The point in this exchange that one of us keeps missing.
People cannot freely choose to learn that it isn’t helpful. In other words, what any particular individual either learns or does not learn here is necessarily included in the part about everything – everything – being determined.
But it could never have not wanted to give us greater satisfaction. Everything being determined leaves absolutely nothing out regarding anything that we think, feel, say or do. Perceived options would seem to be embedded in but the illusion of human autonomy.
Note to others:
Anyone here also not confused by the points she makes? I am myself compelled by the laws of matter [in a determined universe] to be confused by them, but somehow she makes it appear [to me] as though I am still responsible for being confused.
That, in other words, I could somehow choose of my own volition to think them through again and not be confused.
Instead, around and around we go:
Always the emphasis on choosing what we do. The fact of it as witnessed by the autonomous aliens. And not the fact that from their point of view we are really just “choosing” to do what we do.
And, in a determined universe, I do choose here. But only what I was ever going to choose. Only what I was ever able to choose. Whereas in an universe with some measure of human autonomy, the things we choose are [in my view] largely existential contraptions. Different things bring different people joy. Different people profit by or are killed in war. Wealth and poverty are intertwined in our global economy. Some are not able to choose health because they literally cannot afford to.
But I didn’t freely choose to read the book either the first time or the second. Clarification here [to me] is just another of nature’s dominoes. I didn’t read the book the second time and, of my own volition, garner new insights. These new insights were always going to be perceived by me the second time around.
But how are the things that I want not also inherently embedded in the fact that everything is determined? If in fact they are.
This sort of example makes a distinction that I am unable to grasp in a determined universe.
On the one hand, genetically, your body is allergic to red apples. That is clearly embedded in biological imperatives. It’s not like one day you decided to be allergic to them.
But the fact that you chose to eat one, discovered that you are allergic, and then chose not to eat them again is no less a sequence that is determined. The biological imperatives are entirely intertwined in everything that we choose. In that everything that we choose is wholly determined. It’s just that psycholoically we are hard-wired to make this distinction in the first place.
Biologically our greater satisfaction revolves around not eating red apples. But in choosing to eat or not eat them that is not less determined. In fact, for some, a greater satisfaction can revolve around choosing to die. So, they choose to eat a ton of red apples hoping that this kills them. But this too is no less determined.
But only to the extent it can be demonstrated that we do in fact live in a wholly determined universe.
So you are compelled to post this indicating one point of view, and I am compelled to read it reacting from a different point of view. Both choices reflecting that which our brains construe to be a “greater satisfaction” for each of us.
That’s not the point for me. The need to scratch an itch is embedded in the fact that biologically this happens to be what the evolution of life on earth has led to. Who actually knows what the first creature was who felt an itch. But the human brain is able to ponder it on a level that no other creature can. But: in pondering it [and scratching it] is there any capacity on the part of “I” to do so freely?
Does a mosquito freely choose to bite Jim prompting him to freely choose to scratch it? If, in a universe where everything is determined, how are these events the same or different. In particular, given that whatever the mosquito and Jim do they were always only going to do it.
I still recall the the time in Vietnam when I was retuning to our MACV from the B34 green berets camp and ran into a group of VC and/or NVA soldiers. I was just as few feet from them hiding behind a log when I had the mother of all itches. But all I could do was lie there motionless until they left. The urge to scratch became almost unbearable. But I just endured it given the possible consequences.
So, here, what was I freely in control of and what was only going to unfold as it ever could?
How is an assessment of this sort…
…relevant to my experience above?
Then back to this:
What I’m arguing is true, but…not quite. I think that you are compelled to help me understand the word autonomy in a wholly determined universe. Just as I am compelled to understand [react to] your help as I do.
But I still seem to be going about it the wrong way. I am not reacting to autonomy and free will as you do. And [apparently] it is more reasonable that I react to them as you do rather than that you react to them as I do.
Again, citing an example…
But how [here] are the laws of nature in compelling me to think, feel, say and do the things I do, not to be construed in turn as forcing me to do them?
Here and now, I think of that in this manner…
I was always going to pull the trigger. Period. There is no getting around the fact that, in a determined universe, the trigger would be pulled by me. We can go on and on in discussing things like satisfaction and justification and circumstances and motivation and intention, but…but the trigger was never not going to be pulled by me.
