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.
To the best of my current knowledge, he, like all the rest of us, is unable to demonstrate – experimentally/experientially – whether the human brain is in fact able to demonstrate anything at all of its own free will. He just “knows”/“knows”/knows that if there is no free will involved here, his own self-righteous, superior-to-thou arrogance is in and of itself just another manifestation of the only possible reality.
1] you thanking me of your own real deal free will
2] nature compelling you to thank me
or
3] the way in which you have “thought” yourself into believing that you thanking me
The part I suspect that, from your own frame of mind, just goes in one ear and out the other.
Mine, for example.
Same [of course] with “feeling” comforted. After all, what does it mean to have someone as a friend if you were never able to not have them as a friend? Something is clearly missing even though we still feel as though the friendship is of the real deal free will kind.
Just in a way that gets, well, weird, right?
In other words, I’m the first to admit the odds are unimaginably remote that I actually do know what you should know that I am talking about.
Well, whatever that means going all the way back to…
Peacegirl: Everything I wrote above does not require free will. My mind still cannot comprehend why this knowledge doesn’t interest you even though I know you can’t help yourself. My guess is that you want to believe that you’re not a machine who has no mind or autonomy of his own. As long as you hold onto the standard definition that doesn’t allow for your ability to choose what you yourself desire, not some puppeteer holding the strings, I would be hoping for freedom of the will too.
Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
I respect this and the man behind it who started the modern science and about whom so few of Europeans know about.
Well, if reality [human or otherwise] is only as it ever could have been, that would include both our assessments of what is or is not weird.
So…
1] We’re still both covered
2] We’re still off the hook
Nothing she hasn’t said before, right? Almost as though nature planned it that way. Bringing us back to the most profound mystery of all: teleology. If not God’s meaning and purpose, then nature’s meaning and purpose? But how can that be possible with nature? In fact, that’s when nature makes my head spin and the part about weird keeps popping up.
Anyway, given a real deal free will world, this distinction she makes between that world and the one where our “choices” are but the embodiment of a psychological illusion, the part she configures into “choices”, where’s the part in the book where the author brings this down to earth?
Like, for example, someone able to note that while both an incandescent light bulb and a fluorescent tube produce light, they do so as a result of the same laws of nature, but with different kinds of matter. Both of which are able to be demonstrated. Where is the author’s equivalent of that in regard to human behaviors that go in different directions?
Again, nature has compelled you to think yourself into actually believing this. Or, if you really were able of your own free will to think it up yourself, I now have no illusions that I will be able to explain to you just how preposterous it is to suppose that what we think we know about anything has nothing to do with an understanding of existence itself. That, in my view, is all embedded in your own rendition of the psychology of objectivism above. This need on your part – compelled or not – to take comfort in the belief that, through the author, you are privy to the understanding of, well, everything right?
And, in that respect, here at ILP, join the crowd. We’ve had dozens of folks over the years present us with their own version of it. You can’t all be right. But none of you are ever wrong, are you?