Forget the lightbulb iambiguous. Stick to the facts. Whatever choice she makes is in the direction of greater satisfaction. That is why her will is not free.
Your words don’t mean a whole lot because they prove nothing. Substantive interaction of matter that connects the phenomenological dots between existence itself?
Yes, from your frame of mind. This whole idea of yours is so unrelated to anything, but of course you can’t help it.
No, only one of us is wrong about free will and the need to go back to the Big Bang to fill in the gap.
I’ve explained to you that the way free will is used in the here and now only means that there is nothing external constraining you to make a choice. They ask this in a court of law. Are you answering the questions of your own free will. This does not mean we have freedom of the will. You will never understand this concept because you can’t let go of your confused definition of determinism.
Why are you confusing the matter? Regardless of where our wanting comes from or whether we can hope what we want but not want to hope what we want (a world of words), we are compelled to choose the option that we believe is the best option given our particular circumstances. You can’t even agree to that simple observation because to you that would be a partial concession that he might be right, and you can’t have that.
I’m switching over to the real deal free world now. You know, in order that this exchange might be understood as something other than the only possible exchange it could ever be.
Okay, peacegirl, note where he accomplished this. Note where he focuses in on a set of circumstances where human behaviors come into conflict and he demonstrates how these interactions unfold in terms of free will and evil in the same way in which someone would demonstrate how a light bulb works
No, that’s what you want to do. The functioning lightbulb is a fact. It can in fact be demonstrated in great detail why it does what it does.
What you and the author do in a world of words, however, is to make certain assumptions about the human brain “choosing” this instead of that. The logic is always circular because no other premises are allowed but yours and his.
The same with me and mine. Only I recognize that I am either compelled by nature to think, feel, say and do only that which the laws of matter necessitate or, given some meaure of the real deal free will, I recognize just how staggering the odds must be that I, in the vastness of “all there is”, really do grasp the whole truth here.
Either the author’s conclusions are embedded in the relationships I noted above or they are not. Either you have the intellectual honesty and integrity to acknowledge the gap between what he thought he knew and all that can be/must be known about those relationships going back to however far back it goes, or you don’t.
Compelled or not.
Okay, give it his best shot. How are his conclusions about free will and evil completely divorced from a need to understand the evolution of matter from the Big Bang, through to the creation of galaxies, solar systems and planets, through to the evolution of biological life on planet Earth, through to the existence of mindful matter – human brains – discussing these things?
And I’ve explained to you how your own explanations are but more examples of something that seems merely “thought up” to me. Your arguments seem to encompass this no free will/free will frame of mind which fails to grasp that external and internal are but inherent components of the only possible reality.
And, given a real deal free will world, you believe what you do because having this belief in and of itself is the whole point of it. What you think allows you to believe that you really do understand yourself in the world around you. It anchors your Self to sense of reality that comforts and consoles you. Especially the part about the future where all of the evil things that people do today will reconfigure into the author’s own rendition of the best of all possible worlds. If not a utopia itself.
And I still suspect that includes something in the way of an afterlife as well.
No, not regardless of where our wanting comes from but the need to really understand where it does come from. Going back to as far as we need to go to grasp that. The part you just shrug off as a trivial pursuit.
And if we really “are compelled to choose the option that we believe is the best option given our particular circumstances” own up to the practical implications of that regarding anything we think, feel, say and do.
In Defense of Compatibilism: A Response to Edwards and Coyne
written by Ben Burgis at the quillette website
Just came across this.
It’s as close as I get to grasping the position of the compatibilists. The hard determinists might be right but given that there is "too much about the universe that we don’t understand” none of us can really be certain.
So, sure, wager on something in the general vicinity of free will. Act as if you have it and, even if you don’t, it still doesn’t change the fact that here and now you bet that you do have it in choosing what you do from day to day.