Only I am not at all convinced that the terminology used in my description comports with what is in fact true. I’m still no less inclined – intuitively? – to believe that human autonomy is a factor in the things that I think, feel, say and do. And, if that is the case, the crucial distinction I then make is between [u][b]I[/u][/b] in the either/or world and “i” in the is/ought world.
It’s missing because you don’t yet understand why blame is preventing the very thing that it is purporting to do.
True. The people who understand this discovery will unfreely choose to learn that it isn’t useful.
We have options that we consider on a daily basis, and we can do things autonomously and not have free will. This is just more of the same.
No iambiguous, some people won’t understand what I’m talking about. You may be one. I’m not blaming you for being confused.
I never said you could choose of your own volition to not be confused. If you’re confused it’s not of your own volition whatsoever. You can’t tell yourself to understand if you don’t. Volition only means you did the choosing. I went to the party of my own volition (of my own free will), nobody forced me to go.
There is nothing contradictory here.
You say nothing changes but it changes dramatically. Reality unfolds in the only way possible, but the trajectory changes when the environment changes, all in accordance and in sync with natural law, that is, if people understand the principles of this law and bring this knowledge to light. If not, then that also is according to the laws of nature. But, you need to remember that people move in the most satisfying direction, not in the least. When they learn there is a better way to control behavior to where no one will ever want to hurt another with a first blow, they will, by definition, want to create this kind of world if it is, in fact, capable of being created.
Choosing is not equivalent to autonomy, the way you are defining it. I may choose in the direction of greater satisfaction to be very dependent. I may choose to be independent because I find this more satisfying. But in terms of autonomy being defined as having free will, we don’t have this kind of autonomy.
That is true, but you did have and still have a choice every moment of time. The choice you make is the choice you could never not have made, but we don’t know what choice that will be until you make it.
Human autonomy or free will does not exist. It’s an existential contraption because people believe they have free choice when no one has the kind of autonomy where they could choose otherwise.
It was not of your own volition or free will. I tried to clarify the term “volition” to make you see that it is only a colloquial usage. It doesn’t mean you actually have this free will or volition.
The things you want ARE inherently embedded in the things you will ultimately choose in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Correct.
I don’t know if you understood the excerpt. The guy was trying to prove that he could move in the direction of dissatisfaction by eating the red apple that he was extremely allergic to, but in this example his choice to eat the red apple gave him greater satisfaction to prove his point. But his example failed the test. The conditions under which he would have normally eaten the yellow apple were changed by his desire to prove that he was not moving toward satisfaction when, in fact, he was.
Correct.
You don’t do anything freely as in “free will.”
Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always like an
inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’
They are always going to do it, but there is a difference between a mosquito biting Jim (which doesn’t involve choosing) and Jim’s scratching it, which also doesn’t involve choosing to scratch the itch. He doesn’t think should I scratch or not scratch. He just scratches because he’s uncomfortable. He is moving from a dissatisfying position (itching) to a more satisfying position. Not all movements require contemplation yet still are in the direction of satisfaction. Mosquitoes don’t think about what they’re doing, they’re just following their nature.
It unfolded the way it could only have unfolded. You had an itch but you didn’t want to be seen, so you held back from scratching in an effort to be quiet, which gave you greater satisfaction than to be found out. In other words, it was the lesser of two evils (to endure the itch) than to be caught. It’s amazing what we can endure when the alternative is even worse.
I guess the word autonomy can be thought of in different ways. That’s why we have different definitions for the same word. If you’re using autonomy to mean free will, we don’t have autonomy just like we don’t have free will. It’s just a psychological thought process that makes us think we have it because it feels that we can choose one option or another with the same amount of compulsion.
I have a choice to help you or not help you. At this moment I choose, in the direction of greater satisfaction, to help you, but I could change my mind if different reasons for not helping you come into play. The choice is still mine to make, and whatever that choice turns out to be, it is the choice had to be. If B (not helping you was an impossible choice under these circumstances), I was not free to choose A (helping you). But this only becomes an impossible choice after the choice is made, not before. Then you can say it was wholly determined. No one knows all of the factors that goes into a prediction as to how someone is going to react, but accurate prediction is not necessary to prove that will is not free.
According to my frame of mind, I have no way to ascertain this definitively. I merely make the assumption that in a wholly determined universe [as “I” understand it here and now], every thought, feeling, utterance and behavior on our part was/is/will be only what they could/can/will ever have been. And that would certainly include this exchange.
