Determinism

iambiguous · June 13, 2021, 10:20pm

Nature at its most…enigmatic?

peacegirl · June 13, 2021, 10:33pm

Under the changed conditions, it cannot occur. Why? Because all justification has been removed which would be required for conscience to permit.

phyllo · June 14, 2021, 12:25am

This reminds me of the time that I went to return a set of defective Christmas lights and the service rep told me with a straight face that there can’t be anything wrong with it because the company does not make defective products.

Sure. You really seem to believe that people and society can be so perfectly controlled that nobody will do any wrong.

There’s no arguing with that sort of thinking.

peacegirl · June 14, 2021, 1:38am

Phyllo: This reminds me of the time that I went to return a set of defective Christmas lights and the service rep told me with a straight face that there can’t be anything wrong with it because the company does not make defective products.

Sure. You really seem to believe that people and society can be so perfectly controlled that nobody will do any wrong.

Peacegirl: They won’t desire to strike a first blow when there is no justification. This law is that powerful.

Phyllo: There’s no arguing with that sort of thinking.

Peacegirl: This knowledge is correct not because the author said so, but because the immutable laws that are the basis of his claims, can be proven.

Aventador · June 14, 2021, 2:43am

Hey peacegirl, how are you?

Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm? Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

Aventador · June 14, 2021, 2:46am

Forgive me if I overlook some things in the document you quote, which I did not read because my interest is in your contentions, not someone else’s, and if I overlook things that have been addressed in the course of the thread.

phyllo · June 14, 2021, 9:10am

I have said all that I want to say about the book, free-will and determinism.

Sculptor · June 14, 2021, 9:13am

Enigmatic to one such as yourself who is more of a follower , or just a fan, than a person intellectually capable of understanding.

Sculptor · June 14, 2021, 9:21am

Aventador:

Hey peacegirl, how are you?

Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm? Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

There is a much bigger problem that “peacgirl’s” tyrrany.
The simply fact is that there is no pure “evil”, there is only things that humans consider bad, as there is no pure good; only things that please humans.
What is evil for one person may not be so for another and maybe good. And what is good for one may do evil to another.

There may well be actions possible that would do good and not evil, but I cannot think of one. And there may well be evil acts that are generally so, but these too are rare.
So whether Peacgirl allows us to be programmed to do what she thinks is good, and programmed to forebear upon acts she thinks are evil, I cannot image a world that would result in a generalised benefit to all that would not do some harm and do good only to a few, rather than for the whole race.

I can take examples and give my reasons. I’d be happy to find one thing which would work.

encode_decode · June 14, 2021, 9:27am

Sculptor:

Aventador:

Hey peacegirl, how are you?

Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm? Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

There is a much bigger problem that “peacgirl’s” tyrrany.
The simply fact is that there is no pure “evil”, there is only things that humans consider bad, as there is no pure good; only things that please humans.
What is evil for one person may not be so for another and maybe good. And what is good for one may do evil to another.

There may well be actions possible that would do good and not evil, but I cannot think of one. And there may well be evil acts that are generally so, but these too are rare.
So whether Peacgirl allows us to be programmed to do what she thinks is good, and programmed to forebear upon acts she thinks are evil, I cannot image a world that would result in a generalised benefit to all that would not do some harm and do good only to a few, rather than for the whole race.

I can take examples and give my reasons. I’d be happy to find one thing which would work.

I personally like the considerations that both you and Aventador make. Other than these considerations we are still left with a really effing complex system to deal with and that is humanity…

…in all its different forms…and some people are already happy with their way.

phyllo · June 14, 2021, 9:39am

It’s not just about “evil”. The system eliminates carelessness.

You won’t even want to fiddle with the car radio while driving. (That might distract you and cause an accident. You can’t bear the thought that you might harm someone.)

I mean really.

Sculptor · June 14, 2021, 9:46am

encode_decode:

Sculptor:

Aventador:

Hey peacegirl, how are you?

Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm? Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

There is a much bigger problem that “peacgirl’s” tyrrany.
The simply fact is that there is no pure “evil”, there is only things that humans consider bad, as there is no pure good; only things that please humans.
What is evil for one person may not be so for another and maybe good. And what is good for one may do evil to another.

There may well be actions possible that would do good and not evil, but I cannot think of one. And there may well be evil acts that are generally so, but these too are rare.
So whether Peacgirl allows us to be programmed to do what she thinks is good, and programmed to forebear upon acts she thinks are evil, I cannot image a world that would result in a generalised benefit to all that would not do some harm and do good only to a few, rather than for the whole race.

I can take examples and give my reasons. I’d be happy to find one thing which would work.

I personally like the considerations that both you and Aventador make. Other than these considerations we are still left with a really effing complex system to deal with and that is humanity…

…in all its different forms…and some people are already happy with their way.

I think there are few basic things we could all get right. Most of the ones I would recommend would just be damned by many as evil as thay are “socialism”. Simple things like a right to education, an even chance at life. Trying to be content with what you have, and to consider helping another who might appreciate that help.
I see none of these things out there in the political world that are not daily attacked by the rich and powerful and condemned as weak minded communism.
They are criticised even by people who have benefitted greatly by what they love to insult as “socialism”, even with the words they type, educated by the system that taught them to know how!

peacegirl · June 14, 2021, 1:21pm

Aventador:

Hey peacegirl, how are you?

Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

Peacegirl: Where is the imposition? If I give you a better way to accomplish a goal, does that mean I’m imposing on you? Should we not share our thoughts? There is no force or imposition so this doesn’t apply.

Aventador: I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

Peacegirl: There IS choice, just not FREE choice. Evil comes to an end because hurt in human relations is coming to an end.

Aventador: In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

Peacegirl: No one is forcing a set of conditions. People choose options that they think will help their lives, regardless of what the particular options are. It’s the same here. If the claims bear out, people will see the benefits and work toward creating what will benefit them.

Aventador: And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

Peacegirl: Not at all. This discovery
tries to show what happens when the principle of no blame (the corollary to determinism) is extended on a large scale.

Aventador: If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm?

Peacegirl: Not unless the culture forces compliance. All force is coming to an end.

Aventador: Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

Peacegirl: Harm is doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves. Culture is a form if dictatorship which is coming to an end out of necessity.

Sculptor: There is a much bigger problem that “peacgirl’s” tyrrany.

Peacegirl:This is the antithesis of tyrrany. This jumping to conclusions is the downfall of this thread

Sculptor: The simply fact is that there is no pure “evil”, there is only things that humans consider bad, as there is no pure good; only things that please humans.

What is evil for one person may not be so for another and maybe good. And what is good for one may do evil to another.

Peacegirl: Dog food is good next to starvation and bad for a king. But if everyone can have steak, would you complain? Evil in this context means striking a first blow of hurt that steps on someone else’s freedom. Everyone having steak is hurting no one. Let’s not get off track.

Sculptor: There may well be actions possible that would do good and not evil, but I cannot think of one. And there may well be evil acts that are generally so, but these too are rare.
So whether Peacgirl allows us to be programmed to do what she thinks is good, and programmed to forebear upon acts she thinks are evil, I cannot image a world that would result in a generalised benefit to all that would not do some harm and do good only to a few, rather than for the whole race.

Peacegirl: That is because you don’t see that this world is within reach. Please don’t use your doubts as a reason to scrap this knowledge even if you’re skeptical. This is for your benefit as there is wisdom in these words.

Sculptor: I can take examples and give my reasons. I’d be happy to find one thing which would work.

I personally like the considerations that both you and Aventador make. Other than these considerations we are still left with a really effing complex system to deal with and that is humanity…

…in all its different forms…and some people are already happy with their way.
[/quote]
Peacegirl: Imagine everyone being happy with their lot in life because they are able to fulfill all of their desires with no one standing in their way (AND WITHOUT HURTING ANYONE IN THE PROCESS). Where is the complaint? How can they object to such a world?

iambiguous · June 14, 2021, 3:56pm

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

On the other hand, come on, in regard to material interactions in the either/or world it seems considerably more possible that there may well be a first cause. Call it God, call it nature. And in regard to why the balls do what they do in a game of billiards, science has been able to pin that down with an extraordinary degree of accuracy.

