thoughts on determinism

Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, this woman is struck on one topic…repeating the same nonsense, using the same methods.
She finds texts and then adds her mundane, trivial, sarcastic quips and she calls this “philosophy.”

She chooses to do this.
Nobody “compels her”.

She chooses to adopt a definition of free-will that would make it impossible to exist…and chooses not to use a definition based on what is independent of all subjectivity…the act of willing, the act of choosing.

It’s one way or no way…the way that has been determined by god/? no, cosmic order…fate.
No other way is possible.

The woman wants to debate how to deal with blacks and jews, in a determinist thread.

How?
Autonomy.
They, like everyone else, ought to be given their own place where they can live in accordance with their beliefs and values.

And they should not intrude on other ethnic groups and try to destroy them by claiming to be victims.

Then, let natural selection do the rest.

As long as jews use blacks to destroy European states, I will be here exposing them and their methods.
This is their survival strategy, and I am the GOAT.

Here is an example of the quality of “philosophy” this woman is indulged in.
Look how quickly she turned to insinuations of Holocausts and violence… because she has no reasoning to back up her incessant mind-farts.

She freely CHOOSES to imitate others, in this, and in how she CHOOSES to define free-will.
Her weak will she covers by declaring all wills to be equally enslaved by passions.

Evidenced by the fact that she does not employ the same strategy for other concepts…like life, or power.
Only with ‘freedom’.

Therin lies the cause of her trauma.

Note to Others
Only time she ever diverted from her obsession, is when dealing with the blind girl…and her paganism.
why only a blind girl?

The answer is related to the movie character Dollarhyde. He, also, had a blind girlfriend.
He felt comfortable around her because he was deformed by a cleft palate.
So blindness was necessary for him to feel comfortable around others…
He hated the world that could see him, as he is.

So, what deformity is this woman concealing?

The question remains:
If all is determined and life has no agency, then how did life evolve?
How did intelligence evolve?

Why did big brains evolve, since judgment and choice are illusions…and entirely unnecessary in a deterministic world.
Did we evolve the ability to perceive our own impotence?
Is existence sadistic?

If we cannot do anything about anything, then why do we even become aware?

Are we no different than a stone?
Then what’s all this talk about natural selection, shouldn’t it be called ‘natural determination’?

How is this model different from creationism?
Creationism minus god.
Replace an authoritarian totalitarian intolerant absolutist being with a totalitarian absolutist non-being, and there you have it.
A secularization of the same spiritual nihilistic garbage infecting mankind for over two-thousand years, and counting.

If free-will is an illusion, like the flat earth… then why isn’t the roundness of earth not an illusion … and the denial of free-will?

And it goes back to Plato, and Schopenhauer’s definition and description of will, as the groundless idea.

Human brains need absolutes…complete final certainty…and when they cannot find it, they invent it, by inverting that which denied them absolutes.
Absolute nil is preferable to uncertainty, when the absolute one fails to materialize…


If choice is an illusion, and judgment is entirely unnecessary, then free-will is a disadvantage rather than an advantage, because it tricks us into believing we can contribute to the determination of our fate.
How, then, did it evolve?

If you fuckers are closet creationists it’s okay…just admit it.
Don’t play these games.
Just say…,my god, or my world, is sadistic and it gave us the ability to become aware in order to be fooled into believing we have agency when we are entirely and completely impotent.’

Just admit it.
Starting with yourself.
Admit you are all closet creationists, only you refuse a conscious will directing everything.
Your absolutist creator is named universe, existence…order…whatever.
He goes by many names.
Choose one.
Ooops…sorry, you have no choice.
What name was it determined for you to substitute the god of Abraham?
Pseudo-atheists.

Click, of course.

Science supports the existence of free will
By NEIL MAHTO at the Johns Hopkins News-Letter
April 2024

For most of human civilization, philosophers have posited the existence of free will. This sentiment has driven many groups to incorporate free will as a central tenet of their ideology.

Of course, what those who do this share in common with all the rest of us is the gap between free will embraced philosophically in a “world of words” here and free will unequivocally confirmed by the scientific community to be an actual component of the human brain.

Of course, the only way they can accomplish this is by assuming that “somehow” human autonomy is perfectly in sync with an omniscient God. Click, of course.