This computer technology that permits is to have this discussion doesn’t consciously choose to sustain it. It’s a piece of technology that was programed by someone consciously to sustain it. But: Was the programmer’s choice/“choice” not just a manifestation of nature having evolved into life having evolved into human brains that are in turn no less in sync with the laws of matter?
The mystery here is always matter as mind as matter. And how the dots are connected between that and the explanation for existence itself. Which, admittedly, I certainly have no capacity to grasp.
Thus:
How is this then “for all practical purposes” not you and I going around and around in circles? Up to this point in the exchange. By nature’s design though, not because of anything that we freely choose to do.
There you go again [from my frame of mind], asking me why I keep repeating something that I was never free to not repeat in the first place. I don’t let you move to chapter two because I was [again, up to this point in the exchange] never able to let you.
But: Who knows what nature has in store for the future of this exchange.
But: whatever that is it won’t be because of anything that you and I choose autonomously to do. Right?
Unless, of course, we really do have some measure of autonomy here. And I’m certainly willing to speculate that this is in fact the case. But how do I determine that beyond all doubt?
Misuse. Hurt. Choose. Believe. See. Excuse.
How are these not “action” words that you are compelled in a determined universe to put in this order? You typing them, me reading and reacting to them. Only as it ever could have been.
Of course of course not. And now we’re stuck again. But only because here and now we were never able not to be stuck. We can only hope that nature unfolds such that we are no longer stuck. Though even that will have nothing to do with anything that we freely choose to make us unstuck.
The circle again. The computer doesn’t consciously choose to sustain this thread, but, consciously, we do. But, as with the computer, we remain wholly in sync with the laws of nature.
And nature applauds us for choosing what she compels us to choose. Only nature here is embedded in the profoundest mystery of all: teleology.
Is there a “purpose” behind the laws of matter unfolding only as they ever can? Which most “choose” to call God?
Damned if I know.
The circle on steroids? They can only understand what they are compelled to understand but their understanding is wrong because it is not in snyc with what you were compelled to understand.
This is the part that [over and over again] I keep missing. You are pointing out something very profound here that keeps going over my head; or I am reacting to it in even more profoundly…and that keeps going over yours. The moves are always going to be what they could only ever have been, but unlike with the chess pieces themselves, I am conscious of having made them. Even more problematically, “I” am then able to delude myself into thinking that the moves were all entirely of my own volition.
Thus when we bring this down to earth…
You insist…
And I’m back to those autonomous aliens noting the history of our species unfolding and marveling at how most of us are able to convince ourselves that our own part in it was more or less thought through and acted out autonomously. Meanwhile “in reality” Gandhi and all of those folks around him were intertwined in the historical necessity of matter unfolding only as it ever could have down on earth.
Again: Entirely per nature’s design?
And yet over and again [from my frame of mind] your frame of mind seems to suggest that in not “choosing” to understand all of this as you do, I am the problem here.
This part…
Note to nature:
Help me to understand this as she does. Either that or help her to understand this as I do. Or, rather, as “I” “think” “I” “do” “here and now”.
No, it sounds like interactions in their own autonomous world. Down on earth bosses go about the business of being bosses autonomically, all the while convinced that they are freely choosing to do what they have come to think is the right thing [or the profitable thing] to do. Their entirely illusory freedom.
Then we [continue] to understand determinism in different ways. Fortunately, we can both note that [up to now] we were never really free to understand it in the same way. Instead, we “chose” to understand it in conflicting ways.
To wit:
Here it’s like we are circling the circle that we are going around and around in itself. You say “right” as though that explains…what exactly? It is certainly beyond my grasping. While never able not to be so.
Yes, the autonomous aliens note that the choices we make in our wholly determined segment of the universe do make our lives more or less better, prosperous and peaceful. But then they note that this has absolutely nothing to do with choices freely made. Instead, what we chose was in fact fated by the laws of nature.
Why? Because the evolution of matter on earth has culminated in human brains able to delude “I” into thinking it has some measure of autonomous control over these desires and feelings of well-being.
But only to the extent that matter unfolding into the future allows for this. The thief [here and now or there and then] is literally just along for the ride. Preferences are just more dominoes toppling over in the brains of those convinced that they are really choosing freely here. But that too is entirely of nature’s design.
