Determinism

[iambiguous]

I won't read your response. So forget what i should have done or what I didn't do, or what I seem to be doing.

Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.

Are you implying a particular thing that it tells others about me? must it be that?

I think it could mean a number of things. Some seem fine to me, some not.

I'm merely describing my reaction to your participation in threads that include me. It seems true to me. On the other hand, all of this may well be embedded in a wholly determined universe such that these very words that I am choosing to type [and that you either are or are not choosing to read] may be entirely beyond our control as autonomous human beings.

Here's why I do that. Rightly or wrongly I find that you have trouble actually understanding the point of what people are saying, except as it reflects on your core question.

And I point out time and again that in reard to conflicting value judgments in the is/ought world, and in grappling with the really Big Questions regarding the either/or world, my own understanding of "the point" is entangled in either "existential contraptions" or in the gap between what I think I know about "ultimate reality" here and now and all there is to be known about the very nature of existence itself.

That's why over and over and over again I suggest that, to the extent that we are able, we bring "the point" down to earth.

So, I experience that you often do not respond to what I write, but repeat what you have written many times before as if it applies. Sometimes it does, often it does not, always I already knew your position, so it does not further the discussion.

Right, like there is no possibility of my turning this around and suggesting that, from my frame of mind, it is also applicable to you.

To the best of my recollection, I have always at least made an attempt to respond to your posts. I don't just abandon the points that you make altogether. Instead, you strike me as one of the "serious philosophers" here. You become rankled when others don't agree with the points you make. In other words, for others to respond they must eventually agree.

Whereas from my frame of mind, dasein and conflicting goods [embedded in existential contraptions], all but guarantee "failure to communicate."

We'll just have to agree to disagree reagarding our respective reactions to each other. Unless, of course, someone is actually able to demonstrate/prove which of us is in fact closer to the objective truth.

Instead, over and again [from my point of view] I get stuff like this from you...

I find it passive-aggressive when you ask the gallery questions, rather than simply stating what you think it means. It might not be passive aggressive, you might really be simply curious to get their interpretation. I think your philosophy allows for a great deal of passive aggressiveness, since you can always say you can't be sure. Sort of erasing what you say as you write it. That may be swaying me to think that you are being passive-aggressive when you ask others questions like the above.
It is certainly one way people are passive aggressive, asking the question as if the answer is obvious, but not taking responsibility for saying directly what they think it means. But it might not be in this case.

What on earth does this mean? Note a particular context in which human beings do interact, and we can discuss our respective misunderstandings with regard to both determinism and pragmatism.

[promethean75]

Even though midgets may have a "strong will", doesn't mean they'll be taken seriously or respected though.

this thesis, my dear friend, is categorically false. so false, in fact, that my kind has never before experienced a greater threat than the danger presented to us by one specific midget who would have exterminated our entire race if we had not stopped him. when one is faced with extinction, one does not underestimate one's enemy on account of him being a midget. while dr. trask was indeed small in stature, his will was a gargantuan force and something to be respected with the greatest reverence. had his sentinel program been completed, i'd not be here today.

[iambiguous]

We were discussing earlier what obligations one has to discussions. How do you see it?

wouldn't all behavior be obligatory in a determined universe?
which means that as one realizes this, if one does, then one might feel less blame,
which I believe was one of peacegirl's points.

Indeed, all behaviors would seem to be entirely obligatory on our part in a determined universe.

But: What determines how we behave? Isn't it how we think and feel?

But: if how we think and feel is in turn entirely determined, then [it would seem] anything that we come to realize that prompts us to be less inclined to blame is in turn but one more inherent, necessary component of nature unfolding only as it every could have.

From my frame of mind, once you conclude that the human brain is itself just another manifestation of matter unfolding by obeying immutable laws, then everything we come to think, feel, say and do -- or come to realize -- is but in fact what it could only ever have been.

How can anything be excluded unless you are able to demonstrate that mind as matter is a very, very different kind of matter indeed.

And that leads to discussions of God or how living matter can reach the point where it is able to consciously speculate on why [sans God] there is something instead or nothing at all. And why this something and not another something instead.

[peacegirl]

yeah sure, but that's compatibalism/soft-determinism... which is the failed last vestige to save freewill and responsibility from having to swallow the 'last bitter drop' (nietzsche) of the truth and surrender to amoralism.

First of all, I'm not sure who you are addressing in this post. I hope it's not me because the discovery I am trying to bring to light is not compatibilism. We have no FREE will and therefore we are not morally responsible. How could we be held responsible if the only choice that was made (looking back in hindsight) was the only choice that could have been made. But amoralism is not the result. In fact, it is not about moral and amoral; it is about what can be justified and what cannot.

it's what biggy has been trying to explain to you for weeks; you can't get around the problem by saying 'we can choose between our desires', because that choice, too, is just another domino (as biggy put it).

The confusion arises due to the word choice. We have options, but it's never a free choice not because we are dominoes without a say, but because we can never move in a backward direction, or a less preferable direction whenever a choice is being made. Therefore when making comparisons to decide which choice is the most satisfactory, only one choice can ever be made in the direction of greater preference.

[Meno_]

yeah sure, but that's compatibalism/soft-determinism... which is the failed last vestige to save freewill and responsibility from having to swallow the 'last bitter drop' (nietzsche) of the truth and surrender to amoralism.

First of all, I'm not sure who you are addressing in this post. I hope it's not me because the discovery I am trying to bring to light is not compatibilism. We have no FREE will and therefore we are not morally responsible. How could we be held responsible if the only choice that was made (looking back in hindsight) was the only choice that could have been made. But amoralism is not the result. In fact, it is not about moral and amoral; it is about what can be justified and what cannot.

it's what biggy has been trying to explain to you for weeks; you can't get around the problem by saying 'we can choose between our desires', because that choice, too, is just another domino (as biggy put it).

