Have you read Arthur Schopenhauer?
A man can do as he wills, but he may not will as he wills.
We can act of our own volition freely, but we are not ultimately in control of how and why we desire to do things.
In a sense this way of thinking predicts the idea of the subconscious. A deeper place wherefrom all needs and desires come.
Send for the men with straight-jackets.
peacegirl -
I have asked a couple of times for what kind of environment would allow for the teaching of determinism to result in a higher ethical behavior of people. I think I might have run across that very answer as doing a credibility analysis on James’ Physics of Psychology thread.
It is appearing to me that the teaching of Lessan’s theory concerning determinism globally would only work to create more ethical behavior if accompanied by James’ deterministic model of how the mind works. And I imagine the standard would improve considerably - changing the entire world toward less conflict and violence - “evil”.
Peacegirl: It could be. Lessans always said someone else could make this discovery because it’s part of the real world, not the imagination.
Peacegirl: The bottom denominator will be the same regardless of the myriad ways that got us to this point in our history.
———-
Peacegirl: Observer524, no! This is not a conversation that won’t cause misunderstanding. It most likely will but at the very least we need to make a concerted effort to avoid the basic pitfalls due to lack of communication!
If anyone is still interested in this book, the first three chapters are below:
Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.
Okay, how, experientially/experimentally, would he go about demonstrating this? Neuroscientists and others exploring these relationships today are still unable to pin down if what it is said Hume believes here is true. Again, unless of course someone here can link me to that definitive assessment. Although, come on, if science, philosophy and/or theology had been able to resolve it all definitively would it or would it not be discussed around the globe on any number of media outlets.
Yes, human beings would surely seem to be closer to “holding active creative power” then any other animal on the planet. But that’s not the same as fully explaining how lifeless matter evolved into living matter. Or how human consciousness itself was able to configure into free will. At least given how I understand it.
And what does Hume himself know about whatever it is that did cause the existence of matter…let alone the existence of existence itself. Instead, he, as with so many others, sat down and “thought up” a conclusion based solely on a set of assumptions that, so far, in so many crucial respects, are just “thought up”.
After all, do we or do we not “experience” pleasure and avoid pain in our dreams? I know that I do. The dream I had a few nights ago for example. There I “am” in a situation that was completely lucid to me. I’m at work in a company I was an employee in for 27 years. My employer is searching for me. Then in a sequence of events that were vividly real to me, I have to perform a task that will dissuade him from firing me. The turbulent tug of war between pleasure and pain, ever intertwined in my employment there, reached a point where had I not accomplished the task [placing a crucial order from our agent in Shanghai] it was over for me. I woke up barely able to distinguish between the dream world and the real world.
Again, as though he could provide us with the empirical evidence that does establish whether he “reconciled”, reconciled or “reconciled” moral responsibility with causality.
Yes humans actively take part in their creations in a way that, say, volcanoes don’t take actively part in that which is created as a result of their eruptions. But how on earth can he have known for certain that human choices are not in fact but psychological illusions rooted wholly in a brain utterly in sync only with the laws of matter.
Though, sure, whatever that means.
Everyday living demonstates this. What Neuroscience shows is that although we are all creative agents we are nonetheless determined by our experience.
It’s called Compatibilism.
But you seem to have had your eyes closed to it.
Okay, but did I “close my eyes” to it because my brain, wholly in sync with the laws of matters, compelled me to? Or did I close my eyes to it because having the capacity to think compatibilism through more rationally I might accept it instead? Or did I “close my eyes” to it in a way that peacegirl – and you? – suggest that I have? In other words, I gain greater satisfaction in closing my eyes to it even though given the manner in which I – here and now – have come to understand determinism, any satisfaction at all that I feel is as well rooted entirely in my brain functioning only as the laws of nature compel it to?
But back to Mary’s abortion.
Given your own understanding of compatibilism, was there ever the possibility that Mary would/could not have aborted her unborn baby/clump of cells?
Oh, and is this exchange going to be sustained intelligently or are you going to revert back to Shemp when I refuse to finally come around to your way of thinking about this? After all, I flat out admit that my own assessment here can never really be more than just a “wild ass guess”.
For one thing, I’m not a neuroscientist. And I sure as shit don’t have access to how the human condition itself fits into a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.
How do you know that Lessans’ “theory” wouldn’t work without James deterministic model, when you don’t know what Lessans “theory’ is? You’re making a big assumption.
Sculptor, I hope you have not given up on this discovery. You are closer to a true understanding of determinism than you realize. The problem is that being creative agents does not only NOT require free will, it is impossible to have free will and no free will simultaneously. The term “free will” is a semantic shift in an effort by compatibilists to make the two concepts appear compatible.
IOW, being creative and able to make choices “freely” (without external constraint) doesn’t mean we actually have freedom of the will (i.e. the ability to choose otherwise given the same exact situation). Compatibilism is an effort to keep determinism intact without giving up the status quo of our present penal system. But you can’t simply overlook that free will and determinism are logically incompatible. That being said, all is not lost! We can still keep determinism and increase responsibility at the same time. In fact, it is is paradoxical that blame and punishment (based on the idea that a person could have acted otherwise) is the very thing that is preventing what we all want; a world without war and crime. There is a better way!
Duplicate
PG,
I honestly don’t know why people still humor you.
Obviously you’re making the belief in determinism a CHOICE!!!
And if we make that CHOICE!!!
The world will finally be at peace.
That’s it, debate over.
Choice does not negate determinism. Understanding brings wisdom!
Yes. It does. Fuck! I’m too lazy right now to type a longer post.
I’ll make a couple notes for you.
If you could travel back in time to your younger body with your future memories in tact. Everyone on earth would make a different decision.
I’ll just leave it there for now.
Again, I don’t often fully understand Ecmandu, but to the extent that I do understand him here, yeah, I agree. That’s basically how I see peacegirl’s argument too.
Just given my own “understanding” of determinism here and now.
Your agreement with Ecmandu doesn’t make you anymore right in your analysis!
What does this comment of yours prove?
PG,
You can’t even keep track of your own arguments?!?!
You said as proof that if we could make the same decision again that we’d always choose the same one!!!
Honestly!!!