We just don’t why that is the case if that is the case.
So, out in the world that we live in here and now, the struggle between those inclined toward captialism as the font of greater satisfaction, and those inclined toward socialism, reflects what exactly?
If all are embedded in a future that will unfold only as it ever could unfold, what does it really mean to speak of satisfaction when the sense of satisfaction embedded in conflicting goods here was only ever going to be what it was too?
Until we get to the actual existential implications of this when we choose our thoughts, feelings, utterances and behaviors. In my rendition everything – including the choices themselves – is wholly determined.
But I cannot even wholly determine if that itself is true. Then…
But you and I and all the rest of us here are inherently at one with this unfolding environment which is nature unfolding necessarily into a future that can only ever be given that time itself is but another manifestation of the laws of matter.
Nothing escapes it. Nothing transcends it.
No, to me, embedded suggests this: that “the say we have”, “the choices we make”, “the consent we give” is inherently, necessarily in sync with nature unfolding into the only future the laws of matter permit. Then we can get into a squabble over whether or not this is “fatalistic”.
Fatalism: “the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable.”
Well, if the laws of nature propel all matter into a future that is necessarily in sync with these laws, and our brain is just another manifestation of this matter, how are our choices then not fated to be what they must be?
The factors that procede our choice make us choose what we do. So how is our permission to do something not but one of those factors in turn?
But we can’t not say that if in fact we do say that, right? Again, it would seem [to me] that in a wholly determined universe all of the factors in our brain and all of the factors out in the world come together to compel us to choose only that which we are “fated” to choose by the laws of matter.
I truly do appreciate your attempts to make me understand this, but it makes no sense to me given the manner in which I am trying to convey to you the manner in which I think of a wholly determined universe.
I don’t think she is saying that, at least not regarding learning to no longer blame.
Let’s say blame leads to more pain. Part of why we blame is to make things better. We can’t help but think that.
However, we might learn - be changed - by experience, over time, unfreely, to no longer blame, as some people already have.
That is a direction things might inevitably take. Bringing this up and communicating this would be one of the causes leadning to other people, unfreely, realizing this, especially when coupled with their experiences.
Determinism does not mean that organisms cannot learn or change. It simply means that their changing is determined.
For edification perhaps for the self, as opposed to others, there is merit to asking the question, as to how to makes sense out of the question, the statement:
How do determined acts result in ideas which induce self referential ideas of responsibility, through compatible epochs of free will?
Logically this apparent paradox is solvable by the inclusiveness of both : by the use of both: the rhetorical and the structural continuum as partial differentiated constructions. Structural and functional meaning evolves in conjunction as a result.
Peace Girl, a while ago I retracted my initial reactions, on realizing Your solution based upon the first two of Your suggestions, because I could not yet realize its non rhetorical structural signifiers, in addition struggling with clarity. I think I’m getting nearer, yet not yet in an ideal position regarding the same clarity. But its a step forward., worth noting.
Thank you for trying to clarify to iambiguous what I was saying. I cannot seem to make progress. I have said countless times that everything we do, say, and feel are embedded and in sync with the unfolding of natural law. That being said, it certainly doesn’t mean that we throw up our hands and say, what will be will be. Would anyone allow a child to crawl into the street and say it’s already been fate ordained to let the child get hit by a car and die? The agent, the “I”, the self (whatever you want to call it) is what we call the responsible party, not in a moral accusatory way, but in a way that assigns the responsibility for an action to the person who caused said action. If a policeman pulled the trigger and killed someone (for whatever reason), then he was responsible for pulling the trigger. This is not about right or wrong. It’s just about establishing ownership. I can’t go further if people tell me that the cop didn’t shoot that person; it was his synapses that made him do it, or that determinism means we cannot change the future due to new ways of thinking (that are also part of the causal chain). We know that once something is done it couldn’t have been otherwise, but before an action takes place, we have a choice, although it’s not a free one because we are compelled to choose the most preferable option that is available to us at any given moment. This is an invariable law.