The confusion arises due to the word choice. We have options, but it's never a free choice not because we are dominoes without a say, but because we can never move in a backward direction, or a less preferable direction whenever a choice is being made. Therefore when making comparisons to decide which choice is the most satisfactory, only one choice can ever be made in the direction of greater preference.

The nail was hit on the head. We can never glance back as far as determinism, or the choice made being the only one which could have been made in order to move forward-----implies a pre chosen state of being or mind that has the appearance of having more choices, not of actually having them.

What peace girls is saying, is that appearance changes into reality after a choice was made. That is compatible with the missing parts in the process of reasoning, as to what is the optimal basis of a progressing route whereby choices are made.

Therefore, forward, determination is not absolutely bound by circumstances even beyond our control.

Reversely, a reduction into less symbolic manifestation appears to want to confirm a required sought after priority.

[peacegirl]

yeah sure, but that's compatibalism/soft-determinism... which is the failed last vestige to save freewill and responsibility from having to swallow the 'last bitter drop' (nietzsche) of the truth and surrender to amoralism.

First of all, I'm not sure who you are addressing in this post. I hope it's not me because the discovery I am trying to bring to light is not compatibilism. We have no FREE will and therefore we are not morally responsible. How could we be held responsible if the only choice that was made (looking back in hindsight) was the only choice that could have been made. But amoralism is not the result. In fact, it is not about moral and amoral; it is about what can be justified and what cannot.

it's what biggy has been trying to explain to you for weeks; you can't get around the problem by saying 'we can choose between our desires', because that choice, too, is just another domino (as biggy put it).

The confusion arises due to the word choice. We have options, but it's never a free choice not because we are dominoes without a say, but because we can never move in a backward direction, or a less preferable direction whenever a choice is being made. Therefore when making comparisons to decide which choice is the most satisfactory, only one choice can ever be made in the direction of greater preference.

The nail was hit on the head. We can never glance back as far as determinism, or the choice made being the only one which could have been made in order to move forward-----implies a pre chosen state of being or mind that has the appearance of having more choices, not of actually having them.

What peace girls is saying, is that appearance changes into reality after a choice was made. That is compatible with the missing parts in the process of reasoning, as to what is the optimal basis of a progressing route whereby choices are made.

Therefore, forward, determination is not absolutely bound by circumstances even beyond our control.

Reversely, a reduction into less symbolic manifestation appears to want to confirm a required sought after priority.

Necessarily, we must choose what nature prescribes is a modal fallacy.

We must necessarily choose what gives us greater satisfaction based on contingent factors that feed into one's preference is not a modal fallacy. Nature does not prescribe. It is descriptive only.

[Meno_]

Well, yes, but isn't the modal fallacy based on attaining more pleasure basis of primal instincts of survival, and only if survival is described as
more pleasurable then being killed killed by a more voracious Neanderthal, then can we discount the fallacy.

[peacegirl]

Well, yes, but isn't the modal fallacy based on attaining more pleasure basis of primal instincts of survival, and only if survival is described as
more pleasurable then being killed killed by a more voracious Neanderthal, then can we discount the fallacy.

We can discount the fallacy because nature does not prescribe. You can replace greater satisfaction with pleasure although not everything we find satisfyingly is pleasurable. I may save someone from harm and risk dying in the process. This may be in the direction of what gives me greater satisfaction but I certainly wouldn’t call it pleasurable.

[Meno_]

Basically, it would be fallacious to presuppose that instinctive pleasure toward supposing a pleasurable after life rather then the contrary would not evolve from a cro magnon man even from a lower derivation , , because in Neanderthal man the conscious choice of attack/retreat was already evident, the instinctual pleasure of survival implies the transcendent reduction , as a solution to the paradox.

Therefore to connect pleasure with existence is primordial and instinctual.
With subordinate mammals the consciousness manifested in early man is not supported by activities and artifacts implying conscious capacity to make choices. But early man usually buried his kin, and implies a consciousness of the connection.
Such connection, does not negate the natural perhaps unconscious content of various differing evolutionary preceptions of the content.

Therefore the fallacy is an inductive presumptive hypothesis based on the reduction of phenomenological awareness limiting determinism to a purely conscious manifestation, and has to be modified, or at least augmented by the instinctual determination, that does invalidate the fallacy.



And I think , even then, Your thesis can stand, but not without the arguable idea, that lower forms with as yet undeveloped will, can not be presumptive of a total denial of predetermination . in other words , an almost total reliance on instinct may not cut an animal from a human and lead to a conclusion which define mostly pure determination from natural causes, because the intermediary of primitive man can attain consciousness of partial awareness.

Paleontology has evidence for this factual progression, and too label this purely fallacious because of a modern notion of an existential reduction, misses the point.

I feel You may not accept this in Toto- on anthropological basis, however so
much transcendentilism has been nullified on its face, that it reminds of the theory that is protested against too much.

To over emphasize so much signification on conscious meaning per se, indicates the fact that science is merely a component of analysis of all that already is in the analysand.

[peacegirl]

Basically, it would be fallacious to presuppose that instinctive pleasure toward supposing a pleasurable after life rather then the contrary would not evolve from a cro magnon man even from a lower derivation , , because in Neanderthal man the conscious choice of attack/retreat was already evident, the instinctual pleasure of survival implies the transcendent reduction , as a solution to the paradox.

