Determinism

Meno2 · August 3, 2021, 5:09pm

I knew of Your concession ahead of time but it’s really no real concession until landing on solid ground. And even after that i’d be branded as a stooge, so let’s call it an uncertain draw without prejudice without formality

iambiguous · August 3, 2021, 5:40pm

We’ll need a context of course. Oh, and the assumption that we have the option to choose one of our own free will on a thread where here and now I have come to conclude that we don’t have this option at all.

Note to nature:

Did you do this on purpose? You know, teleologically?

Or, sure:

Really, try to imagine grasping a wholly determined universe able to result in these things:

peacegirl · August 3, 2021, 8:15pm

Iambiguous: Not to worry. It only seems weird because you were never able to not think that it feels weird.

Peacegirl: That doesn’t help at all. And it certainly doesn’t answer the question as to why. Your constant going back to this is the same old diversion.

Iambiguous: Seriously though, from my own frame of mind, given my own assumptions about free will, you are an objectivist. And, for objectivists, whether in regard to either free will or evil, they simply cannot grasp why others don’t think exactly like they do about things like this. After all, they might have invested years and years connecting the dots between what they think is true about morality and/or religion and/or the Big Questions and the psychological need to have a font that they can embed their Self in. For you, the author.

Peacegirl: You are so off base it’s a joke.

Iambiguous: And I know this in part because this was once true of me. Twice in fact.

Peacegirl: False comparison.

Iambiguous: In other words, I know what is at stake here for you. Indeed, what for some is deemed to be their very “soul”.

Peacegirl: Yes it is my soul but not for the reasons you give. You’re projecting.

Iambiguous: My advice is this: if staying anchored to your own particular font is something you are intent on taking with you to the grave, steer clear of threads like this. Even if you started it. That way you won’t encounter points of view like mine.

Peacegirl: This is not my first rodeo. Your point of view has nothing to do with the points made in this book. You didn’t read a drop. That explains a lot.

Iambiguous: Your “thing” in my view is analogous to the Mormons going door to door. It’s not enough for them to be saved. They must save others as well. So, you are committed to the author’s conclusions regarding the end of evil in the future. But you have convinced yourself that the more people you can lead to him here and now, the quicker that will happen. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Unless as some suggest it actually is more about the book itself. The money.

But what do I know about that, right?

Peacegirl: Give me a break Iambiguous. This is not about money. And stop acting like you know it all but end with your signature disclaimer that you really don’t know. You got that right!

Iambiguous: I’m just trying to offer you another frame of mind. One that in some ways makes things better, but that in other ways [admittedly] makes things a lot worse.

But I can only think what I do here and now given the possibility that I can think of my own free will what I do here and now.

Then “the gap”.

No gap. No free will. Nada! This is a dead giveaway that you read nothing. What surprises me is the lack of interest in this subject from others, or that’s how it seems.

iambiguous · August 4, 2021, 5:26pm

peacegirl:

peacegirl:

It’s so weird that in a philosophical thoughtful forum not one person responded to my posts. It’s just crazy.

Iambiguous: Not to worry. It only seems weird because you were never able to not think that it feels weird.

Peacegirl: That doesn’t help at all. And it certainly doesn’t answer the question as to why. Your constant going back to this is the same old diversion.

Iambiguous: Seriously though, from my own frame of mind, given my own assumptions about free will, you are an objectivist. And, for objectivists, whether in regard to either free will or evil, they simply cannot grasp why others don’t think exactly like they do about things like this. After all, they might have invested years and years connecting the dots between what they think is true about morality and/or religion and/or the Big Questions and the psychological need to have a font that they can embed their Self in. For you, the author.

Peacegirl: You are so off base it’s a joke.

Iambiguous: And I know this in part because this was once true of me. Twice in fact.

Peacegirl: False comparison.

Iambiguous: In other words, I know what is at stake here for you. Indeed, what for some is deemed to be their very “soul”.

Peacegirl: Yes it is my soul but not for the reasons you give. You’re projecting.