I want to clarify that we do not have free will of any kind. But this does not mean we can’t use the term “free” as long as it’s qualified to mean “I did something of my own free will or desire.” The author uses this phrase, I was compelled, of my own free will…throughout the book. This is not a contradiction if you understand the meaning of the terms. Being able to act on one’s own desire is often thought of as having free will, especially among libertarians. But how can will be free when we can only go in one direction? We cannot choose what we believe is worse when a better alternative is available. What you may find preferable may not be what someone else finds preferable due to the fact that a juxtaposition of difference in each case create alternatives that affect choice.
Freedom is another word, admittedly, however the word has two derivatives:
The first is, the dialectically relevant , rehardless of the developmental schema relating to time and space.it has been reified as a human and social right. The second done has been drastically realized as a pragmatic propositional value, and yet still relatively connected , at least tengentially to the common sense interpretation of what freedom and free will imply.
The very least developmental , structural and functional connection. , entailing the very general sense of social constructive standards of the self relating to its social objects and objectives , is within the the scope of reductionism, whether be phenomenological or eidectuc.
As space and time evolve, the ground of structural fidelity this out as it were, into less permeable and transparent structural basis.
To use common sense describes by rhetoric , does lead into less cohesive way to avoid paradoxical interpretatiions.
This is where we are today, and the political reality is using this , to create a faux foundation .
This thinning foundation. given rise to less continuous, apparently less continuum between such notions as freedom , will, and responsibility.
As a result the functional derivitive will become questionable, resulting of question reduced to inarguably notions.
From my frame of mind [which, admittedly, may well be wrong], it’s not what she is saying in a wholly determined universe that really matters. Instead, it is whether or not she was ever free to say something else instead. Just as it is not how I react to what she says that matters. Instead, it is whether I was ever really free to react in a manner other than I did.
This going all the way back to whatever propels/compels matter – all matter including the human brain/mind – to unfold only as it must given those ubiquitous “laws of matter”.
In other words, how do we fully explain the relationship between the brain and the mind? And then, for the faithful, the soul.
Again, imagine a hypothetical universe in which aliens who reside in an autonomous zone are observing us on Earth — a planet embedded in a wholly determined zone. They note this exchange in which we discuss things like blame. But what they observe are thoughts and feelings and utterances and behaviors that were only ever going to unfold as they do. In other words, from my way of thinking, as though here on Earth we are all just the equivalent of Nature’s dominoes toppling over onto each other. Yet they note in turn how the evolution of matter on Earth into life into human brains has created a matter actually able to convince itself that blame is embedded in what we were compelled to call “free will”. But that’s just a psychological illusion inherently, necessarily embedded in an ontologically determined reality. At least on our planet.
Whether we learn or not, whether we change or not…what on earth does it mean [for all practical purposes] to speak of this as unfolding “unfreely”?
It makes sense to you and to her and to others in a way that I simply don’t get. But she makes it appear to me that I could get it if only I’d “come around” to her way of thinking. Meanwhile she is acknowledging [or so it seems to me] that there is no way in which I was ever free to come around.
I’m clearly missing something here that somehow I am able to not miss. But how exactly would I go about that in a wholly determined universe?
Might inevitably take? Okay, how is that communicated by mere mortals to Mother Nature? The entity that seemingly commands all matter to unfold per her “laws”?
Isn’t that a powerful reason why mere mortals invent Gods? That way the dots can be connected – connected teleologically – between Mother Nature and a “meaning”, a “purpose” behind existence itself.
Only for all practical purposes in a determined universe we could never have not invented the Gods.
Yeah, and [for me] that is exactly what the autonomous aliens are telling themselves. They note changes that were never able not to be on planet Earth.
Meanwhile, they report back to their superiors on the home planet and they are judged as to how accurate their assessment is. And then blamed for the parts they get wrong. Why? Because they actually were free [up to a point] to not get it wrong.
And here is where I then switch gears from things able to be gotten right or wrong in the either/or world, and things only able to be judged as right or wrong in the is/ought world.
How does “everything” here not include a choice to either throw up or not throw up our hands?
Hell, in this world there are those who would actually choose to throw the baby into the street themselves. Watch enough “true crime” docs and there is almost nothing that flesh and blood human beings won’t do to sustain what they have come to construe as in their own best interest.
But: Have they come to construe this freely of their own volition? How is that determined beyond all doubt?
If nothing else, I take exception to the manner in which you present your argument here as an objectivist. As though regarding a question this philosophically baffling, you have already pinned it down.
Acknowledging in turn that you could never have not convinced yourself that you have pinned it all down.