Therefore to connect pleasure with existence is primordial and instinctual.
With subordinate mammals the consciousness manifested in early man is not supported by activities and artifacts implying conscious capacity to make choices. But early man usually buried his kin, and implies a consciousness of the connection.
Such connection, does not negate the natural perhaps unconscious content of various differing evolutionary preceptions of the content.

Therefore the fallacy is an inductive presumptive hypothesis based on the reduction of phenomenological awareness limiting determinism to a purely conscious manifestation, and has to be modified, or at least augmented by the instinctual determination, that does invalidate the fallacy.


And I think , even then, Your thesis can stand, but not without the arguable idea, that lower forms with as yet undeveloped will, can not be presumptive of a total denial of predetermination . in other words , an almost total reliance on instinct may not cut an animal from a human and lead to a conclusion which define mostly pure determination from natural causes, because the intermediary of primitive man can attain consciousness of partial awareness.

Paleontology has evidence for this factual progression, and too label this purely fallacious because of a modern notion of an existential reduction, misses the point.

I feel You may not accept this in Toto- on anthropological basis, however so
much transcendentilism has been nullified on its face, that it reminds of the theory that is protested against too much.

To over emphasize so much signification on conscious meaning per se, indicates the fact that science is merely a component of analysis of all that already is in the analysand.

Life moves constantly in one direction which is away from a state of dissatisfaction to a state of greater satisfaction. If you were satisfied to remain in one position you would never move from the spot you’re on. Just because humans are able to use language in order to contemplate what option would be the most satisfying does not change the direction of all life. This also does not mean we always understand the reasons behind a choice on a conscious level. Many of our preferences are based on factors that are just below the surface of our conscious awareness. Animals also move instinctually toward what satisfies whether it’s pruning themselves, scratching an itch, or foraging for food, without being aware of what they are doing on an intellectual level. You have misinterpreted the claim.

Moreover, determinism is an invariable law that doesn’t change with time. Will is another word that can cause confusion. In this context it means desire. Without a will or desire to accomplish a goal (regardless of the developmental age) we could not progress because will (or desire) precedes action.

[Karpel Tunnel]

won't read your response. So forget what i should have done or what I didn't do, or what I seem to be doing.

Note to others: What does this tell you about him? And he's done it before. He jumps into a thread, "sets me straight", and then abandons the discussion.

Are you implying a particular thing that it tells others about me? must it be that?

I think it could mean a number of things. Some seem fine to me, some not.

I'm merely describing my reaction to your participation in threads that include me. It seems true to me. On the other hand, all of this may well be embedded in a wholly determined universe such that these very words that I am choosing to type [and that you either are or are not choosing to read] may be entirely beyond our control as autonomous human beings.

Let's try it one more time. Above in reponse to what I bolded and underlined above, I ask you if you think there is one or one obvious conclusion when you ask that question. Sometimes people use this rhetorically, asking a question like that. I even said it seemed like you were implying there was one obvious negative conclusion about what it says, but I couldn't be sure. You never answer this.

Did you think you knew why I left like that? Did you think others would draw the same conclusion because there is an obvious one?

And sure, there is all sorts of room for misunderstandings, but if we don't actually respond, when acting as if we are, these things cannot possibly be cleared up, even in those cases where it is possible.

You do write responses to my posts, but they are not responses to what I write, often. Can you respond directly to the above and not write in the timeless general abstract manner you do about our differences and actually respond to what I write?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Indeed, all behaviors would seem to be entirely obligatory on our part in a determined universe.

But: What determines how we behave? Isn't it how we think and feel?

But: if how we think and feel is in turn entirely determined, then [it would seem] anything that we come to realize that prompts us to be less inclined to blame is in turn but one more inherent, necessary component of nature unfolding only as it every could have.

That is exactly what peacegirl thinks is going to happen and he is glad about that.

From my frame of mind, once you conclude that the human brain is itself just another manifestation of matter unfolding by obeying immutable laws, then everything we come to think, feel, say and do -- or come to realize -- is but in fact what it could only ever have been.

And he also agrees with that.

How can anything be excluded unless you are able to demonstrate that mind as matter is a very, very different kind of matter indeed.

And he would agree with that.

And his telling people this, he thinks, might be part of those causes and effects which inevitably lead to people moving past blame.

And that leads to discussions of God or how living matter can reach the point where it is able to consciously speculate on why [sans God] there is something instead or nothing at all. And why this something and not another something instead.

It might lead to that. It might not. I don't see it always leading to that.

(something gives me the impression peacegirl is a man. I can't remember what it was. apologies if I'm incorrect)

[promethean75]

something gives me the impression peacegirl is a man

oh my GOD... peacegirl is a man?! gah.... uhhhhuh!

[Meno_]

Basically, it would be fallacious to presuppose that instinctive pleasure toward supposing a pleasurable after life rather then the contrary would not evolve from a cro magnon man even from a lower derivation , , because in Neanderthal man the conscious choice of attack/retreat was already evident, the instinctual pleasure of survival implies the transcendent reduction , as a solution to the paradox.

Therefore to connect pleasure with existence is primordial and instinctual.
With subordinate mammals the consciousness manifested in early man is not supported by activities and artifacts implying conscious capacity to make choices. But early man usually buried his kin, and implies a consciousness of the connection.
Such connection, does not negate the natural perhaps unconscious content of various differing evolutionary preceptions of the content.

Therefore the fallacy is an inductive presumptive hypothesis based on the reduction of phenomenological awareness limiting determinism to a purely conscious manifestation, and has to be modified, or at least augmented by the instinctual determination, that does invalidate the fallacy.