The potential to be right, the potential to be wrong. The part that the objectivists here refuse to accept. And the fact that there have been countless renditions of this first cause down through the ages, never seems to stop yet more from insisting that it is their own. Let alone own up to the obvious: that they have no capacity to actually demonstrate the existence of this first cause much beyond the assumptions they accumulate about it in their heads.

Or has one of them here accomplished this in a post that I missed. A link to it please.

That’s always been my contention. We are able to note what we construe to be events/interactions either correlated or intertwined in a cause and effect relationship. But all we have at our disposal in explaining them is the information that we have accumulated. On the other hand, what of all the information that we have not collected that is pertinent as well in explaining it…fully?

And, in fact, how is our understanding of free will itself not embedded in what may well be one of the biggest mysteries of all?

peacegirl · June 14, 2021, 5:05pm

An accident can still happen but it will be a rare occurrence when reckless or careless driving is taken out of the equation. Who would desire to drive recklessly knowing that if someone should die as a result —- and loved ones are crying in pain —- they would KNOW (in advance) they will not be blamed. This would be a horrible position to be in when there is no price to pay, which causes a drastic change in behavior.

obsrvr524 · June 14, 2021, 10:22pm

From 8 pages back - before the latest ad hom hurricane -

Aventador · June 15, 2021, 1:05am

Aventador: Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

Peacegirl: Where is the imposition? If I give you a better way to accomplish a goal, does that mean I’m imposing on you? Should we not share our thoughts? There is no force or imposition so this doesn’t apply.

Aventador: But you are not talking about offering people ways. You are talking about making sure only the conditions that lead to that perception of a better way exist, and that ‘making sure’ is known also as imposing.

Aventador: I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

Peacegirl: There IS choice, just not FREE choice. Evil comes to an end because hurt in human relations is coming to an end.

Aventador: So I understand you correctly that evil is synonymous with causing hurt.

Aventador: In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

Peacegirl: No one is forcing a set of conditions. People choose options that they think will help their lives, regardless of what the particular options are. It’s the same here. If the claims bear out, people will see the benefits and work toward creating what will benefit them.

Aventador: It seems what we are talking about here is imposing a set of conditions, given which people will continue to choose options that they think will help their lives as they did before. So there is an imposition, the imposition of conditions.

Aventador: And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

Peacegirl: Not at all. This discovery tries to show what happens when the principle of no blame (the corollary to determinism) is extended on a large scale.

Aventador: When you say extended, the extension itself requires implementation. So far, by your descriptions, by the imposition of conditions. It seems to me the question still remains whether imposition is harm, and whether that invalidates your hypothesis.

Aventador: If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm?

Peacegirl: Not unless the culture forces compliance. All force is coming to an end.

Aventador: How can these implementations occur without them being caused to occur? Is the contention that they will occur anyway by simple action of determinism? Do we then only count the end of harm doing once the implementation is complete, and its course is an exception?

Aventador: Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

Peacegirl: Harm is doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves. Culture is a form if dictatorship which is coming to an end out of necessity.

Aventador: What if the imposition of these conditions is something people don’t want done to themselves? Is this not a form of dictatorship constituting culture? What is this necessity you mention, what are these dynamics and how does it come to express itself in space time?

Sculptor · June 15, 2021, 8:04am

iambiguous:

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

…as we’ve seen, Hume argued that causal necessity is a relation that a mind comes up with based on the constant effects it perceives; but the mind is never capable of perceiving the actual cause. For instance, if I see one ball moved by another ball, what I experience is a ball in different positions. I infer that the movement of one ball was caused by the other one hitting it, but in reality I never perceive the actual power or cause – how one ball caused the other to move.