I’m more than willing to concede that even in accepting that we do possess some measure of autonomy, there is almost no chance that what I think is the case here is wholly in sync with an actual understanding of existence itself.
We are responsible in that the choices we make precipitate consequences. I once walked around a corner, spooked a dog, and the dog ran into the street and was hit by [of all things] an MTA bus! It died.
Now, I’m responsible for its death though few would insist that I am in turn morally culpable.
But: In a wholly determined unvierse, what aspect of this incident was it ever really possible for me to freely change?
Yes, we choose things and there are consequences. But are we ever really free to not chose them?
Same with the incident with the policeman. Were the interactions of matter unfolding in his brain responsible for the shooting? Was he ever able to effectively control those interactions? How do these relationships “work” for all practical purposes? And here neurologists and others are attempting – using the scientific method – to establish that. Materially, phenomenologically, existentially.
But it seems [to me] that you are suggesting that only if their findings [based on empirical evidence gathered and then collated experimently] come into sync with your already established conclusions [deductions, intellectual contraptions] will they be right.
In my view, this is far more a psychological contraption that you concocted allowing you to imagine a future in which human interactions are more in sync with behaviors [re conflicting goods] that appeal to you as “right” and “just”.
And this allows for the sort “comfort and consolation” that comes with at least being able to imagine a more “progressive” future for our species.
Only, from my way of thinking, given a wholly determined universe, you were never able not to think this.
I understand that there are many interpretations of the word free [will]. My only interest is sharing what I know to be true, ( ie., that we are compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction than what the previous position offered). If we are compelled to choose only one alternative because the other was never a possibility once the choice was made, we could not have chosen otherwise. The definition I gave is accurate, and it IS why we don’t have free will and never did have free will since civilization began. Everything developed just the way it had to, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make huge leaps in progress.
There’s nothing more I can share with you because you will keep saying I could not not have said that. You keep circling around never wanting to hear any of the author’s proof. And yes, you could never not have answered me the way you did. We will continue to go in circles, so it’s not worth my time.
If this is how you are actually inclined to view the points I raise above, then, sure, by all means, move on.
From my frame of mind, however, you are an objectivist. It’s not what you believe is true that matters here nearly as much as that you believe it. Wholeheartedly. With nary a reservation. The whole package.
It is this part that allows you [psychologically] to anchor “I” to a font [an intellectual contraption] that enables you to, among other things, imagine a future in which mankind “progresses” to your own rendition “peace and prosperity”.
As to whether or not either one of us did in fact possess any autonomy in sustaining the exchange, how on earth would I know?
“I” am no less “fractured and fragmented” here as I am in probing human interactions in the is/ought world. There is simply far too much that I don’t know about existence, to ever lay claim to an argument such as yours.
And [in my view] it is precisely this frame of mind that you wish to avoid at all cost.
You just muddied the waters on every point, bringing in all sorts of stuff and not interacting with the ideas I presented. Perhaps pointing this out would make you try something else. Perhaps not. With my limited knowledge I cant know though my experience leads me to think you cant really listen or here ‘listen’ to another person at this time.0
Yes, everything is determined. yes, people blame. peacegirl thinks we will learn to not blame.
One could say that peacegirl thinks that not-blaming is catchy.
All of what you associate with that issue. And all the other problems you want to resolve, and anything that my post happens to make you think is irrelevant.
It’s like someone notes an issue in one of your posts. It’s not everything, but it’s one part. You mentioned that you weren’t sure as a pedestrian when to cross the street. They say, well, when it’s green facing you. You then post back about your bad marriage, your hemmroids, how the neighbors view you, without ever, it seems trying to show you understood the thing about the green light or you didn’t. Like interacting with the focus of the other poster. So the next step could be taken.
I promise you I did not think my post would solve all the world’s problems or all metaphysical issues or all of yours. If I point out one thing, it doesn not mean I think you should be happy or eveything is peachy. It is me trying to explain one thing.
In a determined universe you might come to change the way you post informed by this. Or you might not. In a free will universe you might change after this is pointed out, or not. You might be helped to understand what peacegirl is saying, or not.
I think you probably agree that people can change due to outside influence, since this is one of the core points you make, a la dasein. But from our perspective, we dont know when or if…
Touche! One can never know exactly what paeternal of one’s behavior is more determined then willful.