Besides, even if you bet on determinism, it won’t change the fact that a part of you will no doubt still be upset when others do hold you morally responsible for doing things that they believe are evil. The punishment may be but another manifestation of the only possible reality but, again, your brain is hard wired to delude you into thinking it isn’t just.
His entire book demonstrates how serious conflicts (the kind that produce wars) can be eliminated. He demonstrates why man’s will is not free. It is not the same as demonstrating how a light bulb works because one is material, the other immaterial. That in and of itself doesn’t make his demonstration inaccurate. Please stop using this analogy because that’s what you’re implying. If will is not free, it can’t be free. If we could not do otherwise, could we do otherwise?
[i]Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now
call the present moment of time or life here for the purpose of
clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now
standing on this present moment of time and space called here and
you are given two alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move
to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving
a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.
I prefer…” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there,
which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction,
otherwise we would not kill ourselves.
The truth of the matter is that
at any particular moment the motion of man is not free for all life
obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to
make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options are
available during his lifetime that which he considers better for himself
and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a
discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to
candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress he always did
what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this
demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not
be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.[/i]
It’s also a FACT that man’s will is not free. The author demonstrated in great detail why this is so.
Greater satisfaction may be viewed as a tautology (Note: it is not circular), but that doesn’t make it insignificant, remember?
[i]A tautology is any argument where for any combination of truth values (true/false) assigned to the predicates within it, the logical flow of the argument is such that the conclusion will always turn out true.
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[/i]
What a cop-out! You have no free will because if you did, then determinism would be negated. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, but the way the author correctly defines determinism, we still get to do those things that you think require the real deal free will. You still get to think, contemplate, ponder, ruminate, decide, etc., all without one smidgen of free will.
And I will repeat: He did not have to acknowledge the gap between what he thought he knew and all that can be/must be known about those relationships going back to however far back it goes. You are so off-base, but you’re blind to it. I know you can’t help it, so don’t repeat. I’ll do it for you. Being off-base is embedded in the laws of matter which you have no control over. =D>
It may be interesting to ponder, but it’s not a requirement to understanding that man’s will is not free. Where did you get this idea that is so embedded in your psyche that you can’t for one moment entertain the thought that determinism has been positively proved true. There’s nothing to be afraid of. It’s something to celebrate once you understand how it can benefit our world.
I did not pick and choose brain functions. You are the one that wants to believe there is a ghost in the machine. When you call our brains a machine, it brings up a bad connotation. We are controlled by laws, but we are free to choose between this or that, although the choice is never really free. Why? You should know the answer by now.
You are right. They are inherent components of the only possible reality, but when someone says they did something of their own free will, they are not discussing the internal components of what their brain is doing. They are saying in so many words that nothing external (like pressure from someone, or a gun to their head) is making them feel like they have no real choice.
First of all, it’s not the author’s rendition. You have not followed his reasoning at all, and you haven’t read anything. You just can’t believe that he actually has a discovery, so you assume that all of this is about identifying with the author, consoling myself into a belief that the world is good, etc. That is far from the truth. It just so happens that the world is good and will be even better when we understand our true nature and apply it on a global scale. Finally, his discovery on death has nothing to do with an afterlife. This is just a word with no real meaning.
I don’t need to think about where my wanting comes from because of a need to really understand where it does come from. Where does life itself come from? Where does consciousness come from? We can talk about this forever, but it has nothing to do with his discovery.
The implications on a practical level of anything we think, feel, say and do, given this new understanding is absolutely incredible because it will prevent war, crime, and poverty! It is true that we have gray areas and we live in different cultures, but eventually this transition to a better world will be appealing to every nation on Earth.
"It is not the same as demonstrating how a light bulb works because one is material, the other immaterial. "
That’s my point in the real deal free will world. If a doctor is asked to demonstrate how she performed Mary’s abortion, she can do so in great detail. Pointing to the tools and the body and the procedure from start to finish.
How then is anything the author noted above the equivalent of demonstrating that his own rendition of “no free will” is in fact true here?