Iambiguous: My advice is this: if staying anchored to your own particular font is something you are intent on taking with you to the grave, steer clear of threads like this. Even if you started it. That way you won’t encounter points of view like mine.

Peacegirl: This is not my first rodeo. Your point of view has nothing to do with the points made in this book. You didn’t read a drop. That explains a lot.

Iambiguous: Your “thing” in my view is analogous to the Mormons going door to door. It’s not enough for them to be saved. They must save others as well. So, you are committed to the author’s conclusions regarding the end of evil in the future. But you have convinced yourself that the more people you can lead to him here and now, the quicker that will happen. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Unless as some suggest it actually is more about the book itself. The money.

But what do I know about that, right?

Peacegirl: Give me a break Iambiguous. This is not about money. And stop acting like you know it all but end with your signature disclaimer that you really don’t know. You got that right!

Iambiguous: I’m just trying to offer you another frame of mind. One that in some ways makes things better, but that in other ways [admittedly] makes things a lot worse.

But I can only think what I do here and now given the possibility that I can think of my own free will what I do here and now.

Then “the gap”.

No gap. No free will. Nada! This is a dead giveaway that you read nothing. What surprises me is the lack of interest in this subject from others, or that’s how it seems.

Either as a result of nature just doing its thing here or because I really am able to opt of my own volition to react as I do, I can only point out there is absolutely nothing here that we haven’t gone back and forth regarding over and over and over again.

From my own frame of mind, you are just another objectivist on steroids. Beyond repair. I can’t even imagine you not taking the comfort and the consolation the author provides you with all the way to the grave. It’s not what you believe, but that you believe it. It could anything: God, Buddha, Marxism, the Übermensch, Libertarianism, Anarchism, capitalism, socialism, a New Age narrative, existentialism, nihilism.

It’s the font itself that counts. The psychological foundation into which you can anchor your one True Self.

There’s just no way you will ever allow anyone to take that away from you.

Unless, of course, I’m wrong. But you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that you might well be too.

And, sure, to the extent that you can take this comfort and consolation with you all the way to the grave then, well, you win, right?

Settle for that. Why risk it in continuing on with me?

Of course: because you can “save” me. Bringing Evil itself that much close to being wiped out.

In this world!!!

peacegirl · August 4, 2021, 6:18pm

iambiguous:

peacegirl:

peacegirl:

It’s so weird that in a philosophical thoughtful forum not one person responded to my posts. It’s just crazy.

Iambiguous: Not to worry. It only seems weird because you were never able to not think that it feels weird.

Peacegirl: That doesn’t help at all. And it certainly doesn’t answer the question as to why. Your constant going back to this is the same old diversion.

Iambiguous: Seriously though, from my own frame of mind, given my own assumptions about free will, you are an objectivist. And, for objectivists, whether in regard to either free will or evil, they simply cannot grasp why others don’t think exactly like they do about things like this. After all, they might have invested years and years connecting the dots between what they think is true about morality and/or religion and/or the Big Questions and the psychological need to have a font that they can embed their Self in. For you, the author.

Peacegirl: You are so off base it’s a joke.

Iambiguous: And I know this in part because this was once true of me. Twice in fact.

Peacegirl: False comparison.

Iambiguous: In other words, I know what is at stake here for you. Indeed, what for some is deemed to be their very “soul”.

Peacegirl: Yes it is my soul but not for the reasons you give. You’re projecting.

Iambiguous: My advice is this: if staying anchored to your own particular font is something you are intent on taking with you to the grave, steer clear of threads like this. Even if you started it. That way you won’t encounter points of view like mine.

Peacegirl: This is not my first rodeo. Your point of view has nothing to do with the points made in this book. You didn’t read a drop. That explains a lot.

Iambiguous: Your “thing” in my view is analogous to the Mormons going door to door. It’s not enough for them to be saved. They must save others as well. So, you are committed to the author’s conclusions regarding the end of evil in the future. But you have convinced yourself that the more people you can lead to him here and now, the quicker that will happen. Or, rather, so it seems to me.