Some self determinations are so subtly learned that they have become rote. Here I am using that word again.
From the sense of the blank slate, determination has to source from an individual beginning, an example of that is the child on the balcony, who at one point sees through the transparent floor/foundation. His realization of depth, is a new attribution toward the birth of symbolism. Very closely aligned is the famous Narcissus Myth, and related to that are their symbolic repressions .
Okay, note the most egregious example of this from my post above.
Again, from my frame of mind, it is less what she thinks is true in a universe where [u]every[/u]thing is determined, and more whether she was ever able to not think it.
Is this exchange itself included in everything? If so then what does it really mean to blame here? How is blaming not just another manifestation of nature having evolved into minds precipitating consequences precipitating blaming that must ever and always be in sync with the laws of matter?
She seems to blames me here in the manner in which the free will folks blame others when they are convinced that blame is an appropriate choice to make in an autonomous world.
One could say lots of things. But is one free to say that what one says is not the only thing that one was ever able to say in any particular context, at any particular time?
Who comes closer to pinning that down — peacegirl pontificating about what she thinks is true “in her head”, or neurologists actually performing experiments involving the functioning human brain?
Are these experiences not in themselves inherently, necessarily embedded in a wholly determined universe?
It’s not what steps can be taken but whether you are ever able to choose – to choose freely – not to take them.
And here I just don’t know. Again, I am drawn and quartered. Those who embrace hard determinism, those who embrace the broadest interpretation of human freedom: they are both able to make convincing arguments: debate.org/opinions/does-free-will-exist
What I am most uncertain about here are the arguments of the so-called “compatibilists”. Those who make that crucial distinction between mindful matter choosing to make a move in a chess match and the pieces themselves [mindless matter] unable to choose at all.
Like somehow that’s “better” for us than the position of the hardcore determinists. Meanwhile in “choosing” to move a piece, I am never able to actually do this freely. I do only what I must. But then settle for the illusion of psychological freedom.
You “promise” this in the manner in which a free-will advocate would. Or so it seems to me.
You “try to explain” this in a world where the explanation itself is necessarily embedded in “everything being determined”.
Yet somehow [it seems] you able to convince yourself that your explanation is better than mine. Even though both explanations are but an inherent manifestation of matter unfolding into the only future possible given the immutable laws of matter.
Yes, in a determined universe, I might come to choose an explanation more in sync with peacegirls. Yet, in the manner in which I have come to understand determinism, I would really only “choose” this.
Those autonomous aliens, however, would know full well the crucial distinction, right? For all practical purposes for example.
Okay, but how broadly do you wish to encompass “outside influences”? In the is/ought world, given some measure of human autonomy, those outside influences would [in my view] include things like historical and cultural and experiential contexts. And a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.
But in a wholly determined universe it might be argued that those “outside influences” encompassed every and all aspect of existence/reality itself.
I think while we are bounded within and withoit the is/ought or the. deterministic world, the topicality of representation may be valuable at this point.
The history of philosophy is yet another element that can be retraced from this mix, as at least partially responsible for the WILL. Schopemhauer covers this, and of this guide is used , the problem of partial inclusive/exclusive basis toward an understanding of clarity.
Next , how did others , Nietzsche primarily, deal with what has reduced to set theory, for what Nietzsche and Husserl became evident as transcendental.
The is/ought world is a preface to this, summarily calling for the synthesis, a primary continuity based on what is conscious and what is not. What is nott known can play a part in determining action, stemming from unconscious motivation. If such is a basis of a future representation of the will to understand, then all those guys seeking some connection between excluded (inductive) and all inclusive (reductive) sets must see an alternative to a summary inclusive set between the two.
Husserl solved this neatly, with the only missing hypothetical that could work at all: the transcendental reductiive levels.
Into this mix, all of.what is listed as possible parts, can be spoken of as intrinsic in the very same set. This would satisfy the criteria for an absolute content into the represented will, and this is more credible then a principle working on nihilization (Nietzsche) of total projection of a thetic absolute.
By inquiring into the nihilization. of free will and the total abdication of it to absolute determination, the concept of historical determination. will tend to help solve the problem.
The question was asked as to how far do we extend relevance , where from the deducement can be made of a simulated will , to power?
The bounderies containing more of the referential elements grow more binding insofar as the complexity of their content becomes more appearent, to organize. and control. the simpler , more entropic boundaries, the less the simulated field becoming determined.