And if some insist the abortion is immoral and others insist it is not immoral, how on earth would he go about demonstrating which it was?
Uh, define “demonstrate”? But that’s my point. In a world of words that the author and only the author gets to define, he makes an argument about free will and evil. That becomes the demonstration!!
Thus…
Okay, how is this applicable to Mary “choosing” an abortion? And a doctor “choosing” the best procedure for performing it? Significance here in what practical sense?
As for this…
…how does it help me to grasp once and for all whether you were 1] compelled by nature to note this…embedded entirely in the only possible reality…or 2] the extent to which you “chose” to note it given that there was the possibility that your greater satisfaction might have “prompted” you to note something else?
I’m still confused as to how you differentiate your no free will mind from my no free will mind. With mine the distinction is essentially moot because neither of us was ever able to not note what we do. With yours…
Note to others:
Any suggestions?
Again, exactly the reaction we would expect from a real deal free will advocate!
“Cop-out:
1: to back out (as of an unwanted responsibility)
cop out on jury duty
2: to avoid or neglect problems, responsibilities, or commitments
accused the mayor of copping out on the issue”
Someone “backs out” of a responsibility or “avoids or neglects” a problem. He or she is accused of this as though they had the option not to cop-out but chose wrongly to cop-out.
Again, how you see this given your own “cop-out” intellectual contraption is still a mystery to me.
Now, I’m not saying that you are wrong, only that, given the manner in which I understand a wholly determined world, right and wrong are “naturally” interchangeable.
It’s you who wants your cake and to eat it too. I’m not arguing that we don’t “still get to think, contemplate, ponder, ruminate, decide, etc.”, but groping to understand how you understand doing these things “without one smidgen of free will”.
And I will repeat: Insisting that he did not have to acknowledge the gap is not anywhere near the same as demonstrating why and how this is true.
That’s why with the light bulb [for those who don’t know what it is], someone can insist that how they describe how it functions is how it functions; but only when the lightbulb is brought out and the description is in fact shown to be entirely in sync with the functioning lightbulb, is the case closed.
Note to others:
So, what do you think…a cop-out?
More intellectual gibberish from my frame of mind. Only from my frame of mind your frame of mind is not less “stuck” in the only possible reality. Only from my frame of mind, as well, I have no way in which to demonstrate any of this. Let alone being inclined to write a book insisting that anyone who refuses to think exactly like I do about it is “wrong”.
How is anything they discuss not but more components of the only possible reality? How in a world where the internal and the external are necessarily intertwined in the only possible world, does putting a gun to someone’s head or feeling a gun pressed to your head not become but more manifestations of the same “only possible reality”?
That you believe this speaks volumes regarding your motivation. Which, in my view, is to completely disregard or discard anything that does not comport with the author’s conclusions. Meaning it is not what he concludes that matters to you nearly as much as that it is a conclusion you can anchor your Self to. Another run of the mill rendition of the “psychology of objectivism”.
Because it can be seen that from the day we are born to the day we die, we are moving away from dissatisfaction to greater satisfaction. We can only move in one direction. Did you read the excerpt above? You never have any questions.
There will be no moral or immoral. Just what someone’s conscience allows. If Mary feels that she needs to have an abortion, and she doesn’t feel that it’s immoral in her eyes, she will do what she feels is best for her. I did mention that there will be less and less abortions as there are less and less unwanted pregnancies, so this won’t even be an issue.
What are you talking about? He isn’t creating a definition that only he gets to make. He is making an observation and coming up with a more accurate definition. Are you surprised that proving “no free will” true could be that simple after centuries of confusion? Is that what this is about?
Mary will choose whatever she thinks is best in her situation, as I already mentioned. The doctor will choose whatever procedure he thinks is best for her. Where does this cause a problem? There will be no moral code, only what conscience allows. If Mary chooses to abort, does that mean she’s a murderer? If she felt she was, she wouldn’t choose abortion. These are gray areas and have no effect on the discovery and its ability to prevent war, crime, hatred, and poverty.