Unless as some suggest it actually is more about the book itself. The money.

But what do I know about that, right?

Peacegirl: Give me a break Iambiguous. This is not about money. And stop acting like you know it all but end with your signature disclaimer that you really don’t know. You got that right!

Iambiguous: I’m just trying to offer you another frame of mind. One that in some ways makes things better, but that in other ways [admittedly] makes things a lot worse.

But I can only think what I do here and now given the possibility that I can think of my own free will what I do here and now.

Then “the gap”.

No gap. No free will. Nada! This is a dead giveaway that you read nothing. What surprises me is the lack of interest in this subject from others, or that’s how it seems.

Iambiguous: Either as a result of nature just doing its thing here or because I really am able to opt of my own volition to react as I do, I can only point out there is absolutely nothing here that we haven’t gone back and forth regarding over and over and over again.

Peacegirl: You never addressed the points that are central to this knowledge.

Iambiguous: From my own frame of mind, you are just another objectivist on steroids. Beyond repair. I can’t even imagine you not taking the comfort and the consolation the author provides you with all the way to the grave. It’s not what you believe, but that you believe it. It could anything: God, Buddha, Marxism, the Übermensch, Libertarianism, Anarchism, capitalism, socialism, a New Age narrative, existentialism, nihilism.

Peacegirl: This response just shows me how you put anyone who makes a claim in the same basket.

Iambiguous: It’s the font itself that counts. The psychological foundation into which you can anchor your one True Self.

There’s just no way you will ever allow anyone to take that away from you.

Peacegirl: Why should I? How do you know the author was incorrect when you haven’t read a thing. What are you afraid of?

Iambiguous: Unless, of course, I’m wrong. But you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that you might well be too.

Peacegirl: I’m not caving in to you. His two principles are not wrong. What follows is not wrong. Why should I acknowledge that he could be wrong if he’s not. Again, you would not address Edison or Einstein this way. Just because his claim was not a physical object, epistemologically speaking, his observations were spot on and will be shown to be accurate. The FACT that we move in the direction of greater satisfaction is not circular. You’ve shown no interest in any of my content. Why are you even here?

Iambiguous: And, sure, to the extent that you can take this comfort and consolation with you all the way to the grave then, well, you win, right?

Settle for that. Why risk it in continuing on with me?

Of course: because you can “save” me. Bringing Evil itself that much close to being wiped out.

In this world!!!

Peacegirl: If your pride is so strong that you cannot even entertain the possibility that you might be wrong in your analysis of me (which you always preface but never truly believe), then please be on your way! There seems to be no interaction from other participants, so unfortunately this thread is going to die a premature death.

iambiguous · August 4, 2021, 6:33pm

Nature to Magnus Anderson:

It’s your turn.

iambiguous to nature:

Explain “premature death” please.

iambiguous · August 7, 2021, 5:13pm

On the other hand, if we live in a wholly determined universe in which the human brain is but one more inherent, necessary component of the only possible material, phenomenal reality, how are we not already nature’s machines?

Human intelligence is not artificial…it is natural.

Entirely natural?

Note to James S. Saint:

Clear this up for us please.

iambiguous · August 7, 2021, 7:21pm

While searching for music to include in my song thread, I happened to come upon this video regarding free will: youtu.be/2_BTVN68-ZA

In other words, compelled or not, I am posting it here.

It pretty much reflects my own thinking on determinism.

But then about 6:50 into it, the narrative shifts to morality. Then the part where some make a distinction between determinism and fatalism. The distinction that I do not make. If our brain is as the narrator describes it in the first few minutes of the video, then nothing is not fated or destined to be in the only possible reality.

He basically argues that we have to believe that we have free will or, if everyone comes to believe that we don’t, it could be catastrophic for all of us. **

And yet as he describes the brain at the start none of this is ever going to unfold other than as it must unfold anyway.

** the idea here being that if we really do have free will but enough people become convinced that we don’t, then what would be the point of doing “the right thing” if we are being praised or rewarded for doing something that we never could have not done?