That’s the problem, however. Making assumptions regarding how the human brain functions without being able to actually pin that down empirically, experientially and experimentally.

Then the part where one rejects hard determinism precisely because it is too scary and dangerous to believe. As though this belief in and of itself can’t possibly be an inherent, necessary component of the only possible reality.

Well, again, isn’t that exactly how one can feel about their dreams. How are we not basically puppets from start to finish then even though while “in the dream” it is virtually indistinguishable from the waking world. At least mine are.

Science supports the existence of free will
By Neil Mahto at the Johns Hopkins News-Letter
April 2024

The number of scientists and philosophers that are disproving free will has grown throughout the decades. In 1929, even Albert Einstein was quoted saying, “I do not believe in free will.” However, their arguments against free will fall short of logical reasoning.

Please. Logic is useful for many things, but once you take up questions like these…

  • Why something instead of nothing?
  • Why this something and not something else?
  • Where does the human condition fit into the whole understanding of this particular something itself?
  • What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?
  • What of the multiverse?
  • What of God?

…what on Earth does it mean to be logical then? If logic “is seen as the study of the laws of thought, correct reasoning, valid inference, or logical truth” how do we intertwine it in speculation regarding the Big Questions given all of the billions of years when there were no thinking beings. At least not here on planet Earth.

Then the part where [technically or otherwise] a distinction is made between being logical and being rational.

Also, arguments for and against free will [here] rely largely on assumptions that the definition and the meaning given to the words in the argument need be as far as one goes.

Also, those who believe in determinism but then somehow their own arguments are ever and always deemed to be the most rational, the most effective, the most comprehensive. As though Nature and they were just in sync that way.

That’s what some insist. Once a theory of everything regarding mind and matter has been established, there’s nothing that can’t be entirely predicted about the future. Only how is this not in turn just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality.

Mary is trapped in texts…her deference to popularity and iconography constitutes her inability to offer any novel insights.
All she has is her repeating mantra… going in circles for months, years… decades…
Mary cannot offer any alternatives so she simply belittles or dismisses or accuses that which she cannot surpass.
Her inability to reason is displayed in her resistance to another superiority. she cannot accept, unless it is popular and collectively sectioned.
She’s been collectivized…and wants everyone to join her herd.

“* Why something instead of nothing?”

There is both.
I’ve explained these concepts to Mary, but she cannot comprehend, so she repeats the same questions, as if nothing has been said about them…ever…by anyone.
No-thing - refers to chaos…not nothingness, as in void, non-existence…
Why Mary?
Because only chaos denies the mind what it requires to fabricate abstractions it calls “things.”
So, chaos is a state of no-thingness.
Things, Mary, are mental contradicts… they do not ‘exist’ outside mammalian brains, and there they exist as representations of perceived energy patterns.
If you, or your idols, have a better, a superior explanation, then present it Mary.
Let it be judged on its merits, dear Mary Land.

“* Why this something and not something else?”

This has been answered, as well…this version of cosmos is the one that had the energy balances to make life possible.
This does not mean all the others before or after, will be the same.
Every iteration is different in the cosmological cycles.

  • Where does the human condition fit into the whole
    understanding of this particular something itself?

To be determined by humans and their CHOICES.
To be determined by the outcome of the conflict between ideologies.

“* What of solipsism, sim worlds, dream worlds, the Matrix?”

Mary is stuck on pop-philosophy… brain in the vat and all thar shit her American upbringing exposed her.
Unless she has an argument that can challenge experience, the "what if’ remains…
A proposition is evaluated on its merits…not that it can be posited.
Just because something exists does not mean it is as good as everything that exists.
Natural selection terrifies Mary…she has a psychological block that she will not, chooses not, to overcome.

If any cockamamie theory were taken as the equal of a rational theory, then no progress would have ever been achieved… anywhere, in any field. Mary’s ilk would be respectable then. possibility.
That a question can be asked does not mean it can or should be answered… especially when it is leading, like all of Mary’s queries are.
If she has no rational arguments, no evidence to support her theories then they should be filed where the sun don’t shine… along with all of Mary’s blabbering.

