Unless of course nature obligates you to want to. And you are not out of line only because you were never really able to want to be anything here other than what you must be. Your own obligatory embodiment of nature. Then it’s back to the assumptions that nature obligates us both to make here.
As though pointing this out has anything at all to do with actually responding to my point that you simply ignore all of the unknown unknowns that stand between what you think you know and all that can be known about these relationships.
My own “lack of interest” in correcting my understanding of them is, as you note, “beyond my control”, but: but that’s not an excuse for still refusing to.
Not to get too technical here but: Huh?
Asserting this as you do here is no less preposterous to me now than it was before. You reduce everything that can be known in and about the universe down to how you have come to understand things here and now on earth.
And then expect me and others to just go along with it while acknowledging that our reactions here are in fact beyond our control.
Yeah, that’s my argument too. But how you are able to make it your own argument in turn basically encompasses the gap between us.
No, when I say “determined universe” I am acknowledging right from the start that my own understanding of that can only reflect the gap between what I think it means and all that can be known about the universe that I am simply not privy to here and now. Anymore than you are. Only I am willing to own up to the “for all practical purposes” implication of that because unlike you I have not imagined some “progressive” future that seems to be predicated on others understanding these things as I do.
Okay, but what on earth does this have to do with the point that I make?
In a wholly determined cosmos, I’ll fall back to a 25 year old disproof I made about god …
If god knows every reason why god knows everything god knows, and all of those reasons are external, then by virtue of them all being external, there is 0% reason why god can possibly have an internal to believe that god exists. Since this argument is true by definition, were this actually the case, god cannot perceive, under the circumstances of absolute knowledge of causes beyond ones self, a self.
If, however, god knows every reason why god knows what god knows, and all of those reasons are internal, then god could not perceive anything outside of god with which to reference god exists relative to an “other”.
The argument I stated even further, is that at 100% for both of these extremes, will force logical catatonia, making the being non sentient.
The point being, if you are even aware that you exist, the cosmos is impossible to be wholly determined …
That’s proof through contradiction.
And since iambiguous is reading and responding to this thread: debate me
That’s right iambiguous … I made that proof a quarter of a century ago. What do you think I can do now!?
If you think for one second that you proved free will true, this shows how utterly wrong your reasoning is. Prove to me that you could do otherwise, which is the only proof of free will that would hold weight. But it’s impossible to do, so you have no proof. You’re here because you have a beef with iambiguous.
I addressedyou directly in this thread about how mutually exclusive pleasures make your world peace idea insoluble …
You never responded to it, other than to demand that I show the post where you used the word “pleasure”
No no no iambiguous. Stop using “a wholly determined universe” as your “get off the hook” card that exempts you from answering directly.
That’s not how the word “obligated” is normally used. Obviously we have no control over what we desire or don’t desire. There you go again saying the same old thing as if it’s a new revelation.
You’re not obligated to say anything you don’t want to. Stop using the term in an unconventional way, which can only cause confusion.
I gave two undeniable principles that lead to the two-sided equation (which you have no knowledge about.) There are no unknowns that stand between the soundness of these principles. You do not know what you’re talking about iambiguous.
You are constantly using the excuse that you can’t help yourself in order to justify your responses, which is exactly what libertarians worry about, for all anyone would need to say is: I couldn’t help killing that person, nature made me do it and they would be excused. Do you see the problem here?
You may not understand many things that I do, and I may not understand many things that you do. So what? This has no relation to the undeniable nature of this discovery.
If there is a gap between us, there is NO need to close it. Your lack of understanding (the gap) will not stop this discovery from coming to light when the time is right. Do you think a lack of understanding of Edison’s discovery on your part would have prevented the lightbulb from being discovered?
You’re off the beaten track. You sound like a nihilist very determined to prove that a progressive future is not something we can achieve.
You said in a determined world there are no victims. I said yes there are. I get what you’re saying when looked at in total perspective, but who in the world can see it this way when they have been attacked and left for dead?
Yes, it isolates the variables of 100% determinism and in proof through contradiction, demonstrates that a sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos, its self evident that you are sentient, and thus it’s self evident that 100% determinism is false.
It’s also all true by definition.
You see, what I did peacegirl, like every great logitician, is that I used a proof (mine) from one field and applied it to a completely different field.
The two words are not synonymous. So now am I an ingenuous person?
Who said you’re horrible just because you’re mistaken?
A sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos
You are a sentient being
Therefore, 100% determinism is false.
You call that a great proof? I call that an invalid syllogism. Your very first premise is false so the conclusion is false. Secondly, where does your syllogism prove man’s will is free other than stating an opinion? Just to say a sentient being cannot live in a 100% determined cosmos is not a factual statement. I think you need to offer your definition of determinism because confusion often arises due to semantics, just like you thought greater satisfaction meant greater pleasure.
This is more confused logic in my opinion. External/determinism? Internal/creationism? At the risk of looking ignorant, I don’t get what you’re saying, let alone your proof of free will. Logical catatonia? This is just more jumbled logic. Would you please break this down in layman’s terms? And what does “I forgot my audience” mean?
I’ll try, though I have to admit, it took me a while to make it that parsimonious and understandable. Thanks for bearing with me, because, as we all know from the US constitution, all citizens are entitled to bear arms! Even polar bear arms!
So here’s the deal, joking aside:
Think about this…
If you knew every reason why you knew what you knew, and through absolute determinism, all of those reasons were outside of you, example: I thought about dave because an acorn dropped in Libya …
Once this reaches 100%!!!
Everything is acting upon you, and you upon nothing.
Since it you upon nothing, it’s impossible (logically) for there to be a you
Ecmandu, I have no idea when you came to this thread but for 10 pages all I have done is explain why man’s will is not free. Do you want me to go over it with you?
