsion or physical constraint that would limit our choice. But how can any choice be free when it is impossible to make any other choice than the choice made?

Look, given the real deal free will world as I understand it here and now, you can’t even acknowledge that you are no less like all the rest of us in not being privy to how lifeless/mindless matter was able to configure into the human species here on planet Earth. Let alone how it all ties in with good and evil.

Part 1 of the answer is evolution
Part 2 “good and evil” are simply supervening qualities that energe from human praxis. Good is a conept to decribe what pleases; and evil that which pleases not. The are realtive and subjective to each. What pleases one may not please another.

Our exchange is now completely bizarre to me. My own point, given a determined universe as “I” understand it here and now, would be encompassed in the question “[b]ut how can any choice be free when it is impossible to make any other choice than the choice made”?

Actions are determined. They are free is not compelled by external pressures, but expressed by determined choices.

But: any “satisfaction” I feel in asking it is no less subsumed in the only possible reality.

Why the “but”? Is there a problem here?

While admitting flat out that even given free will as I understand it, this can only truly be a really, really wild ass guess on my part given the gap I discuss above.

Eh?

…let’s first deal with the points I raised above on this post:

Sculptor:

iambiguous:
Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

It is this view of determinism [above] that allows Hume to see humans holding active creative power. Thus, in Hume’s philosophy, agents are not passive entities simply acting according to some script written for them at the first cause. For Hume, on the contrary, humans are free agents with consciousness, motivations and desires. He writes, “We are conscious, that we ourselves, in adapting means to ends, are guided by reason and design, and that’tis not ignorantly nor casually we perform those actions, which tend to self-preservation, to the obtaining pleasure, and avoiding pain” (Treatise, p.176). Therefore, as much as humans are determined by various causes in the universe, they also hold a determining power as they actively take part in cause and effect relationships.

Okay, how, experientially/experimentally, would he go about demonstrating this? Neuroscientists and others exploring these relationships today are still unable to pin down if what it is said Hume believes here is true. Again, unless of course someone here can link me to that definitive assessment. Although, come on, if science, philosophy and/or theology had been able to resolve it all definitively would it or would it not be discussed around the globe on any number of media outlets.
.
Everyday living demonstates this. What Neuroscience shows is that although we are all creative agents we are nonetheless determined by our experience.
It’s called Compatibilism.
But you seem to have had your eyes closed to it.

iambiguous:

Okay, but did I “close my eyes” to it because my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matters, compelled me to? Or did I close my eyes to it because having the capacity to think compatibilism through more rationally I might accept it instead? Or did I “close my eyes” to it in a way that peacegirl – and you? – suggest that I have? In other words, I gain greater satisfaction in closing my eyes to it even though given the manner in which I – here and now – have come to understand determinism, any satisfaction at all that I feel is as well rooted entirely in my brain functioning only as the laws of nature compel it to?

But back to Mary’s abortion.

Given your own understanding of compatibilism, was there ever the possibility that Mary would/could not have aborted her unborn baby/clump of cells?

Oh, and is this exchange going to be sustained intelligently or are you going to revert back to Shemp when I refuse to finally come around to your way of thinking about this? After all, I flat out admit that my own assessment here can never really be more than just a “wild ass guess”.

For one thing, I’m not a neuroscientist. And I sure as shit don’t have access to how the human condition itself fits into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.

peacegirl · June 26, 2021, 8:02pm

iambiguous:

peacegirl:

iambiguous:

Look, given the real deal free will world as I understand it here and now, you can’t even acknowledge that you are no less like all the rest of us in not being privy to how lifeless/mindless matter was able to configure into the human species here on planet Earth. Let alone how it all ties in with good and evil.

peacegirl:

Your reasoning that we must understand the origins of how mindless matter reconfigured into the human species, is not a prerequisite for understanding these undeniable principles. You are presenting a strawman.

I’m sorry, but, given free will as I understand it, how can I have any respect for a mind that is able to so profoundly delude itself in regard to the staggering mystery that must be embedded in the existence of minds themselves? Principles becoming “undeniable” because, in my view, she needs them to be in order to have the author able to provide her with a foundation she can anchor herself to.

Just one more in a long line of TOE here.

I believe you need to believe that we must understand the mystery of life and how it evolved (which we may never know) in order to prove these two undeniable principles. This is like saying we must understand the origins of life to know that 2+2=4. It doesn’t jive. This is YOUR anchor in order that you can always sidestep the argument by saying it can’t be proven UNLESS something that is unfalsifiable CAN be. It’s ludicrous!

The fact that it could never be anything other than a strawman (in this post) does not mean your logic is not flawed. You have never refuted the actual argument properly.

Wikipedia: A strawman is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a strawman.”

peacegirl · June 26, 2021, 8:40pm

It may be pleasing to kill someone but not pleasing to the person being killed. Evil therefore is doing to others what they don’t want done to themselves. It is evil (by definition) to shoot someone who doesn’t want to be shot. Good and evil are relative terms.