This process need not to entail a vested authority versus anonymity feature, it is sourced from power, a power which the will imposes on the hierarchies of structural fidelity.
Husserl transcends this distinction , and delegates it toward a progressive will.
The will to live, for instance , may not be based on a conscious effort, but them again it can not be disclaimed. that it does.
It is a unity, and not a separability which can be anayized within or without any set conception or preconception, but they too can be aasigned such roles. They do not authenticate or disauntthenticate claims one way or another, and this is why a total determinism can coexist with a will. . the idea here is to suppress the will into subconscious motivation, and over come having deal with it on a conscious level.
Nihilism is a conscious state based on repression of excluding forces determining other choices.
For instance, responsibility preceeds other choices, not in consequence for the attainment of that responsibility, regardless of how much more.pleasurable that choice would be. Most rationalists would like to negate.that unwritten code, bland it is merely a natural code, of psychic and later realization, and not.necessarily tied to a bad dream concerning a guilt.ridden conscious psyche.
Dreams can reverse the subconscious and turn the whole thing upside down.
Very generally, to understand it otherwise, one would need to ignore the natural basis of dreams, and turn ‘Civilization and Its Discomtemts’ upside down. (Which has been done)
You misinterpret peacegirl. She wasn’t contradicting neuroscience or determinism nor was I. I tried to explain this. If hard determinism is the case, well you’re not not understanding and your’re not being able to understand now, was all determined. Peacegirl acknowledges that, accepts that, assumes that. That’s why, as she said, she does not blame you. She thinks others will be similarly affected, over time, and stop blaming, when they realize that you could not help what you did, that one cannot. People will change, not from free will, but affected by what they experience. That blaming will come to seem pointless. No contradiction with neuroscience in this and further it ASSUMES everything is determined. My guess is it is determined that you will not understand this either. Peacegirl is nicer than me about that. He’s more like Jesus on the cross in relation to those nailing him up. Maybe one day I will be utterly determined by events and my reactions to it to give up blame also. That would not contradict determinism either.
I do feel some empathy sometimes. This would also be determined. Determinism does not rule out changes in patterns, in fact, it seems to entail it, so far at least. Peacegirl thinks a specific change will come. Determined. In part this change will come from people who have already been compelled to give up blame, pointing out that blame hurts and doesnot help. This will be part of the causes and effects which, within determinism, will compell others to give up blame. No free will in any of this.
IOW that humans might give up blaming one another is not inconsistant with determinism. That peacegirl might disagree with you on such an issue does not necessarily entail blame.
That’s all. No it does nto solve conflicting goods. No it does not mean that one should have a positive attitude about determinism. No, it does not mean that peacegirl proved free will is not possible. It just means what I said I was pointing out.
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.
Is there something you might have missed and misinterprete?
What might that be?
You may not learn how to feel good about all the things you feel bad about, but you might learn something. I wonder if you have learned anything useful to you in all these years.
The belief in Determinism functions as a security-blanket for most, who would rather that life have some definitive-pre-existing-plan, than no plan at all. No plan, means that individuals are responsible for the course of their lives, and the results, whether good or bad. Those who are dissatisfied in life, cannot accept this, since it would mean blaming themselves rather than others. Life is filled with winners and losers, but, mostly losers. The losers have a desperate need to Blame, people other than themselves. Determinism helps this function, as a release-valve. If all is Determined, then the Losers, can point the finger elsewhere, instead of inward.
Losers reject the possibility that it is their own fault in life, and also reject the possibility that winning is the result of hard work, dedication, and sacrifice.
Winners are rare, by Nature, and will always be a minority in existence.
the conclusion that there is no freewill does not come about because one feels uncomfortable about being caught stealing a candy bar and wants to convince themselves that they couldn’t have done otherwise. the feeling of guilt is hardly a proof that there is freewill.
and while there is no such thing as freewill, there is no such thing as a ‘plan’ either. causality does not denote teleology. to think otherwise would be to anthropomorphize nature and give to it a deliberating will. it has no such thing.
but others can’t be blamed either if there is no freewill.
on the contrary, it’s those who still believe in freewill that demonstrate their lack of constitution and strength in having to blame and put to shame. behind every condemnation is a complaint, and behind every complaint is a weakness.