And I think , even then, Your thesis can stand, but not without the arguable idea, that lower forms with as yet undeveloped will, can not be presumptive of a total denial of predetermination . in other words , an almost total reliance on instinct may not cut an animal from a human and lead to a conclusion which define mostly pure determination from natural causes, because the intermediary of primitive man can attain consciousness of partial awareness.

Paleontology has evidence for this factual progression, and too label this purely fallacious because of a modern notion of an existential reduction, misses the point.

I feel You may not accept this in Toto- on anthropological basis, however so
much transcendentilism has been nullified on its face, that it reminds of the theory that is protested against too much.

To over emphasize so much signification on conscious meaning per se, indicates the fact that science is merely a component of analysis of all that already is in the analysand.

Life moves constantly in one direction which is away from a state of dissatisfaction to a state of greater satisfaction. If you were satisfied to remain in one position you would never move from the spot you’re on. Just because humans are able to use language in order to contemplate what option would be the most satisfying does not change the direction of all life. This also does not mean we always understand the reasons behind a choice on a conscious level. Many of our preferences are based on factors that are just below the surface of our conscious awareness. Animals also move instinctually toward what satisfies whether it’s pruning themselves, scratching an itch, or foraging for food, without being aware of what they are doing on an intellectual level. You have misinterpreted the claim.

Moreover, determinism is an invariable law that doesn’t change with time. Will is another word that can cause confusion. In this context it means desire. Without a will or desire to accomplish a goal (regardless of the developmental age) we could not progress because will (or desire) precedes action.

I think we are both missing each other's point . My point is, an answer to Yours that sure, we are advancing toward some object through which the pleasure principle leads us, unto the Freudian Thanatos , however at a point. a pre reflexive point , man has sublimely passed into the age of a myth, and then everything changed.

He started.to bury his kin, with a sublimination of some hidden expectation that this appeaewmt appearent death is not real, that there is something hidden-look at the burial of the body. as an act of.literal hiding it, preserving it, from lower forms of life.

He has gone into the world of the myth. the mythical world of the imagination.

This is very significant, it is a form of transplantation, from the world of the senses.

Pleasure is not restricted to human beings, animals feel pleasure in coitus, but that pleasure, produces the seed without which evolution, could not proceed to posit the idea of choices.

The primal point revolves against the existential solution to mortal threat- advance to fight or retreat , when two primal combatants face each other.
What determines the action that needs to be taken?

The pleasurable feeling of over coming an assailant caused by the perpetuation of that pleasure . Higher pleasures evolve as the become more objectively associated with more cohesion with more ideally formed attachments.

The point is the evolving identification of pleasure in the other as object, begins with a naturally determined evolutionary determination, exactly as You describe it. The based of which are existential, and not cognitive. However the basis only address the behavioral responses to changing forms of adaptation with and within a genetic code. The code supplies the unanswered question, which in that early age was unanswerable. This is the foundation of the tranacensentally reducible answer as to why and how the instinctual basis determine the connection of the pleasure principle with the content of the objective notion of Thanatos: which even to this day remains shrouded .

The supposition that more and more will be revealed, with the passage of time, is again implied with the upper notions of transcendental evolution, and it is for that hope, that science is a servant of. The overcoming of this tragic birth, as progressing from the representation toward the reality of objective truth, as an absolute. We have come very far indeed sin a few centuries , while primitive, yet hopeful man goes back in time maybe 50 to one hundred thousand years. It is a pleasure to understand the coming of near perfect compatibility between what is presented and what is hoped for, in order to avoid the tragic consequences of passing from this tragedy into some kind of self fulfillment that is able to interpret the code to its ultimate goals.

The ultimate is feared with every new incarnation, perhaps working reversely, due to an increasing impatience with the rate of change , since the imposition of the break up of Thetic consciousness has lot the ability to appreciate the literal miracles which have transmitted closer and closer into the very code it'self.

[peacegirl]

Basically, it would be fallacious to presuppose that instinctive pleasure toward supposing a pleasurable after life rather then the contrary would not evolve from a cro magnon man even from a lower derivation , , because in Neanderthal man the conscious choice of attack/retreat was already evident, the instinctual pleasure of survival implies the transcendent reduction , as a solution to the paradox.

Therefore to connect pleasure with existence is primordial and instinctual.
With subordinate mammals the consciousness manifested in early man is not supported by activities and artifacts implying conscious capacity to make choices. But early man usually buried his kin, and implies a consciousness of the connection.
Such connection, does not negate the natural perhaps unconscious content of various differing evolutionary preceptions of the content.

Therefore the fallacy is an inductive presumptive hypothesis based on the reduction of phenomenological awareness limiting determinism to a purely conscious manifestation, and has to be modified, or at least augmented by the instinctual determination, that does invalidate the fallacy.


And I think , even then, Your thesis can stand, but not without the arguable idea, that lower forms with as yet undeveloped will, can not be presumptive of a total denial of predetermination . in other words , an almost total reliance on instinct may not cut an animal from a human and lead to a conclusion which define mostly pure determination from natural causes, because the intermediary of primitive man can attain consciousness of partial awareness.

Paleontology has evidence for this factual progression, and too label this purely fallacious because of a modern notion of an existential reduction, misses the point.

I feel You may not accept this in Toto- on anthropological basis, however so
much transcendentilism has been nullified on its face, that it reminds of the theory that is protested against too much.

To over emphasize so much signification on conscious meaning per se, indicates the fact that science is merely a component of analysis of all that already is in the analysand.