The praise or reward is just more of the inevitable same.

On the other hand, if we do not have free will, it gets all that more surreal [for me] because those who point this out will often include the ominous assumption that these people will then stop choosing to do the right thing. As though whatever they choose to do is not wholly embedded only in whatever could have been.

What crucial point do I keep missing here?

peacegirl · August 8, 2021, 1:42am

iambiguous:

While searching for music to include in my song thread, I happened to come upon this video regarding free will: youtu.be/2_BTVN68-ZA

In other words, compelled or not, I am posting it here.

It pretty much reflects my own thinking on determinism.

But then about 6:50 into it, the narrative shifts to morality. Then the part where some make a distinction between determinism and fatalism. The distinction that I do not make. If our brain is as the narrator describes it in the first few minutes of the video, then nothing is not fated or destined to be in the only possible reality.

He basically argues that we have to believe that we have free will or, if everyone comes to believe that we don’t, it could be catastrophic for all of us. **

And yet as he describes the brain at the start none of this is ever going to unfold other than as it must unfold anyway.

** the idea here being that if we really do have free will but enough people become convinced that we don’t, then what would be the point of doing “the right thing” if we are being praised or rewarded for doing something that we never could have not done?

The praise or reward is just more of the inevitable same.

On the other hand, if we do not have free will, it gets all that more surreal [for me] because those who point this out will often include the ominous assumption that these people will then stop choosing to do the right thing. As though whatever they choose to do is not wholly embedded only in whatever could have been.

What crucial point do I keep missing here?

Everything!

iambiguous · August 8, 2021, 2:10am

peacegirl:

iambiguous:

While searching for music to include in my song thread, I happened to come upon this video regarding free will: youtu.be/2_BTVN68-ZA

In other words, compelled or not, I am posting it here.

It pretty much reflects my own thinking on determinism.

But then about 6:50 into it, the narrative shifts to morality. Then the part where some make a distinction between determinism and fatalism. The distinction that I do not make. If our brain is as the narrator describes it in the first few minutes of the video, then nothing is not fated or destined to be in the only possible reality.

He basically argues that we have to believe that we have free will or, if everyone comes to believe that we don’t, it could be catastrophic for all of us. **

And yet as he describes the brain at the start none of this is ever going to unfold other than as it must unfold anyway.

** the idea here being that if we really do have free will but enough people become convinced that we don’t, then what would be the point of doing “the right thing” if we are being praised or rewarded for doing something that we never could have not done?

The praise or reward is just more of the inevitable same.

On the other hand, if we do not have free will, it gets all that more surreal [for me] because those who point this out will often include the ominous assumption that these people will then stop choosing to do the right thing. As though whatever they choose to do is not wholly embedded only in whatever could have been.

What crucial point do I keep missing here?

Everything!

Nature weighs in:

peacegirl · August 8, 2021, 1:21pm

iambiguous:

peacegirl:

iambiguous:

While searching for music to include in my song thread, I happened to come upon this video regarding free will: youtu.be/2_BTVN68-ZA

In other words, compelled or not, I am posting it here.

It pretty much reflects my own thinking on determinism.

But then about 6:50 into it, the narrative shifts to morality. Then the part where some make a distinction between determinism and fatalism. The distinction that I do not make. If our brain is as the narrator describes it in the first few minutes of the video, then nothing is not fated or destined to be in the only possible reality.

He basically argues that we have to believe that we have free will or, if everyone comes to believe that we don’t, it could be catastrophic for all of us. **

And yet as he describes the brain at the start none of this is ever going to unfold other than as it must unfold anyway.

** the idea here being that if we really do have free will but enough people become convinced that we don’t, then what would be the point of doing “the right thing” if we are being praised or rewarded for doing something that we never could have not done?

The praise or reward is just more of the inevitable same.

On the other hand, if we do not have free will, it gets all that more surreal [for me] because those who point this out will often include the ominous assumption that these people will then stop choosing to do the right thing. As though whatever they choose to do is not wholly embedded only in whatever could have been.

What crucial point do I keep missing here?