  • What of the multiverse?

A theory. Still unsubstantiated.

  • What of God?

Another unsubstantiated theory, dependent on a particular definition of the ‘god’ concept.
In general, ‘god’ represents an idealization of man, or a representation of everything man finds incomprehensible and threatening…a way of placating what he fears.
Like all theories, the one proposing them is burdened with providing evidence and arguments, that will be judged on their merits.
That the question is repeatedly asked does not validate the concept.
But Mary cannot understand natural selection and how it also applies to ideas.
In her girly mind, whatever exits is the equal of all that exists… because it has been determined.
So, every theory, ever thought, is, in her mind, another explanation, no less probable than any other.

This is why Mary wants to remain up in the skyhooks, where she can selectively dismiss, and find purpose in undermining all threatening ideas, indirectly promoting collectivism.
For where do desperate degenerates turn when they’ve lost all hope, their way, their mind?
To others of their kind.

Note to Others
Look what I will make her do.
Look at what I’ve reduced her.
Bets are on…which of her canned responses will she CHOOSE to use… or will she be flustered and CHOOSE to not reply? No choice is also a CHOICE.

Note to Others
Isn’t it wonderful…everyone has a “syndrome” except Mary.
Mary is healthy. She’s sane…as she admits that she’s suffering an identity crisis…she’s schizophrenic - “fractured and fragmented” as she puts it… and has adopted a feminine method of pulling the world down with her.
She’s spent years on the same subject, using the same methods, expecting different results… and this is… normal for her.
Nothing wrong with Mary.
She’s a “philosopher.”

Refuses to become skeptical towards her own motives and methods; refusing to adopt a different method, different way of defining concepts…and yet is proudly skeptical of everything she finds threatening.
She considers beginning with the act, a capitulation to power…
Classic Marxism. Everything is social engineered by the powerful, to control the powerless… and yet, she claims she has no choice, and she refuses to accept that she does, wallowing in her impotence, like a good slave.
She claims to want to “bring it all down to earth”… make it comprehensible to her feminine mind, and yet, refuses all attempts to bring her down.
So paranoid that she sees power motives in everyone’s words… except the ones that indoctrinated her into her present state.
She refuses to come down, to the ground, because she intuitively fears what she might find there.
A pitiful creature she is, especially when she declares victory and attempts to make it seem like she’s manipulating others; especially when she CHOOSES to define all attention as an affirmation of her adopted methods and regurgitated ideas.

Ha!!

Science supports the existence of free will
By Neil Mahto at the Johns Hopkins News-Letter
April 2024

You couldn’t have free will in a deterministic universe because everything that has happened or will happen to you has been predetermined. However, I do not believe in determinism and neither does modern physics.

Next up: hard determinists are compelled to remind them that for all practical purposes they were never able not to freely opt otherwise.

Then what?

Well, here, it’s straight back up into the intellectual clouds for some. In other words, to pin it down philosophically.

Actually, what those scientists who grapple with the very, very small and the very, large are still noting is that no one has yet to discover a theory of everything…let alone a way to definitively intertwine the “human condition” into whatever mind-boggling truth the existence of existence itself entails.

Sure, if some here are willing to accept that quantum mechanics and a possible multiverse are all “explainable” only if human beings have free will…?

And then the part where some seamlessly intertwine the world of conflicting value judgments into the either/or world. Philosophers [and someday scientists] will discover that they are interchangeable once the One True Path [their own] is accepted as the objective truth.

What, as though that is basically just common sense now?

Science supports the existence of free will
By Neil Mahto at the Johns Hopkins News-Letter April 2024

In classical physics, I can use Newton’s equations to predict exactly how something is going to move: I know with exact precision where something will be at any given time. At the quantum level for subatomic particles, this argument fails.

I can only note that given the gap between what scientists think they do understand about quantum interactions “here and now” and all that can be known about them, some will basically just shrug that part off and cling to the assumption they have already grasped the implications of that in their very own theory of everything on their very own one true path. God or No God.

Purely random interactions dictated by probability? Would someone here care to take a stab at how that is manifested in their own daily life in regard to value judgments. What, just assume that QM and cosmogeny will never be probed deeper such that startling new discoveries are made in the future?