Life moves constantly in one direction which is away from a state of dissatisfaction to a state of greater satisfaction. If you were satisfied to remain in one position you would never move from the spot you’re on. Just because humans are able to use language in order to contemplate what option would be the most satisfying does not change the direction of all life. This also does not mean we always understand the reasons behind a choice on a conscious level. Many of our preferences are based on factors that are just below the surface of our conscious awareness. Animals also move instinctually toward what satisfies whether it’s pruning themselves, scratching an itch, or foraging for food, without being aware of what they are doing on an intellectual level. You have misinterpreted the claim.

Moreover, determinism is an invariable law that doesn’t change with time. Will is another word that can cause confusion. In this context it means desire. Without a will or desire to accomplish a goal (regardless of the developmental age) we could not progress because will (or desire) precedes action.

[quote=“Meno_”]I think we are both missing each other's point . My point is, an answer to Yours that sure, we are advancing toward some object through which the pleasure principle leads us, unto the Freudian Thanatos , however at a point. a pre reflexive point , man has sublimely passed into the age of a myth, and then everything changed.

He started.to bury his kin, with a sublimination of some hidden expectation that this appeaewmt appearent death is not real, that there is something hidden-look at the burial of the body. as an act of.literal hiding it, preserving it, from lower forms of life.

He has gone into the world of the myth. the mythical world of the imagination.

This is very significant, it is a form of transplantation, from the world of the senses.

Pleasure is not restricted to human beings, animals feel pleasure in coitus, but that pleasure, produces the seed without which evolution, could not proceed to posit the idea of choices.

The primal point revolves against the existential solution to mortal threat- advance to fight or retreat , when two primal combatants face each other.
What determines the action that needs to be taken?

The pleasurable feeling of over coming an assailant caused by the perpetuation of that pleasure . Higher pleasures evolve as the become more objectively associated with more cohesion with more ideally formed attachments.

The point is the evolving identification of pleasure in the other as object, begins with a naturally determined evolutionary determination, exactly as You describe it. The based of which are existential, and not cognitive. However the basis only address the behavioral responses to changing forms of adaptation with and within a genetic code. The code supplies the unanswered question, which in that early age was unanswerable. This is the foundation of the tranacensentally reducible answer as to why and how the instinctual basis determine the connection of the pleasure principle with the content of the objective notion of Thanatos: which even to this day remains shrouded .

The supposition that more and more will be revealed, with the passage of time, is again implied with the upper notions of transcendental evolution, and it is for that hope, that science is a servant of. The overcoming of this tragic birth, as progressing from the representation toward the reality of objective truth, as an absolute. We have come very far indeed sin a few centuries , while primitive, yet hopeful man goes back in time maybe 50 to one hundred thousand years. It is a pleasure to understand the coming of near perfect compatibility between what is presented and what is hoped for, in order to avoid the tragic consequences of passing from this tragedy into some kind of self fulfillment that is able to interpret the code to its ultimate goals.

The ultimate is feared with every new incarnation, perhaps working reversely, due to an increasing impatience with the rate of change , since the imposition of the break up of Thetic consciousness has lot the ability to appreciate the literal miracles which have transmitted closer and closer into the very code it'self.

Meno, I don’t quite understand how your explanation nullifies the immutable law of greater satisfaction. You seem to be using your philosophical analysis to discuss motives. This is not about motives. It is one statement of fact ONLY! Could you be more succinct and tell me exactly where this natural does not hold? I already stated that’s this is not the pleasure principle because we do many things that are unpleasurable (like saving another human being at the risk of us dying in the process) but give us satisfaction.

[Meno_]

peace girl,

Meno, I don’t quite understand how your explanation nullifies the immutable law of greater satisfaction. You seem to be using your philosophical analysis to discuss motives. This is not about motives. It is one statement of fact ONLY! Could you be more succinct and tell me exactly where this natural does not hold? I already stated that’s this is not the pleasure principle because we do many things that are unpleasurable (like saving another human being at the risk of us dying in the process) but give us satisfaction.
--------

Philosophical analysis is supported by palaanthropological facts here.

Personally I would severely discount my pain by an extreme pleasure of saving someone's life.

But here is the rub, the conversion of neurological pain into psychological pleasure.


---------
Could you be more succinct and tell me exactly where this natural does not hold?
-------------

In cases of tightly half morally encompassing duties, where the imperative to act invalidates the archaic notion of preservation of the self toward a motiveless leap towards the preservation of others. That is not based on an instinctual state, and here
the fallacy becomes auspicious.
But that too can be phenomenally transcended by an indirectly determined natural method. Do the modal fallacy may be transcended by the same token by which Jesus spoke in parables and Nietzsche in aphorisms.

[peacegirl]

peace girl,

Meno, I don’t quite understand how your explanation nullifies the immutable law of greater satisfaction. You seem to be using your philosophical analysis to discuss motives. This is not about motives. It is one statement of fact ONLY! Could you be more succinct and tell me exactly where this natural does not hold? I already stated that’s this is not the pleasure principle because we do many things that are unpleasurable (like saving another human being at the risk of us dying in the process) but give us satisfaction.
--------

Philosophical analysis is supported by palaanthropological facts here.

Personally I would severely discount my pain by an extreme pleasure of saving someone's life.

Many people would do the same, but I would not call it pleasure. That's misleading.

But here is the rub, the conversion of neurological pain into psychological pleasure.

You are, once again, trying to negate this law by bringing in irrelevant factors. What motivates you to choose psychological pleasure over neurological pain may not be what someone else chooses. This doesn't disprove the "greater satisfaction" principle. It proves it. This principle cannot be denied, which is proof that man does not have free will because he can only go in one direction.

Could you be more succinct and tell me exactly where this natural does not hold?