If my mind prompted me to think of a better option, I may have chosen another option, but this is what my mind prompted me to post in the direction of greater satisfaction. You told me his reasoning is circular. I am showing you that it is not.
They are basically the same except you keep saying the laws of matter are embedded. This gives people the feeling that they are puppets. I am only differentiating what “no free will” actually means. It does not mean the laws of matter are forcing you to do anything AGAINST YOUR WILL. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one. As I already stated, 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.
It doesn’t mean they had the option not to cop-out, but bringing it to their attention may be helpful later on if they are doing something that is preventing a more productive discourse.
If you mean in a determined universe there is no right and wrong, I agree when seen in total perspective.
Christ also received
incursions of thought from this same principle which compelled him
to turn the other cheek and remark as he was being nailed to the
cross, “They know not what they do,” forgiving his enemies even in
the moment of death. How was it possible for him to blame them
when he knew that they were not responsible? But they knew what
they were doing and he could not stop them even by turning the other
cheek. Religion was compelled to believe that God was not responsible
for the evil in the world, whereas Spinoza and Christ believed correctly
that there was no such thing as evil when seen in total perspective.
But how was it possible, except for people like Christ and Spinoza, to
forgive those who trespassed against them? And how was it possible
for those who became victims of this necessary evil to look at it in
total perspective? Is it any wonder man cried out to God for
understanding? The time has arrived to clear up all the confusion and
reconcile these two opposite principles, which requires that you keep
an open mind and proceed with the investigation. Let me show you
how this apparent impasse can be rephrased in terms of possibility.
[i]Though it is a
mathematical law that nothing can compel man to do to another what
he makes up his mind not to do — this is an extremely crucial point
— he is nevertheless under a compulsion during every moment of his
existence to do everything he does. This reveals, as your friend just
pointed out, that man has absolute control over the former but
absolutely none over the latter because he must constantly move in
the direction of greater satisfaction. It is true that nothing in the past
can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the
present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive
relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost
impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment
caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the
opposite, that man was not caused or compelled, ‘he did it of his own
accord; he wanted to do it, he didn’t have to.’ The term ‘free will’
contains an assumption or fallacy for it implies that if man is not
caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be
preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not
mathematical conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free
will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because
I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could
have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily
misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed for
although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because
he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact I
shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself which
only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words
have deceived everyone?
“You must be kidding? Here you are in the process of
demonstrating why the will of man is not free, and in the same breath
you tell me you’re doing this of your own free will.”
This is clarified somewhat when you understand that man is free
to choose what he prefers, what he desires, what he wants, what he
considers better for himself and his family. But the moment he
prefers or desires anything is an indication that he is compelled to this
action because of some dissatisfaction, which is the natural
compulsion of his nature. Because of this misinterpretation of the
expression ‘man’s will is free,’ great confusion continues to exist in
any discussion surrounding this issue, for although it is true man has
to make choices he must always prefer that which he considers good
not evil for himself when the former is offered as an alternative. The
words cause and compel are the perception of an improper or
fallacious relation because in order to be developed and have meaning
it was absolutely necessary that the expression ‘free will’ be born as
their opposite, as tall gives meaning to short. But these words do not
describe reality unless interpreted properly.