On the other hand, come on, in regard to material interactions in the either/or world it seems considerably more possible that there may well be a first cause. Call it God, call it nature. And in regard to why the balls do what they do in a game of billiards, science has been able to pin that down with an extraordinary degree of accuracy.

This sheds a light for us on the idea that Hume’s idea of determinism was different from either ‘standard’ determinism or Spinoza’s variety, which both relate everything back to the first cause. In Hume, we do not see any such long causality; rather, we see what we might call ‘potential’ causes for certain effects.

The potential to be right, the potential to be wrong. The part that the objectivists here refuse to accept. And the fact that there have been countless renditions of this first cause down through the ages, never seems to stop yet more from insisting that it is their own. Let alone own up to the obvious: that they have no capacity to actually demonstrate the existence of this first cause much beyond the assumptions they accumulate about it in their heads.

Or has one of them here accomplished this in a post that I missed. A link to it please.

One distinguishing aspect of Hume’s determinism, is that he never claims that any effect we observe today is the manifestation of a determination set by a remote first cause. The power of causation rather lies hidden in the various things that are in cause and effect relationships. In a sense, Hume tells us what we already experience in our daily lives: that, for instance, if you see smoke around, you know that something’s burning, even if you are not able to directly see the actual thing burning. So what he seems to mean by determinism is that if something happens, something else is bound to happen.

That’s always been my contention. We are able to note what we construe to be events/interactions either correlated or intertwined in a cause and effect relationship. But all we have at our disposal in explaining them is the information that we have accumulated. On the other hand, what of all the information that we have not collected that is pertinent as well in explaining it…fully?

And, in fact, how is our understanding of free will itself not embedded in what may well be one of the biggest mysteries of all?

You are irrelevant.
There is no mystery here.
Just ask yourself; when you can do what ever you want? Where does the want come from? When you do exactly as you freely will, what motivates the will? When you make a choice, on what basis are you making that choice? When you apply your Dasein and project a possible future outcome to make a choice upon what are you basing that assessment?
When you honestly answer those questions, you will abandon radical free will and adpot the more reasonable and logical compatibilism. Heidegger is well ahead of you on this.

Sculptor · June 15, 2021, 8:04am

iambiguous:

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

…as we’ve seen, Hume argued that causal necessity is a relation that a mind comes up with based on the constant effects it perceives; but the mind is never capable of perceiving the actual cause. For instance, if I see one ball moved by another ball, what I experience is a ball in different positions. I infer that the movement of one ball was caused by the other one hitting it, but in reality I never perceive the actual power or cause – how one ball caused the other to move.

On the other hand, come on, in regard to material interactions in the either/or world it seems considerably more possible that there may well be a first cause. Call it God, call it nature. And in regard to why the balls do what they do in a game of billiards, science has been able to pin that down with an extraordinary degree of accuracy.

This sheds a light for us on the idea that Hume’s idea of determinism was different from either ‘standard’ determinism or Spinoza’s variety, which both relate everything back to the first cause. In Hume, we do not see any such long causality; rather, we see what we might call ‘potential’ causes for certain effects.

The potential to be right, the potential to be wrong. The part that the objectivists here refuse to accept. And the fact that there have been countless renditions of this first cause down through the ages, never seems to stop yet more from insisting that it is their own. Let alone own up to the obvious: that they have no capacity to actually demonstrate the existence of this first cause much beyond the assumptions they accumulate about it in their heads.

Or has one of them here accomplished this in a post that I missed. A link to it please.

One distinguishing aspect of Hume’s determinism, is that he never claims that any effect we observe today is the manifestation of a determination set by a remote first cause. The power of causation rather lies hidden in the various things that are in cause and effect relationships. In a sense, Hume tells us what we already experience in our daily lives: that, for instance, if you see smoke around, you know that something’s burning, even if you are not able to directly see the actual thing burning. So what he seems to mean by determinism is that if something happens, something else is bound to happen.