-------------

In cases of tightly half morally encompassing duties, where the imperative to act invalidates the archaic notion of preservation of the self toward a motiveless leap towards the preservation of others. That is not based on an instinctual state

Our instinct for self-preservation may be replaced by the desire to help someone else in an emergency situation. We may act counter to our instinct in a situation that requires it. Where does this nullify anything I've said?

, and here
the fallacy becomes auspicious.
But that too can be phenomenally transcended by an indirectly determined natural method. Do the modal fallacy may be transcended by the same token by which Jesus spoke in parables and Nietzsche in aphorisms.

It's not a fallacy. That is a mistake on your part. We are compelled to choose the greater of two goods, the lesser of two evils, or a good over an evil. It is impossible to choose the lesser of two goods, the greater of two evils, or an evil over a good. You have not shown me an example where this principle fails. Looking back in history only confirms that man never had free will because his actions were necessitated by the urgency for survival during that time period. Self-preservation is the first law of nature yet there are exceptions when a dire situation calls for a person to sacrifice his well-being for the well-being of another.

[iambiguous]

]I type the word freedom here. I chose to type it here and now. No one forced me to. But: Was there ever a possibility that, 24 hours ago, matter unfolded in the universe such that I might have chosen to type another word instead?

You don't know what the possibilities were 24 hours ago. Nobody did.

You only knew what "had to happen" after it had happened.

Thank you! That’s what I was trying to explain. It’s only after a happening that it could not not have happened.

Before, during or after something happens. Before, during or after anything happens. What parts here [including human interactions] are not embedded in matter unfolding only as it ever could have in a wholly determined universe?

What can we know about something, about anything in a wholly ordered universe that we were ever free not to know? or free to know in a different way?

We have choices but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise.

Well, we make choices and then once that happens, we can't go back and unmake them. That part is certainly the case.

Hitler chose the Final Solution. That is a historical fact. But was this choice a historical fact only because he could never have not chosen it? That of course is what is at stake here. If everything the human brain as mindful matter chooses is always in sync necessarily with the laws of matter, then when folks blame Hitler for acting in an atrociously immoral manner, that too is just an inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

And when some imagine that as having appalling implications for human interactions that too is just more dominoes toppling over as nature marches on.

That does not mean we are in a fixed state where our choices are not our own, or that the choice has already been made for us using the domino example. This is an important observation because our consent has to precede any choice made.

Our consent. Our choice. And, yes, those autonomous aliens note that most of us are convinced that we are giving our consent to the choices we make.

But who perhaps is fooling themselves here about the nature of that consent, those choices? The "compatibilists" with their "psychological freedom" embedded in an ontologically determined world? Those like peacegirl who seem obsessed that no others force us to choose what nature compels us to choose? Like in not forcing us to choose others have freely chosen to do that!

Or, yes, yes, yes, it's me here. I'm just not getting what is crystal clear to others about the existential relationship between determinism, the human brain, the human mind and the choices it makes.

[Meno_]

peace girl,

Meno, I don’t quite understand how your explanation nullifies the immutable law of greater satisfaction. You seem to be using your philosophical analysis to discuss motives. This is not about motives. It is one statement of fact ONLY! Could you be more succinct and tell me exactly where this natural does not hold? I already stated that’s this is not the pleasure principle because we do many things that are unpleasurable (like saving another human being at the risk of us dying in the process) but give us satisfaction.
--------

Philosophical analysis is supported by palaanthropological facts here.

Personally I would severely discount my pain by an extreme pleasure of saving someone's life.

Many people would do the same, but I would not call it pleasure. That's misleading.

But here is the rub, the conversion of neurological pain into psychological pleasure.

You are, once again, trying to negate this law by bringing in irrelevant factors. What motivates you to choose psychological pleasure over neurological pain may not be what someone else chooses. This doesn't disprove the "greater satisfaction" principle. It proves it. This principle cannot be denied, which is proof that man does not have free will because he can only go in one direction.

Could you be more succinct and tell me exactly where this natural does not hold?

-------------

Our instinct for self-preservation may be replaced by the desire to help someone else in an emergency situation. We may act counter to our instinct in a situation that requires it. Where does this nullify anything I've said?

[quote="Meno_ wrote:, and here
the fallacy becomes auspicious.
But that too can be phenomenally transcended by an indirectly determined natural method. Do the modal fallacy may be transcended by the same token by which Jesus spoke in parables and Nietzsche in aphorisms.

It's not a fallacy. That is a mistake on your part. We are compelled to choose the greater of two goods, the lesser of two evils, or a good over an evil. It is impossible to choose the lesser of two goods, the greater of two evils, or an evil over a good. You have not shown me an example where this principle fails. Looking back in history only confirms that man never had free will because his actions were necessitated by the urgency for survival during that time period.[/quote peace girl


peace girl:
You have a knack for. revealing prima facea paradigm
The fact of choosing good over evil exactly examplifies the struggle between Chirst and the Antichrist between Jesus and Nietzsche, even though the latter washed his hands by pronouncing himself to be above it!(good and evil)

Here is a decision to be made!

These were Pontius Pilate's exact words.

[peacegirl]

peace girl,

Meno, I don’t quite understand how your explanation nullifies the immutable law of greater satisfaction. You seem to be using your philosophical analysis to discuss motives. This is not about motives. It is one statement of fact ONLY! Could you be more succinct and tell me exactly where this natural does not hold? I already stated that’s this is not the pleasure principle because we do many things that are unpleasurable (like saving another human being at the risk of us dying in the process) but give us satisfaction.
--------

Philosophical analysis is supported by palaanthropological facts here.