It’s just that sans God – a God, the God, your God – none of us are likely to be around to be properly astonished by them.

On the other hand…

Okay, what are some of the post-Libet’s experiments indicating what really does unfold inside the brain when we do breakup with a long-term romantic partner. The part where a consensus among neuroscientists has now been reached indicating that human autonomy is all but a sure thing?

Oh dear. It’s quantum freewill again.

If determinism is true, then can we hold people morally responsible for their actions?
Bryer Sophia-Gardener (William Johnson)
at quora

Yes. We can be held responsible for our choices even if our choices are determined by our past.

On the other hand, those who do hold us responsible may well have been compelled to do so themselves. Still, who among us is capable of confirming or falsifying it one way or the other?

Yes, but the overwhelming preponderance of animals accomplish this almost entirely through instinct. Movements and mechanisms revolving around biological imperatives.

Homo sapiens come into the world equally propelled by the “reptilian brain”. But the sapiens part is latin for “wise”. We are the only creatures on Earth with brains capable of inventing philosophy:

“Philosophy is a combination of two Greek words, philein sophia, meaning ‘lover of wisdom’”.

Even in regard to the great apes and other animals that have evolved brains capable of many accomplishments, few would use the word wise to describe them.

Also, the only animal capable of inventing computer technology and smart phones and the internet.

In fact, it’s the enormous gap between human beings and all other living things that prompt some to invent the Gods or a God, the God to explain us. Or those who insist that it’s only a matter of time before science comes up with their own one size fits all theory of everything.

Then those here who seem content to sustain the discussions in worlds of words. Dueling definitions and deductions. They’ve managed to convince themselves that “here and now” what they believe “in their head” really does reflect the objective – metaphysical? – truth.

If determinism is true, then can we hold people morally responsible for their actions?
Bryer Sophia-Gardener (William Johnson)
at quora

The mechanism [above] will need 3 parts:

1] The animal will need one or more mechanisms for acquiring information about its own current situation which may include both information about its environment and information about itself.

2] The animal will need to be able to use that information to compute a plan for response to its situation that will function to improve the likelihood the animal will survive and or reproduce. (The plan may be a conscious plan, but does not have to be).

3] The animal will need a mechanism by which it causes itself to preform that response.

Again, however, the enormous gap between how we go about embodying these mechanisms ourselves – re the modern industrial world – and how most other animals on planet Earth still basically embody biological imperatives. In other words, they behave instintively. And up to a point, we do as well. But other animals are way, way, way, way, way behind us in regard to, among other things, the invention of science and philosophy.

Click, of course.

Of course, the same thing could be said about us. Only nature has provided homo sapiens with a brain “somehow” able to delude us into believing that what we do we do of our own autonomy. And that certainly may well be the case. It’s just that as of now [to the best of my current knowledge] there appears to be no overarching consensus among scientists and philosophers regarding the extent to which, even given our own brains, hard determinism prevails.

And while mere mortals are clearly being held responsible and/or are holding others responsible all the time, how do we establish that this is not in turn just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality?

If determinism is true, then can we hold people morally responsible for their actions?
Bryer Sophia-Gardener (William Johnson)
at quora

Degrees of responsibility vary across the animal kingdom. An earthworm’s degree of responsibility is much less than a human’s.

Really, how can it be argued that earthworms have any degree of responsibility at all? And certainly, no moral responsibility. After all, what does it mean to hold an earthworm responsible for behaviors it pursues autonomically given a brain that is little more than the embodiment of biological imperatives?

Okay, let’s focus in on Trump 2.0. There’s what the Constitution itself says are the responsibilities of the executive branch back then and there’s what Donald Musk say instead here and now.

As for responding appropriately, what might that be “for all practical purposes”, given a particular context? Then the parts embedded in conflicting goods and dasein. Though, instead, they may well be no less the embodiment of psychological illusions.

Then the part where the objectivists among us dismiss this complexity. It’s simple: you choose their way or it’s the highway. And, thus, however far more complex human interactions are it doesn’t necessarily demonstrate autonomy.

Right, a “choice”. Along with the assumption, however, for many that it is really a choice. In other words, free will is merely taken for granted. Either that or God given.