[i]Chapter One:

Dog food is good to a starving man when the
other alternatives are horse manure or death, just as the prices on a
menu may cause him to prefer eating something he likes less because
the other alternative of paying too high a price for what he likes more
is still considered worse under his particular circumstances.[/i]

Sculptor:

Actions are determined. They are free is not compelled by external pressures, but expressed by determined choices.

iambiguous:

But: any “satisfaction” I feel in asking it is no less subsumed in the only possible reality.

Sculptor:

Why the “but”? Is there a problem here?

iambiguous:

While admitting flat out that even given free will as I understand it, this can only truly be a really, really wild ass guess on my part given the gap I discuss above.

Sculptor:

Eh?

iambiguous:

…let’s first deal with the points I raised above on this post:

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

It is this view of determinism [above] that allows Hume to see humans holding active creative power. Thus, in Hume’s philosophy, agents are not passive entities simply acting according to some script written for them at the first cause. For Hume, on the contrary, humans are free agents with consciousness, motivations and desires. He writes, “We are conscious, that we ourselves, in adapting means to ends, are guided by reason and design, and that’tis not ignorantly nor casually we perform those actions, which tend to self-preservation, to the obtaining pleasure, and avoiding pain” (Treatise, p.176). Therefore, as much as humans are determined by various causes in the universe, they also hold a determining power as they actively take part in cause and effect relationships.

Okay, how, experientially/experimentally, would he go about demonstrating this? Neuroscientists and others exploring these relationships today are still unable to pin down if what it is said Hume believes here is true. Again, unless of course someone here can link me to that definitive assessment. Although, come on, if science, philosophy and/or theology had been able to resolve it all definitively would it or would it not be discussed around the globe on any number of media outlets.

Everyday living demonstates this. What Neuroscience shows is that although we are all creative agents we are nonetheless determined by our experience.
It’s called Compatibilism.
But you seem to have had your eyes closed to it.

iambiguous:

Okay, but did I “close my eyes” to it because my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matters, compelled me to? Or did I close my eyes to it because having the capacity to think compatibilism through more rationally I might accept it instead? Or did I “close my eyes” to it in a way that peacegirl – and you? – suggest that I have? In other words, I gain greater satisfaction in closing my eyes to it even though given the manner in which I – here and now – have come to understand determinism, any satisfaction at all that I feel is as well rooted entirely in my brain functioning only as the laws of nature compel it to?

I have to chime in here. Closing your eyes to learning more gave you greater satisfaction in response to that request. It is true that any satisfaction at all is well rooted entirely in your brain functioning only as the laws of nature compel it to. That is the only direction we can go, which is why “free will” is an illusion. We cannot move in the direction of least preference even if the preference is the lesser of two evils. So why are you arguing about something that we agree on? For once, please answer the question.

iambiguous:

But back to Mary’s abortion.

Given your own understanding of compatibilism, was there ever the possibility that Mary would/could not have aborted her unborn baby/clump of cells?

Oh, and is this exchange going to be sustained intelligently or are you going to revert back to Shemp when I refuse to finally come around to your way of thinking about this? After all, I flat out admit that my own assessment here can never really be more than just a “wild ass guess”.

For one thing, I’m not a neuroscientist. And I sure as shit don’t have access to how the human condition itself fits into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.

Once again, you are positing a strawman by your preconceived idea that we can’t discover anything, if we don’t know everything about the origins of life and evolution. This is categorically false!

Sculptor · June 26, 2021, 9:12pm

[/quote]
I dealt with this points completely and comprehensively.
What are you resisting the obvious?

iambiguous · June 26, 2021, 9:18pm

Clicking over to free will…

Right, like the author’s understanding of free will is 2, and his understanding of evil is 2, and the book that he wrote is 4. Yes, if, in a free will world here on planet Earth, you need to believe that in order to convince yourself that his TOE really is the one and the only Right One – out of hundreds and hundreds down through the ages – by all means cling to that all the way to the grave.

Really, do you have any idea how many objectivists of your ilk I have encountered over the years? All of them insisting that only their own intellectual contraptions explain both the ontological and the teleological nature of both the human condition and reality itself.

Just ask them yourself. We’ve still got quite a few of them here at ILP.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? The author’s logic is almost entirely circular. He and only he gets to define the meaning of the words in the argument. And he and only he gets to insist that this internal logic somehow doesn’t need to concern itself with the very existence of conscious matter itself. It just “happened” somehow. There is nothing at all that I have discerned from your excerpts that comes even close to him explaining free will and evil as others are able to explain how a lightbulb functions.

Maybe it was God, maybe it was something out there in the universe that our minds are not even capable of grasping at all!!