Personally I would severely discount my pain by an extreme pleasure of saving someone's life.

Many people would do the same, but I would not call it pleasure. That's misleading.

But here is the rub, the conversion of neurological pain into psychological pleasure.

You are, once again, trying to negate this law by bringing in irrelevant factors. What motivates you to choose psychological pleasure over neurological pain may not be what someone else chooses. This doesn't disprove the "greater satisfaction" principle. It proves it. This principle cannot be denied, which is proof that man does not have free will because he can only go in one direction.

Could you be more succinct and tell me exactly where this natural does not hold?

-------------

In cases of tightly half morally encompassing duties, where the imperative to act invalidates the archaic notion of preservation of the self toward a motiveless leap towards the preservation of others. That is not based on an instinctual state

Our instinct for self-preservation may be replaced by the desire to help someone else in an emergency situation. We may act counter to our instinct in a situation that requires it. Where does this nullify anything I've said?

, and here
the fallacy becomes auspicious.
But that too can be phenomenally transcended by an indirectly determined natural method. Do the modal fallacy may be transcended by the same token by which Jesus spoke in parables and Nietzsche in aphorisms.

It's not a fallacy. That is a mistake on your part. We are compelled to choose the greater of two goods, the lesser of two evils, or a good over an evil. It is impossible to choose the lesser of two goods, the greater of two evils, or an evil over a good. You have not shown me an example where this principle fails. Looking back in history only confirms that man never had free will because his actions were necessitated by the urgency for survival during that time period.

peace girl:
You have a knack for. revealing prima facea paradigm
The fact of choosing good over evil is exactly examplifies the struggle betseen Chirst and the Antichrist between Jesus and Nietzsche even though the latter washed his hands by pronouncing himself to be above it!(good and evil)

Here is a decision to be made!

Good and evil are relative terms although most people would consider not being shot by a sniper to be good when compared to the evil of being shot.

[iambiguous]

yeah sure, but that's compatibalism/soft-determinism... which is the failed last vestige to save freewill and responsibility from having to swallow the 'last bitter drop' (nietzsche) of the truth and surrender to amoralism.

it's what biggy has been trying to explain to you for weeks; you can't get around the problem by saying 'we can choose between our desires', because that choice, too, is just another domino (as biggy put it).

I think this comes closest to my own frame of mind here. In the manner in which I have come to understand the nature of determinism [though, sure, I may well be wrong] nothing escapes the clutches of mother nature's immutable laws.

There are our desires. And these desires propel/compel us to feel greater satisfaction about certain things. And this sense of greater satisfaction about certain things propels/compels us to choose different behaviors.

But how is this not all "as one" to mother nature? Then the crucial question becomes teleology. Is there a God behind it all? Is there as aspect of nature [going back to the existence of existence itself] that allows for something analogous to "meaning" and "purpose" in the lives we live?

Such that someone like peacegirl can speak of things like peace and prosperity and progress "in the future" as though mere mortals here and now can actually pin them down? Or in fact have any actual freedom here at all in effectuating these changes?

Though I am the first to admit that human autonomy may well be applicable here. But that however is when I introduce dasein, conflicting goods and political economy into the is/ought world.

So, naturally, most folks are likely reject my frame of mind. I'm either suggesting that nothing that we think, feel, say or do, is not "beyond our control"; or I'm suggesting that even if we have some control, "I" in the is/ought world is largely an "existential contraption".

Unless of course I'm wrong. And, come on, given the gap between what I think I know here and now and all that can be known, what are odds that I am actually right?!

I merely suggest in turn that this is applicable to others here too: the objectivists, the nihilists, the naturists, the deontologists, the Kids, the serious philosophers, the ranters and the ravers...everybody.

[peacegirl]

]I type the word freedom here. I chose to type it here and now. No one forced me to. But: Was there ever a possibility that, 24 hours ago, matter unfolded in the universe such that I might have chosen to type another word instead?

You don't know what the possibilities were 24 hours ago. Nobody did.

You only knew what "had to happen" after it had happened.

Thank you! That’s what I was trying to explain. It’s only after a happening that it could not not have happened.

Before, during or after something happens. Before, during or after anything happens. What parts here [including human interactions] are not embedded in matter unfolding only as it ever could have in a wholly determined universe?

They are embedded, but they are contingent on antecedent events. IOW, the choice we make cannot be dictated until the choice is made. That would be a modal fallacy.

What can we know about something, about anything in a wholly ordered universe that we were ever free not to know? or free to know in a different way?

What we know and what we don't yet know is perfectly ordered. We were never free not to know or to know in a different way because there was no other way it could have been in a wholly determined universe.

We have choices but once a choice is made it could not have been otherwise.

Well, we make choices and then once that happens, we can't go back and unmake them. That part is certainly the case.

Hitler chose the Final Solution. That is a historical fact. But was this choice a historical fact only because he could never have not chosen it? That of course is what is at stake here. If everything the human brain as mindful matter chooses is always in sync necessarily with the laws of matter, then when folks blame Hitler for acting in an atrociously immoral manner, that too is just an inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.

And when some imagine that as having appalling implications for human interactions that too is just more dominoes toppling over as nature marches on.

I don't like the domino example because we do get to choose (albeit unfreely) dominoes don't.

That does not mean we are in a fixed state where our choices are not our own, or that the choice has already been made for us using the domino example. This is an important observation because our consent has to precede any choice made.

Our consent. Our choice. And, yes, those autonomous aliens note that most of us are convinced that we are giving our consent to the choices we make.

We are giving consent to the choices we make.

