Satan, the Prince of the Air, was loosed a little season. He doesn’t need our help!
WB 
I’d never heard the “Prince of the Air” thing, so I looked it up. I found this:
John says, “The whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19), but those who are born of God he cannot touch; he cannot destroy (1 John 5:18). We should believe that; we should take up the armor of God and live with that kind of boldness.
But to say “The whole world lies in the power of the evil one”, when a dog comforts a kitten and shows compassion, how does that fit into Satan’s domination of the world? Are they just talking about the human world, or the entire world and everything on it?
2 Likes
RealUn, you don’t have an understanding of what I mean by determinism. It does not mean you don’t have options or that you can’t make decisions. You can. But that does not mean you have the free will to choose otherwise given the same time and place. IOW, you cannot choose B when you already chose A. Nobody can have a productive discussion when the terms being used are not defined accurately.
Peace Girl hello again. I recall Your former argument oh , 10-12 years ago, defending an MS, and found commonality there. So, 
“RealUn, you don’t have an understanding of what I mean by determinism. It does not mean you don’t have options or that you can’t make decisions. You can. But that does not mean you have the free will to choose otherwise given the same time and place. IOW, you cannot choose B when you already chose A. Nobody can have a productive discussion when the terms being used are not defined accurately.”
Ok, the terms are not used accurately. But how how accurate is the accrued clarity projected between choice A and B? Would not, could not an approximate or most probable projection of A about B, fit the formula better the defining some resembling quality which may be synced out of both, relatively speaking? Where a third party C would be required to pass judgement?
1 Like
Of course, there could be a third-party C synced out of both, if that appears as an option. But we are talking about the choice between A and B in this example. There is no perfect formula; only what each person decides is the best choice based on their life circumstances up to that exact moment in time.
Why do people drop 40-90 minute videos on a forum as their sole argument? I recently put out a long video but it was set to start at a specific time. And l explained it thoroughly in commentary, the video was just for the imagery.
Because bro if you’re an old forum kung-fu master philosopher that’s already been through all the arguments and somebody new shows up wanting to do it again you’re just like “yo, Sam, handle this for me, boss. I can’t do this again I’m retired.”
Yes, I see Peace girl. There is a choice in how it is, what it is, another sub choice is how such choices approximate the best choice, and the third option would consist in how ought to be a choice not synced out of either A and D and still remain a possible vantage point C.?
This all has to do with why we contemplate, especially involving important decisions. We gather as much information as we can to make the best possible choice. Can you give me a real-life example of what you mean exactly? I’m not sure what you mean by “a choice not synced out of either A and D and still remain a possible vantage point C.”
Trying to figure that out Peacegirl as we speak , and trying, or starting to think about where your comment is coming from as nd how the words are defined and used. That literally IS it seems to me what C represents and how it’s synced out.
Brings me to a lot of pre-existing patterns: synced-linked, synthetically, a-priori or a-posteriori, and other chains of relating. That is: by combining, where combinations don’t cancel each other but hold each other in suspense, or suspended animation.
Now to bring an underlying motive;
[quote="peacegirl, post:428, topic:84002, full:true, username:peacegirl"]
Of course, there could be a third-party C synced out of both, if that appears as an option. But we are talking about the choice between A and B in this example. There is no perfect formula; only what each person decides is the best choice based on their life circumstances up to that exact moment in time.
[/quote]
C then is virtually progressing toward the sense of indistinctness that approaches from distinction, albeit the C becomes detached from A and B by virtue of analysis, or, resulting from the ‘look’ for underlying patterns, which deconstruct such sense, or feeling for that difference because of the progressive nature of the model vanishing before our very eyes. Maybe ‘abatement’ used more generally could be of use here.
I recall the Biggian problem with Sam Harris’s insistance that we become determinists. What’s the rush, Biggs asks.
Unless the event ‘not believing in freewill’ had some kind of magical quality or power that changed the course of history, it would make no difference whether you insisted that there is no freewill or not. Think about it. If whatever is gonna happen is gonna happen, believing in freewill would be in no violation of the laws of physics. It’d just be another determined way of believing and thinking.