Nothing causes man to
build cities, develop scientific achievements, write books, compose
music, go to war, argue and fight, commit terrible crimes, pray to
God, for these things are mankind already at a particular stage of his
development, just as children were sacrificed at an earlier stage. These
activities or motions are the natural entelechy of man who is always
developing, correcting his mistakes, and moving in the direction of
greater satisfaction by better removing the dissatisfaction of the
moment, which is a normal compulsion of his nature over which he
has absolutely no control. Looking back in hindsight allows man to
evaluate his progress and make corrections when necessary because he
is always learning from previous experience. The fact that will is not
free demonstrates that man, as part of nature or God, has been
unconsciously developing at a mathematical rate and during every
moment of his progress was doing what he had to do because he had
no free choice. But this does not mean that he was caused to do
anything against his will, for the word cause, like choice and past, is
very misleading as it implies that something other than man himself
is responsible for his actions. Four is not caused by two plus two, it
is that already. As long as history has been recorded, these two
opposing principles were never reconciled until now. The amazing
thing is that this ignorance, this conflict of ideas, ideologies, and
desires, theology’s promulgation of free will, the millions that
criticized determinism as fallacious, was exactly as it was supposed to
be. It was impossible for man to have acted differently because the
mankind system is obeying this invariable law of satisfaction which
makes the motions of all life just as harmonious as the solar system;
but these systems are not caused by, they are these laws.[/i]
Demonstrating why man’s will is not free is exactly what he did.
Proof can be established with this as well. This empirical evidence will be the proof that you believe he doesn’t have.
Where am I copping out? I’m doing my best not to cop out and to address everything you hope to have answered.
None of us have any FREE choice given your definition or mine.
Again, if I refute that one plus one is not two, then anyone who refuses to think otherwise is, in fact, wrong. You of course don’t think this applies to him, but that’s because you think he can’t be right.
It doesn’t. Who is saying otherwise? That doesn’t mean we don’t try to make things better, also as part of the only possible reality.
It’s not another rendition of objectivism. It’s either true or it’s not true. If it is true, and it can change our world for the better (to your complete surprise), why would you object to my sincere effort to share this knowledge?
You state that there will be less rape of minors by adults if they understand that there is no freewill.
I can tell you one thing for sure… this lack of freewill of the minors relative to the rapist adults makes the rapist adults very happy. I know people. I’ve never done anything like that, but I know it.
At what point is telling people freewill doesn’t exist, is going to stop a father or uncle or sex traffickers from raping a 12 year old.
Honestly, it’s starting to get offensive the stuff you are saying. I can certainly give you leeway, because I’ve said stupid/offensive shit in my life too.
I think you need to figure out that your plan for world peace is bullshit. You are literally a brainwashed cult member that is starting to post really offensive shit.
I fail to see how an argument about determinism and free will could have any basis on the incidence of rape or any other kind of violence; either positively or negatively.
Aside from the obvious class of fallacy - that of the “Appeal to Consequences”, I can’t see why anyone would want to introduce this subject here.
All I can say is that, given the real deal free will world, this is a “demonstration” only of you asserting that the light bulb functions as you say it does and then scoffing at anyone who insists we need to bring the light bulb out to see if that is how it functions.
Right, the “a thousand years from now” wholly thought up hypothetical future where the author, in a world of words, accumulates premises, the truth of which is demonstrated solely by the fact that he believes them. The part where the laws of matter themselves reconfigure into the author’s assumptions about free will and evil.
Thus…
Okay, then the observation that he and only he makes becomes the one and the only font for the definition. And if others don’t observe the same things that he does about free will and evil, then they are still wrong. Even though everything that everyone observes is the only possible thing that could ever have been observed in the only possible reality.
They are not the same because I keep saying only what the laws of nature compel me to say, just as people feel only what the laws of nature compel them to feel. That, for all practical purposes, we are nature’s puppets.
I merely take it back in turn to this exchange itself. Back to the surreal part where I find myself arguing with you as though we live in the real deal free will world when here and now I have thought myself into believing that we don’t. Back again to the mind-boggling reality of the human brain itself.
If I lead a horse to water, it is only because I was never able not to. And the horse will drink or not drink going all the way back to, well, that part is wasted on you. Or, rather, “wasted” on you.
What a cop-out!
You know full well that that one could never not bring it to their attention if the laws of matter compel them to. And “helpful” is merely the reaction of a human mind that embodies but the illusion of the real deal free will.
And around and around we go, ever at odds regarding what constitutes demonstrating something in a wholly determined universe.