Everything!

Nature weighs in:

EXCUSES AFTER EXCUSES! NOTE TO NATURE:

PLEASE DECONDUSE HIM: PLEASE TELL HIM TO STO PASSING THE BUCK TO YOU!

iambiguous · August 8, 2021, 2:51pm

Nature to iambiguous:

Consider yourself DECONDUSED.

peacegirl · August 8, 2021, 4:57pm

Nature to iambiguous:

Consider yourself CONFUSED! Stop blaming me for what is your responsibility!!!

iambiguous · August 8, 2021, 5:41pm

Click.

Flicking the switch to free will as I understand it.

My arguments are obviously getting to you. Otherwise you wouldn’t come off so frenetic in responding to them. There is clearly now a part of you that is concerned I might actually succeed in toppling over the author’s “house of cards” conclusions about Free Will and Evil. His “world of words” assumptions that are derived almost entirely from the definitions he gives to the words the assumptions are comprised of. Around and around and around the words go chasing each other like a dog chasing its tail.

I really would advise you to steer clear of me. You are intelligent enough to [eventually] grasp that my point about you being but another objectivist is merely the consequence of all the years you have invested psychologically in needing to believe that the author has provided you with the font for anchoring your Self to all the comfort and consolation that comes from being absolutely certain that you really are on the One True Path. And have there or have there not been countless others here [and elsewhere] who have shared your conviction about the existence of the One True Path but insist it is their path and not your path.

Think about the staggering odds that your own One True Path really is the One True Path.

Really, if we focused just on “religious and spiritual paths” alone, we get this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions

And all of the secular equivalents.

peacegirl · August 8, 2021, 8:13pm

I’m not coming off frenetic. What bothers me is that your take regarding free will, as you see it, is not the free will that would allow a ghost to be in the machine. You can’t entertain this possibility because you would hate to think that you are being controlled by a puppeteer, so you hang on for dear life that there could be this possibility of free will. But you can’t have it both ways.

No no no. You can’t topple a house of cards when there IS no house of cards to topple. He made no assumptions. He made accurate observations. He didn’t define anything other than describing what is taking place IN REALITY. That’s not a definition. He even said definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned. You are the one who holds onto the definition of determinism that is not in keeping with reality because the laws of matter cannot pull your strings if you don’t want to be pulled. You fail to understand that no law can make you do anything you don’t want to do, so you can’t blame what isn’t responsible.

Note to nature: Please correct iambiguous once and for all so he doesn’t keep putting the blame on YOU for everything. You’re off the hook.

iambiguous:

I really would advise you to steer clear of me. You are intelligent enough to [eventually] grasp that my point about you being but another objectivist is merely the consequence of all the years you have invested psychologically in needing to believe that the author has provided you with the font for anchoring your Self to all the comfort and consolation that comes from being absolutely certain that you really are on the One True Path. And have there or have there not been countless others here [and elsewhere] who have shared your conviction about the existence of the One True Path but insist it is their path and not your path.

Think about the staggering odds that your own One True Path really is the One True Path.

Really, if we focused just on “religious and spiritual paths” alone, we get this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r … traditions

And all of the secular equivalents.

Same old mantra. It never changes. If you want me to stay clear of you, then start another thread based on your beliefs. Yes, I know the odds are staggering that this could actually be a genuine discovery, but that does not mean the odds aren’t in his favor in this case. You don’t know because you never read a thing. All of this effort on my part has gone to naught because I could not surmount your empty retorts.

iambiguous · August 8, 2021, 8:48pm

You got that right. Same old mantra. Yours to me, mine to you. But isn’t that what one would expect when both mantras are entirely constructed by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter wholly in sync with the only possible reality?

Note to nature:

This is the only possible reality, right?
Just kidding.

And I will start another thread when nature compels me to. Besides, wasn’t it you who “chose” to abandon this thread, hoping that on the New Discovery thread you’d find others actually willing to accept that out of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths being proselytized here and elsewhere the author’s own path really is the One True Path?