But what if history IS teleological and belief in determinism is the next stage in the dialectic, bro… like a kind of correction-mechanism… memes that will radically change social and legal relations as we approach the last Borg like phase of our slave-laborer middle-class hive like evolution toward becoming perfect gimps.
I propose determinism and free will are not at odds with eachother, they just work on a different scope.
If your choice is predetermined, does it mean that it is no longer your choice?
The finicky thing about determinism is continuity.
It cant go against your will. If it did, it would no longer be a determined conclusion, but a forced one.
To put it in different wording, determinism is always the path of least resistance. If it was not, it’d have to be a force, and if its a force, its no longer determined but an active actor which has to shape the story.
It is the 101 definition of a grey area. Equilibrium.
Did you make the choice, or was the choice made for you by the circumstances and you were simply the puppet that acted out it’s part?
Whats the difference?
You cant be oblivious enough to think that you are separate from the circumstances of your life.
What you are is every memory you make, every interaction you have, every time you come in contact with the world. You are built by your experiences and act them out accordingly.
Regardless of how you view it, the end result is that predetermination and free will can never clash or contradict eachother. So. Whats the difference?
I can only imagine you mean compatibilism. That’s just a semantics argument and makes no sense (noble effort, though).
Being generous, I’d stand with Mr. Searle and hold that a) we’ve made no progress in this area and b) there is overwhelming reason to believe each thesis:
-
i decide to raise my hand. I could have decided to raise my other hand or neither. It certainly seems like my choice was the proximate cause (Harris) of my raising my hand and that nothing compelled me to do so.
-
Everything in the world can be explained in terms of causally sufficient antecedent conditions: if the Brooklyn bridge collapses we can give you a story about why it had to collapse under conditions x, y, and z. Since human behavior is part of the natural world, it too should be able to be explained in terms of causally sufficient antecedent conditions.
Both of these positions are strong, and that’s why the problem still persists in philosophy. Finally, though, i side with Harris, Sam. I claim that freewill is inconceivable in any possible universe and that the theory is worse than nonsense even. This is one of those synthetic a priori deals where causality must exist prior to, and independent of, experience, and that this can be deduced… not merely inferred.
1 Like
Hmm hmm… I have thought for a while about this, and i have arrived at a problem with it.
I kind of lack the means to explain it specifically, so please give me a moment to try and paint it.
I will use a narrow choice situation because it demonstrates the problem better, but even in more “loose” situations the mechanic remains the same.
You walk the empty streets late at night with someone you care a lot about, and you suddenly encounter a robber with a gun.
They point their weapon at the head of the person who is one of the most important existences in your life, being even more important to you than your own life.
You are then prompted to hand over your belongings or they will shoot.
What are your choices?
And now.
Lets take a step back.
Free will would dictate that you are capable of making any choice.
You should be able to risk your precious person’s life and try to attack the robber.
You should be able to not comply.
You should be able to choose to laugh, turn around and leave.
You should be able to choose to shoot your beloved yourself.
You should be able to raise your hand, neither, or both.
But you WILL prioritize the safety of your precious person and hand over all your items, because you have an internal priority system and you will always choose what benefits the most.
Free-will would suggest you have all options open to you. But thats never the case. Not once in your entire life, because your choices are always dictated by your will and your will is connected to an entire prison system that reasons, fights, demands you to pick the most suitable choice, whether its by logic, instinct, emotion or any number of other shackles that define you as you.
The problem i have arrived at is that the word and concept that is “free-will” is a bit of an oxymoron.
If there is a will behind it, then its never free.
But if there is no will, its just a random number generator without intent or meaning.
So in a way, “free will” itself already concedes the question of predestination, because you will always “will” what benefits you the most. You do not have a choice in the matter.
As such my answer is: Doesnt matter how many options you have for raising your hand. You will pick the choice which suits you the most.
So do you truly have a free-will?
Or is it possible that “determinism” is already baked into your “free-will”?
This is what makes me circle back to the original question i asked beforehand: What is the practical difference between determinism and free-will when they can never run counter to eachother?
1 Like
Everything you said is true. Free will is an oxymoron because will is never free, as you cannot choose the option that is the least preferable in your eyes. Saying that you did something of your own free will does not have to contradict determinism if it means “I did something of my own desire.” It is a colloquial expression. It does not mean will is actually free.
1 Like