Thus…
In other words, whatever that means. Until you note passages where the author brings out the equivalent of the light bulb in regard to human interactions given no free will and evil behavior, I can only console you by reminding you that everything that you and I and the author did or do is destined or fated to be. But: only given my own understanding of determinism. But: that being swallowed whole in the gap between “I” here and now and “all there is”.
Note to others:
So, what do you conclude, a “condition”?
And: Me or her?
Seriously, however, what do you think she means “for all practical purposes” by men and women being compelled by the laws of nature to make things better in the only possible reality, where she still seems intent on insisting that only in choosing the “good” behaviors that do make things better, are they right and not wrong?
Only given her own rendition of “choosing” things. Which, admittedly, may be more reasonable than my own “choosing” them. I just don’t get it yet.
Iambiguous: In other words, whatever that means. Until you note passages where the author brings out the equivalent of the light bulb in regard to human interactions given no free will and evil behavior, I can only console you by reminding you that everything that you and I and the author did or do is destined or fated to be. But: only given my own understanding of determinism. But: that being swallowed whole in the gap between “I” here and now and “all there is”.
Iambiguous: Note to others:
So, what do you conclude, a “condition”?
And: Me or her?
Seriously, however, what do you think she means “for all practical purposes” by men and women being compelled by the laws of nature to make things better in the only possible reality, where she still seems intent on insisting that only in choosing the “good” behaviors that do make things better, are they right and not wrong?
Peacegirl: In total perspective there is no right or wrong but you cannot tell me that if there is a way to prevent war and crime, it wouldn’t matter because these things are interchangeable.
Iambiguous: Only given her own rendition of “choosing” things. Which, admittedly, may be more reasonable than my own “choosing” them. I just don’t get it yet.
Well, I can see that we have made exactly no progress here.
The author’s demonstrations will continue to revolve around what he insisted was true about free will and evil in the book. The light bulb here functioning entirely in his head.
That’s because you can only believe what nature compels you to believe. And all I can show you is that which nature compels me to show you. And, even given real deal free will, you are not likely to ever concede because your frame of mind is the embodiment of what I call “the psychology of objectivism” above. You have far too much invested in the author’s conclusions. They anchor you to a rock solid sense of reality. Like others do with God or political ideology. Like I once did myself.
Then around and around and around you go:
Words defining and then defending other words. But only given your own understanding of what the words mean when connected to all of the other words in this exact order. I merely start with the assumption that this is so only because the laws of matter compel it to be so. So, we are all off the hook here.
Thus…
Note to nature:
If you say so.
If my answer is slick then chalk it up to nature. If I am stuck then chalk it up to nature. If you are ever and always exasperated because others will not just accept your own defense of the author’s omniscient discovery then chalk it up to nature.
You know, like I do. Only I don’t seem able to demonstrate even to myself that I ought to. Instead, as with most things this far out on the metaphysical limb, I take my own leap of faith. If only until the day I die.
Peacegirl: I do chalk this exasperating thread up to nature. I know you can’t help but constantly refer back to the fact that we are off the hook. This is very true but it’s also true that you haven’t attempted to show any interest in this knowledge which is why you’ve gained nothing from it. I can’t blame you for this either. You’re off the hook. I will ask you again, where is he wrong in his demonstration as to why man’s will is not free, and why nothing can make a person do what they make up their mind not to do, not even the threat of death? I agreed that if you can prove he is wrong I will concede, but not before. You haven’t lifted a finger to actually address his claim and prove him wrong. Please don’t tell me his reasoning is circular because it isn’t. And don’t tell me that because it’s metaphysical, that this rules his discovery out. Nonsense!
Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.
Exactly!!!
Only nothing is really arbitrary in a universe in which matter interacts with other matter only in order to bring about and then to sustain the only possible reality. And isn’t that what those like peacegirl do? They’ll insist they firmly believe that no free will means human interactions unfold only as they ever could, but…
…but that [somehow] the part where they seek to embody their own “greater satisfaction” is not quite 100% in sync with it. And damned if I understand how they are able to convince themselves that it is not…other than in noting that this too is just another inherent manifestation of the psychological illusion of free will rooted in the mind-boggling mystery of the human brain itself.