That’s always been my contention. We are able to note what we construe to be events/interactions either correlated or intertwined in a cause and effect relationship. But all we have at our disposal in explaining them is the information that we have accumulated. On the other hand, what of all the information that we have not collected that is pertinent as well in explaining it…fully?

And, in fact, how is our understanding of free will itself not embedded in what may well be one of the biggest mysteries of all?

You are irrelevant.
There is no mystery here.
Just ask yourself; when you can do what ever you want? Where does the want come from? When you do exactly as you freely will, what motivates the will? When you make a choice, on what basis are you making that choice? When you apply your Dasein and project a possible future outcome to make a choice upon what are you basing that assessment?
When you honestly answer those questions, you will abandon radical free will and adopt the more reasonable and logical compatibilism. Heidegger is well ahead of you on this.

peacegirl · June 15, 2021, 12:05pm

Aventador:

Aventador: Here is a question. The solution you propose to end all evil is to impose a set of conditions so specific on all humans, that it becomes impossible to even think of doing evil. The question is: is this imposition itself not evil? Is programming another human being, and in fact all human beings, not an evil act?

Peacegirl: Where is the imposition? If I give you a better way to accomplish a goal, does that mean I’m imposing on you? Should we not share our thoughts? There is no force or imposition so this doesn’t apply.

Aventador: But you are not talking about offering people ways. You are talking about making sure only the conditions that lead to that perception of a better way exist, and that ‘making sure’ is known also as imposing.

Peacegirl: This is not about “making sure@ of anything. No imposition whatsoever.

Aventador: I suppose you might say that there is no such thing as evil, because there is no such thing as choice.

Peacegirl: There IS choice, just not FREE choice. Evil comes to an end because hurt in human relations is coming to an end.

Aventador: So I understand you correctly that evil is synonymous with causing hurt.

Peacegirl: In this context, yes. This was clarified in the book.

Aventador: In that case, would forcing a set of conditions on a human or all humans not itself constitute harm?

Peacegirl: No one is forcing a set of conditions. People choose options that they think will help their lives, regardless of what the particular options are. It’s the same here. If the claims bear out, people will see the benefits and work toward creating what will benefit them.

Aventador: It seems what we are talking about here is imposing a set of conditions, given which people will continue to choose options that they think will help their lives as they did before. So there is an imposition, the imposition of conditions.

Peacegirl: There is no imposition of conditions. Imposition does not enter into this. Just because people may see a better way of life based on these principles does not mean they are choosing out of an imposition.

Aventador: And, if it did, would it not negate the basic premise you are operating with of both determinism on one hand and ending all harm doing on the other?

Peacegirl: Not at all. This discovery tries to show what happens when the principle of no blame (the corollary to determinism) is extended on a large scale.

Aventador: When you say extended, the extension itself requires implementation. So far, by your descriptions, by the imposition of conditions. It seems to me the question still remains whether imposition is harm, and whether that invalidates your hypothesis.

Aventador: If it doesn’t, what definition of harm are you going by?

Would the elimination of a cultural heritage constitute harm?

Peacegirl: Not unless the culture forces compliance. All force is coming to an end.

Aventador: How can these implementations occur without them being caused to occur?

Peacegirl: Free will does not exist therefore any implementation of these principles is in keeping with determinism, which only means choosing the only choice possible in the direction of one’s preference.

Aventador: Is the contention that they will occur anyway by simple action of determinism? Do we then only count the end of harm doing once the implementation is complete, and its course is an exception?

Peacegirl: You are jumping the gun. How can harm be measured when harm is no more? I know this sounds crazy to someone that has not yet understood why this is possible.

Aventador: Would it only constitute harm where the heritage does not include violence? Does whether the heritage includes violence modify the act of elimination itself in terms of constituting harm?

Peacegirl: Harm is doing something to someone they don’t want done to themselves. Culture is a form if dictatorship which is coming to an end out of necessity.

Aventador: What if the imposition of these conditions is something people don’t want done to themselves? Is this not a form of dictatorship constituting culture? What is this necessity you mention, what are these dynamics and how does it come to express itself in space time?