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?
Okay, if human morality is genetic what does that mean for all practical purposes? In other words, how “hardwired” into us is it?
All the way?
If so, then what does that mean for all practical purposes?
And what wouldn’t automatically make sense in a world where the behaviors we choose are just another manifestation of nature itself on automatic pilot.
How do we determine the extent to which the very act of contemplating is or is not entirely genetic?
Memes then becoming just another component of the only possible world.
This dullard confuses conscience and morality. Somebody should write to this genius and inform him that there is such a word and a concept attached to it. I wonder what Nietzsche would say if he saw the trenches of WW1 and gas chambers of the second, given his narrative and given he collapsed into neurosis seeing a horse being given a rough beating with a whip. These autistic dullards are fucking insane.