But who perhaps is fooling themselves here about the nature of that consent, those choices? The "compatibilists" with their "psychological freedom" embedded in an ontologically determined world? Those like peacegirl who seem obsessed that no others force us to choose what nature compels us to choose? Like in not forcing us to choose others have freely chosen to do that!

I'm not obsessed iambiguous. Nature does not prescribe behavior, which implies that we must choose what it dictates. Nature is not a dictator.

Or, yes, yes, yes, it's me here. I'm just not getting what is crystal clear to others about the existential relationship between determinism, the human brain, the human mind and the choices it makes.

You're making it more difficult than it actually is.

[Meno_]

"Good and evil are relative terms although most people would consider not being shot by a sniper to be good when compared to the evil of being shot."


Ok good and evil are relative nominally, but, as far as their connexion to how to choose between them demands more dynamic involvement with the sources and the outcome of determined effect of the outcome of the choice, and I think a lot of confusion may arise by the appearant rather then the structural understanding. Is this why sometimes we are condemned to be fated to make the wrong choices?

[promethean75]

what we are now experiencing is a derridaian state of the aporetic, an impasse generated from an unusual bewitchment of language... when language is forced out of its ordinary environment into the philosophical landscape. chances are, all of you are meaning the same thing... but using the signifiers (words) differently. i think we should take a break from this discussion for a while, collect our marbles, and come back to it later, refreshed and renewed, ready to enter again into the same linguistic entanglements.....

[iambiguous]

Right, but notwithstanding yet more beating around the bush, what is your subjective point of view concerning the obligations one has to a game he/she started?

What does it mean to "beat around the bush" with regard to questions this problematic?

What "point" do you expect someone to get to?

In fact, my whole point here is that both the beating and the bush are profoundly problematic.

Obligations?!

I'm suppose to actually know that?! When, over and over and over again, I situate discussions like this in the gap between what I think I know here and now and all that can be known.

Until you come closer to understanding that as I do, it is not likely that I will ever stop beating around your own rendition of the bush here.

Forget X and Y. Forget electrons. Bring this assessment down to earth by describing what you construe to be cause and effect with respect to human interactions.

X and Y and electrons is bringing it down to earth. How much closer to earth can I get than electrons?

Exhibit an example that you think is down to earth and then I will shoehorn it into probable outcomes.

Well, the one I tend to focus on is abortion. It's literally a life and death issue that is well known to almost everyone.

Here there is cause and effect/correlation in the either/or world: life on earth---> human biology---> sex---> unwanted pregnancy---> abortion.

Whereas cause and effect in the is/ought world is [in my view] predicated more on what I construe to be existential contraptions. And they are often considerably more subjective/subjunctive.

But: From my way of thinking, in a wholly determined world, this distinction is essentially an illusion.

But if you cannot grasp the distinction I do make here between the either/or and the is/ought worlds given some measure of human autonomy, we need to spend more time pursuing that. On another thread perhaps?

Rewind the universe 24 hours and assess whether today's news headlines might have been different in a wholly determined universe.

The chance it would unfold the same is unfathomable.

Here and now I basically agree. Why? Becasue scientists/philosophers have yet to fathom the extent to which human autonomy is in fact an aspect of human interactions.

So, until they do fathom it, we have to take these discussions [over and again] into realm that encompasses [more or less] a world of words.

It's just that matter evolving into life

Wrong. Life cannot come from nonlife. Something from nothing is absurd.

Right, like beyond the "world of words" that is bursting at the seams with all the assumptions you make here, you can actually know this!!

But as I recall on another thread I asked you [at least I think it was you] to take these suppositions to the hard guys delving into these relationships in the hard sciences. I believe you noted that you would attempt this and get back to me.

Yes, I make the assumption that mindless matter evolved into mindful matter here on earth because both actually do exist side by side. And that's one possible explanation. Another is God.

on Earth evolving into human brains evolving into self-conscious minds is able to concoct and then sustain the illusion of free will.

Freewill can only be realized in the context of things that are not free.

And how in a wholly determined universe is anything at all free? Instead [given my own assumptions] we have mindless matter on earth evolving into mindful matter able to in fact "choose" things that nature compels them to. But: are our choices really any different [for all practical purposes] from the choices made by animals further down the evolutionary chain? They choose almost entirely by "instinct". Our species however has encountered all manner of historical, cultural and experiential variables that come into play. The part where genes intertwine with memes.

How then is this to be understood?

Still: We can speculate about all of this until we are blue in the face. But what can we actually demonstrate is in fact true such that all rational men and women are obligated to believe it.

The pertinent question is what can be demonstrated to irrational men and women such that they are obligated to believe it? Rational men and women are not the problem

Or the pertinent question might be that, if rational and irrational beliefs are all subsumed in the fact that beliefs themselves are wholly determined, what does it really mean to make this distinction at all?

How does one demonstrate red to a blind man such that he is obligated to believe it?

And this is situated in the either/or world. One is blind or one is not blind. Something is construed as a legitimate demonstration here or it is not. Red might be conveyed to blind person as associated with heat or passion, blue with coolness and calm. The communication is always either more or less effective. But: in a wholly determined universe it is what it is. Period. It could never have been other than that.

Going all the way back to the explanation for existence itself.

Existence itself doesn't exist. Circular argument. Things exist in a context and existence has no context to exist in, but is essentially a synonym for relationship, which arises spontaneously when one thing is perceived to be different from another thing even though they are codependent and in fact the same thing.

Again: How on earth can you ever hope to demonstrate that this is in fact true for all rational/logical folks beyond merely asserting that it is something that you believe is true here and now "in your head"?