How can you act like free will is real if the act itself is already determined by the laws of matter?
Hear! Hear!
I think?
In other words, I just don’t know for certain if, instead, the problem may well be my own inability to grasp that what they are arguing is in fact more reasonable than my own point of view. Even though I am unable in turn to think myself into understanding how my own failure here can be anything other than the only manner in which I can know what nature compels me to.
Yo, peacegirl!!
As though semantic differences themselves are not necessarily ensnared in the only possible reality.
No, I don’t have the one and the only final answer to this. But trust me: if you refuse to accept that his conclusion here is not the one and the only final answer, that [and only that] is what makes you a “desperate degenerate” to him and his objectivist ilk.
He just “knows” that somehow the human brain evolved genetically to acquire free will. How that happened is irrelevant…it just did. He has no sophisticated scientific evidence to back up his claims. He has no way in which to demonstrate that what he believes here is in fact in sync with all that can be known about the human brain.
He just “knows” that if what he believes is not true then he cannot of his own free will make claims like this…
…and therefore feel far superior to the sheeples that nature compels him to hold in contempt.
Note to Lorikeet:
Join the discussion. No one gets banned here anymore.
Okay, where is the equivalent of that in regard to the author’s assumptions about free will and evil? Pertaining to Mary’s abortion. In particular, the part where he explains how greater or lesser satisfaction unfolds in her brain when she contemplates killing her unborn baby/clump of cells. And then the greater and lesser satisfaction unfolding in the brains of those who argue over the morality of it.
See what you do here? You agree that this thread goes back to nature. You agree that I can’t help but to constantly refer back to the fact that we are both off the hook. But somehow the fact that I haven’t attempted to show any interest in the author’s knowledge doesn’t go back to nature in quite the same way. Instead [to me] you come off here as the real deal free will advocates do: criticizing me for not choosing to think like they do because I do have the actual option to change my mind but choose not to.
Thus this argument…
…is simply surreal to me. I’m off the hook…but not really. From my frame of mind, I may as well be having a discussion with ecmandu about consent violation.
But [to me] he has a “condition” and posts all sorts of preposterous claims. I’m still grappling to understand what motivates you in this regard. And the only thing that makes sense to me given a real deal free will world is the psychology of objectivism above.
I live a supernatural life. 100% of the time. I know things you don’t know.
What ultimately bothers you about me is that I refute your shtick.
Your problems of having your consent violated by conflicting goods and no sense of “I” is just a vanishingly small subset of my problem; consent violation. It violates your consent that conflicting goods and a shattered sense of self exist.
That’s objective and it annoys the fuck out of you.
Neither you nor nonpeacefulgirl want to take responsibility for who you are in an adult way.
There is no way that the argument I make above can get through to someone who makes an argument like this one other than by suggesting that, given the immutable laws of matter manifesting themselves inherently, necessarily in both of our brains, we were never able to not make them.
The point is that George Floyd was never going to not die as he did and those who find the verdict the right one or the wrong one were never going to not find it that way…as nature compelled them to.
Only that’s just one more wild ass guess on my part.
Then back to this:
Unless, of course, he is willing to come here and defend himself on this thread.
In other words, given the real deal free will world. Which I am more than willing to concede does in fact exist. After all, I’m not the one pretending to be omniscient here. In regard to a question that has perplexed both philosophers and scientists now for centuries.
Thanks for your concern. I feel like we are friends even though we’ve never met. That goes for everyone here. We are all part of the human family which is comforting. That being said, I cannot for the life of me understand your refutation or even the slightest suggestion that we have free will in the way you believe. It boggles my mind. I cannot keep debating you when you refuse the suggestion that every movement can only go in one direction. If it can only go in one direction we could not do otherwise. That is what free will requires.