Note to others:

Allow me to translate that from authorspeak: “the only ‘proper ideas under discussion’ here all revolve around the conclusions that I come to. My own conclusions can never be refuted…properly or otherwise. Logically then if you try to suggest situations or contexts not in sync with that then you are creating a strawman to attack instead.”

iambiguous · June 26, 2021, 9:19pm

Note to nature:

Don’t say I didn’t try.

peacegirl · June 26, 2021, 10:24pm

peacegirl:

That is true. The author’s understanding of determinism is 2, and his understanding of how we can use this knowledge to better our world is 2, and the book he wrote is 4 based on two undeniable principles. You haven’t begun to explore this work.

iambiguous:

Yes, if, in a free will world here on planet Earth, you need to believe that in order to convince yourself that his TOE really is the one and the only Right One – out of hundreds and hundreds down through the ages – by all means cling to that all the way to the grave.

Of course I will cling to this knowledge because it has value. You can’t believe for the life of you that this is a genuine discovery. You won’t even try to address the points made. Is this just me, or do people notice this? Can you answer this question: Give me an example where we do not move in the direction of greater satisfaction. Either we have free will or we don’t. This has nothing to do with the author or my need to convince myself of anything other than the truth. You are the one making this about him. And yes, it took this long in our development to learn the truth. Every theory regarding free will and determinism was necessary. Your appeal to the thousands of years this discussion has been going on, does not automatically make it impossible for a new understanding to be revealed. You’re just a typical skeptic.

iambiguous:

Really, do you have any idea how many objectivists of your ilk I have encountered over the years? All of them insisting that only their own intellectual contraptions explain both the ontological and the teleological nature of both the human condition and reality itself.

Just ask them yourself. We’ve still got quite a few of them here at ILP.

I am not an objectivist. The only objective standard in human behavior is this hurting of others, which no one wants. If there is a way to prevent the desire to hurt others (in the direction of greater satisfaction), why would you object to this iambiguous? Please answer the question.

iambiguous:

Speculating about the existence of existence itself as though that could never be anything other than a strawman!!

peacegirl:

The fact that it could never be anything other than a strawman (in this post) does not mean your logic is not flawed. You have never refuted the actual argument properly.

iambiguous:

What on earth is that supposed to mean? The author’s logic is almost entirely circular.

It is not circular. I addressed this:

[i]Certainly not Circular

One more confusion I want to clarify. Some people insist that tautologies are useless because they are examples of “circular reasoning” (more precisely called “begging the question”). Colloquially, circular reasoning is where you assert your conclusion as a premise. For example:

“Judy is the tallest girl in the class because she is the tallest girl in the class.”

This proposition merely states its conclusion as a premise. To some, this might look like a tautology – “A because A”. But crucially, this is not a tautology; there is an obvious circumstance in which the conclusion is false: if Judy is not the tallest girl in the class – a possibility which doesn’t entail any logical contradiction. This is what differentiates circular reasoning from tautologies.

Contrast this to the proposition, “All of the students in class are students”.

This is a proper tautology; there’s no possible circumstance in which it isn’t true. Negating the conclusion would imply a contradiction – i.e. that “some of the students in class are not students”.

So no, tautologies are not circular. They are simply true in all circumstances. Or you might say “they are not false in any circumstance.” Being necessarily true is a poor reason to dismiss an idea as trivial or redundant.

Overall, it’s a grave error to overlook the usefulness and profundity of tautologies. Not only should we examine them, we should embrace them and incorporate them into the foundations of our ideas.

Discovering tautologies is exciting, and it’s literally synonymous with discovering truth. Not to mention: any sound deductions that follow from tautologies are also necessarily true. If we construct theories that are founded on necessarily-true premises, we can built a robust worldview that is justified all the way to its foundations. steve-patterson.com/tautologies- … dismissed/[/i]

iambiguous:

He and only he gets to define the meaning of the words in the argument. And he and only he gets to insist that this internal logic somehow doesn’t need to concern itself with the very existence of conscious matter itself. It just “happened” somehow. There is nothing at all that I have discerned from your excerpts that comes even close to him explaining free will and evil as others are able to explain how a lightbulb functions.

Maybe it was God, maybe it was something out there in the universe that our minds are not even capable of grasping at all!!

You can’t give this man an ounce of credit, can you? You never opened the book yet you have so much to say. It’s actually funny.

Wikipedia: A strawman is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a strawman.”

iambiguous:

Note to others:

Allow me to translate that from authorspeak: “the only ‘proper ideas under discussion’ here all revolve around the conclusions that I come to. My own conclusions can never be refuted…properly or otherwise. Logically then if you try to suggest situations or contexts not in sync with that then you are creating a strawman to attack instead.”

If what I am discussing doesn’t address the points being discussed, and I go off on unrelated tangents that don’t address these points, then I would be just as guilty of creating a strawman. But that’s not what I’m doing. You’re using the term incorrectly.

People will have to read for themselves because you sure haven’t therefore you’re opinion really holds no weight. I have no problem listening to a refutation but that in itself does not negate this discovery. There will be many questions, and they will be answered. The bottom line is that this knowledge can be tested and the proof will be that it works empirically, in the real world.

If anyone wants to read the first three chapters, here it is. declineandfallofallevil.com/ … APTERS.pdf