What are the odds? More to the point in a free will world what are the odds that any of you on any of these paths will actually have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit that the odds must be very, very very long. No way. You all have too much invested in the comfort and consolation that being on the One True Path brings you. It’s not what the path is but that you’re on it.

But, again, what worries me about you is that you do have just enough intelligence to figure that out. And, if you do, will you be able to handle it? Hell, I remember what I went through myself all those years ago when I lost it. Twice. But you strike me as ten times more committed to your own rendition of it. It could be particularly brutal.

And a part of me can’t help but feel responsible if it does happen. That’s why I say stay away from me. You might crack right down the middle.

peacegirl · August 8, 2021, 9:43pm

Iambiguous: You got that right. Same old mantra. Yours to me, mine to you. But isn’t that what one would expect when both mantras are entirely constructed by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter wholly in sync with the only possible reality?

Peacegirl: The determinists among us know this. I can still call it a mantra, which it is.

Iambiguous: Note to nature:

This is the only possible reality, right?
Just kidding.

And I will start another thread when nature compels me to.

Peacegirl: When you decide to.

Iambiguous: Besides, wasn’t it you who “chose” to abandon this thread, hoping that on the New Discovery thread you’d find others actually willing to accept that out of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths being proselytized here and elsewhere the author’s own path really is the One True Path?

Peacegirl: There are many spiritual and religious paths, but none have been able to prevent war and crime on a global scale and without being persuaded to follow some guru.

Iambiguous: What are the odds? More to the point in a free will world what are the odds that any of you on any of these paths will actually have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit that the odds must be very, very very long. No way. You all have too much invested in the comfort and consolation that being on the One True Path brings you. It’s not what the path is but that you’re on it.

Peacegirl: This is exactly what he was up against in his lifetime. You’re just a typical naysayer that isn’t even curious what this discovery is or what it can accomplish.

Iambiguous: But, again, what worries me about you is that you do have just enough intelligence to figure that out. And, if you do, will you be able to handle it? Hell, I remember what I went through myself all those years ago when I lost it. Twice. But you strike me as ten times more committed to your own rendition of it. It could be particularly brutal.

Peacegirl: Stop comparing me to you. You don’t have this figured out.

Iambiguous: And a part of me can’t help but feel responsible if it does happen. That’s why I say stay away from me. You might crack right down the middle.

I can’t help but laugh at that remark!

iambiguous · August 8, 2021, 9:52pm

peacegirl:

iambiguous:

peacegirl:

Same old mantra. It never changes. If you want me to stay clear of you, then start another thread based on your beliefs. Yes, they are staggering odds that this could actually be a genuine discovery, but in this case it has beaten the odds. You don’t know because you never read a thing. All of this effort on my part has gone to naught because I could not surmount your constant retorts.

Iambiguous: You got that right. Same old mantra. Yours to me, mine to you. But isn’t that what one would expect when both mantras are entirely constructed by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter wholly in sync with the only possible reality?

Peacegirl: The determinists among us know this. I can still call it a mantra, which it is.

Iambiguous: Note to nature:

This is the only possible reality, right?
Just kidding.

And I will start another thread when nature compels me to.

Peacegirl: When you decide to.

Iambiguous: Besides, wasn’t it you who “chose” to abandon this thread, hoping that on the New Discovery thread you’d find others actually willing to accept that out of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths being proselytized here and elsewhere the author’s own path really is the One True Path?

Peacegirl: There are many spiritual and religious paths, but none have been able to prevent war and crime on a global scale and without being persuaded to follow some guru.

Iambiguous: What are the odds? More to the point in a free will world what are the odds that any of you on any of these paths will actually have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit that the odds must be very, very very long. No way. You all have too much invested in the comfort and consolation that being on the One True Path brings you. It’s not what the path is but that you’re on it.

Peacegirl: This is exactly what he was up against in his lifetime. You’re just a typical naysayer that isn’t even curious what this discovery is or what it can accomplish.

