Hey Magnus, how about instead of arguing over minor Semantic discrepancies, you actually step into the thread and argue your own beliefs and positions about Determinism, HOW determinations are made, whether you have Free-Will or Choice or Not? Let’s see how you match up against peacegirl?
True in a way; animals don’t fret over which choice to make. They just move according to their instincts.
No one.
Nature doesn’t change. Our understanding of nature changes, which alters how we react. We are not talking about grizzly bears. We are talking about HUMAN nature.
Violence occurs when we feel justified to retaliate against a wrong done to us. This knowledge removes the conditions that lead to justifiable retaliation.
You’ve got it all wrong, but I understand your skepticism. I’m sorry if you refuse to even hear what he has to say. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
I am not trying to remove your choice. It’s still yours, and it will always be yours, even in this brave new world of which I speak.
This is not Crab-in-the-pot syndrome. I’m upfront with you. Where am I sneaking something in without your knowledge?
It is the better choice to know the truth. There is nothing to fear; there is only lots to gain by understanding this truth. You are believing that determinism is taking away something from you. It’s not. I hope you don’t give up for your sake, not mine.
Why do you keep saying this? Most religions preach that we have free will. 
How about you go back and continue where we left instead of pretending that we never had a conversation?
As for semantic differences, they are far from minor.
With or without quotes, the phrase “the right to bear arms” has a concept attached to it. The question is what kind of concept. You’re claiming that the attached concept is that of a concept. I am saying that it is not.
If “the right to bear arms” is understood to mean “the freedom to bear arms”, then no, it is not a concept. Freedom is not a concept. Freedom refers to what can happen ( i.e. what will happen under certain circumstances. ) I have the freedom to jump. That means that I can jump. That, in turn, means that I will jump under certain conditions ( e.g. if I decide to jump. ) That’s not a concept. There’s a huge difference between freedom and the concept of freedom. It’s the same exact difference as the one between “tree” and “the concept of tree”. A concept is something that exists inside minds. Concepts are used to construct propositions such as beliefs. You can’t use freedom to construct propositions, can you? Sure, you can use the word “freedom” to construct linguistic representations of propositions, known as statements, but the word “freedom” is not a concept ( it’s a word ) and statements aren’t propositions ( they are linguistic entities. ) So what is it that you can actually use? You can use the concept of freedom – which is not freedom itself. Freedom, the word “freedom” and the concept of freedom – three different things.
“What someone should do” is not a reference to a belief. It’s a reference to the action that will lead to the consequences that are more preferable to the person in question than the consequences of all other actions that the person can perform at the time. Actions aren’t beliefs, aren’t they?
In the case of the word “right”, when understood to mean “the freedom that ought to be granted”, it’s a reference to the freedom that when granted leads to the most preferable consequences for the society as a whole. And freedom is not a belief, right? You said it to yourself – it’s a concept. Except that it’s not a concept either.
The main issue is your claim that “morality is a creation of the living”. You also said that morality, though subjective, can be made to be more objective by appealing to authority, and even better, to consensus. Your claims are not necessarily wrong – it depends on how you’re defining your terms – but they are likely to create confusion.
Magnus,
I thought you were using the pun…. The right to the arms of a bear (an animal).
The right to bear arms!!!
I guess you weren’t. While what you’re doing is of some philosophic interest. I thought the entendre had more philosophic value.
Situations where there is conflict can be solved without war and crime. This is not built into the human psyche where there is no way out. So yes, peace can prevail. Major conflicts can be eliminated permanently.
They cannot be solved by removing humanity’s Free-Will.
That only ensures that they continue on forever.
This is where we left off btw:
(Notice how you didn’t answer my question??)
Why should anyone answer your questions if they do not perceive them as being relevant? You have to prove their relevance, otherwise your questions will likely be ignored. That’s how things work. Instead, you nag and you accuse. And when you nag and accuse, you lose reputation points; you make it less likely for other people to start a conversation with you.
This sums up this thread.
(Notice how you didn’t answer my question??)
You can keep dodging all you like Magnus, it hurts you worse than me.
There you go again.
Here’s another relevant response of mine, posted very early in this thread ( page 3, it’s page 30 right now. )
His response was the standard one, “You responded to my question with a question of yours! Why don’t you just answer my question without asking questions!? Why are you evading it!? What are you afraid of?”
It’s stupidity par excellence.
So the very first statement of your argument is a Red Herring fallacy?
Don’t you see why you shouldn’t be taken seriously?
Where have I ever demonstrated an incorrect use of Causality? Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Determinism is people’s subjective interpretation of Causality. It’s not objective. Because if it were objective, then objects would need to have a ‘causal’ ability or some type of intentionality. Mass religious types almost always believe and have faith in precisely this belief—that, non-living, non-organic objects, have ‘intentionality’. Or that a non-living thing, a rock, a droplet of water, a gust of wind, are or have ‘intent’. Because they (all objects) are, mystically, magically, part of God’s Divine Will.
This is a shortcut. It doesn’t explain Causality. It doesn’t explain Determinism. It doesn’t even begin to show how one object ‘causes’ an event. It doesn’t even begin to show how a person subjectively ‘interprets’ cause as intentionality. Except in the largest sense, that, “God did it”.
I presume you’re smarter than this, over-simplistic mythological and theological basis for scientific or empirical phenomena.
Remember that I asked you how THAT is determined. You can continue to dodge the question at your leisure.
It just means that I’ll answer for you, as I’ve already begun to do.
Peacegirl had to be answered for too…
Feel free to prove that.
“An incorrect use of Causality”. I have no idea what that means. If you’re talking about an incorrect use of the word causality, I am not sure why you’re talking about that.
I guess you’ll be waiting for a loooooooong time. Waiting for Godot, perhaps?
In many ways, you’re quite similar to iambiguous. Both of you use that manipulative tactic where you accuse the other side of evading your questions when in reality they are merely trying to understand them and / or their relevance. But it seems like he has stopped doing that – on this forum at least – whereas you’re still proudly practicing it.
You’re the one who accused me of “meaning something other than what cause means”, implying that you know (you don’t).
Did I not just explain the connection between Determinism and Cause/Causality, just now?
You ask stupid questions, fellow.
Let me quote you.
What does this tell us? it tells us that you use the words “cause” and “determine” in two different ways.
Okay Magnus, I’ll go one step further, dragging you by your pigtails through the mud if I have to. We’ll get there, with or with you.
The Subjective mind must, everybody individually, must ‘square’ their self with the objective world/universe. You need to understand how your brain is, or is not, a causal agency or ‘force’ the same way an inanimate, non-living object is. Thus, biology either has the same force as every object, or some type of unique force that physical objects do not. Maybe this is an absolute division. Maybe it’s gradient. But either way, a Qualification is required, to divide how an organic entity “has Will” but physical objects do not.
And because of this, Organisms have a ‘Will’, a “willpower”, a unique energy or “life-force” that physical objects do not.
Thus there is, at least, a difference of Intent.
And this difference of intent, is implied directly by and to “Determinism”. Without this Intent, this organic Will(power), there is no “Determinism”. There is no “subjective interpretation” of Causality, of “Objective” forces or energies.
Do you think Determinists themselves use the word this way?