Iambiguous: But, again, what worries me about you is that you do have just enough intelligence to figure that out. And, if you do, will you be able to handle it? Hell, I remember what I went through myself all those years ago when I lost it. Twice. But you strike me as ten times more committed to your own rendition of it. It could be particularly brutal.

Peacegirl: Stop comparing me to you. You don’t have this figured out.

Iambiguous: And a part of me can’t help but feel responsible if it does happen. That’s why I say stay away from me. You might crack right down the middle.

I can’t help but laugh at that remark!

Okay, but, in the real deal free will world, it’s your mental health that is at stake here. Personally, I hope that you make it all the way to the grave comforted and consoled by your author. I really do.

Not much chance of that for me though.

peacegirl · August 8, 2021, 10:33pm

Iambiguous: You got that right. Same old mantra. Yours to me, mine to you. But isn’t that what one would expect when both mantras are entirely constructed by brains wholly in sync with the laws of matter wholly in sync with the only possible reality?

Peacegirl: The determinists among us know this. I can still call it a mantra, which it is.

Iambiguous: Note to nature:

This is the only possible reality, right?
Just kidding.

And I will start another thread when nature compels me to.

Peacegirl: When you decide to.

Iambiguous: Besides, wasn’t it you who “chose” to abandon this thread, hoping that on the New Discovery thread you’d find others actually willing to accept that out of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths being proselytized here and elsewhere the author’s own path really is the One True Path?

Peacegirl: There are many spiritual and religious paths, but none have been able to prevent war and crime on a global scale and without being persuaded to follow some guru.

Iambiguous: What are the odds? More to the point in a free will world what are the odds that any of you on any of these paths will actually have the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit that the odds must be very, very very long. No way. You all have too much invested in the comfort and consolation that being on the One True Path brings you. It’s not what the path is but that you’re on it.

Peacegirl: This is exactly what he was up against in his lifetime. You’re just a typical skeptic that isn’t even curious what this discovery is or what it can accomplish because you already concluded it can’t be right. Isn’t that called putting the cart before the horse? I thought that’s what real philosophers don’t do.

Iambiguous: But, again, what worries me about you is that you do have just enough intelligence to figure that out. And, if you do, will you be able to handle it? Hell, I remember what I went through myself all those years ago when I lost it. Twice. But you strike me as ten times more committed to your own rendition of it. It could be particularly brutal.

Peacegirl: Stop comparing me to you. You don’t have it all figured out.

Iambiguous: And a part of me can’t help but feel responsible if it does happen. That’s why I say stay away from me. You might crack right down the middle.

Peacegirl: I can’t help but laugh at that remark!

Iambiguous: Okay, but, in the real deal free will world, it’s your mental health that is at stake here.

Peacegirl: This has nothing to do with the real deal free will world, which doesn’t exist. Actually this knowledge has increased my mental health not because I’m attached to it as an anchor, but because I have learned so much about human nature which has been an asset in my personal life. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I’m willing to be told it’s wrong after, not before, it’s carefully investigated.

Iambiguous: Personally, I hope that you make it all the way to the grave comforted and consoled by your author. I really do.

Peacegirl: Stop the condescension, okay?

Iambiguous: Not much chance of that for me though.

Peacegirl: I feel for you as well because you are missing out! I wish you the best with your Note to Nature that does not excuse any behavior that you are responsible for. Of course you don’t understand how that’s possible because you didn’t read, let alone study, these principles which are rooted in fact.

iambiguous · August 9, 2021, 1:34am

Nature to peacegirl:

Why should he? You’ve more than earned it.

Click: free will mode.

Here’s a challenge. Note for me the name of someone who, over all of these years, you agree has in fact read and studied the author’s principals. But who refused to agree with them. And you then shook their hand, thanked them and said “Fine, no problem, I respect your opinion.”

Now, I have never once come across an objectivist who was willing to admit that someone who had read and studied their arguments [or the arguments of an author they admired] was permitted to say “no, they are wrong.” Not about the big stuff.

It simply goes against the entire psychological make-up of the objectivist mind.

And you are in a class all your own there.