Determinism

Really? That’s the most important thing to know?

You’re just fucking with me now.

Practical stuff like finding a job to pay the bills without creating too much suffering - for me that’s vastly more important than working out if free will or determinism is the case, how to resovle conflicting goods - I thought that was the most important to you-, how to heal a fractured self? - sometimes that seems to be the most important thing to you. How to reconcile with an estranged child? - must be the most important thing to someone. important to whom? is part of what I am getting at…

Isn’t the evaluation ‘important’ a value and thus an appeal to objectivism?

IOW this question carries with it universalism - we do not have to find out whom it is important to - and objectivity - it is presumed that some issues are more important than other, and you are incredulous that another issue could be more important.

And then there is the absence of a demonstration why it is important at all, even to you, let alone universally and objectively.

Maybe, but I still have access to no argument [let alone demonstrable proof] able to convince me that I either am or am not compelled by nature’s laws to be fucking with you.

And then there’s the part where some confront such things as the Nazi death camps and the Communist gulags without the capacity to know for certain that blame is embedded in an utterly confirmed human autonomy.

But you know me. I suggest that, even given some measure of free will, our reactions to those things are only existential contraptions rooted in dasein.

Though, so far, nature has compelled you to fiercely deny that.

It is still fierce, right? :wink:

Sure. I have no control over how you respond to my posts.

You can change the subject. You be a smartass. You can deny all responsibility. You can do whatever.

But where does it get you?

Is proving or demonstrating determinism/freewill the most important thing? I think that’s a legitimate question which may be worth answering.

Gulags and death camps destroyed a lot of lives. Am I certain about that? Yes. I don’t need to know everything about existence to be certain about it.

Are pain, suffering and death only existential contraptions? No.

Why is my reaction to it “only an existential contraption”?

Why isn’t my reaction simply in the nature of being human? Why isn’t it embedded in the structure of the universe?

You can find somebody who doesn’t care? And that proves that it’s all an existential contraption? Is that it?

IOW, why are our reactions to be considered existential contraptions?

This is a good point, which I tried to raise in one of these threads. One problem is that one almost has to list the supposedly different ‘realms’ to make sure that the other people realize you are including both
and
so that they then explain who the
I is
or whatever it is
that is free from causation.
Usually this is posited on the inside of the body.

So one must show that why the internal is free from causation.

One way I have been trying to do this is by asking what my reasons are for making my free choice (since it will not be caused by internal or external causes). And if it does not include my desires and does not reflect my experiences, if these are not causal, then
it’s not really me making the choice anyway.

From a Derridian perspective this me or not me may not matter, but its besides the point since I am reacting to people advocating free will who are talking about choices they make - rather than choices made from the ether.

I think determinism also has problems, but I have found myself tired of arguments that seem facile to me. Face the fears…I have.

Almost all men and women assume that the practical stuff is within reach of their autonomy. But almost none of them come into venues like this to explore this autonomy much beyond those assumptions.

Now, the hard guys are exploring this experimentally. And, who knows, they may well pin it down one day. I’ll know for sure that I had or did not have a real choice in creating this post.

But somewhere in our head we all know just how crucial it is to know this.

And a fractured dasein entangled in conflicting goods is something I explore only in assuming “I” do have some measure of autonomy interacting with others in the is/ought world.

Now, to the extent that one wants to wrap all of this around an understanding of objectivity and universality can revolve more or less around a scholastic discussion or an exchange that focuses more on what is deemed to be important to someone in a particular context.

Hello iambig,

In this attempt You are reducing practical to a level of either/or, and this, or that. You are guilty of the same method that i am constantly accused of , and perhaps we.could or rather SHOULD start from changing tactics.

Which seems to be in vogue nowadays of being centered into an untenable position , whereby then they hold that against You as if that position was chosen in an illusionary manner or worse! (Delusionarily)

But this thread revolves more around the question of whether or not it can be ascertained definitively that you had any measure of autonomous control in posting that which I am [here and now] uncertain as to whether or not I have any measure of autonomous control in responding to it.

Thus, this sort of “retort” from you…

…was no more within the reach of any actual autonomy on your part than my own dismissive reaction is within the reach of any actual volition on my part.

Is this exchange only as it ever could have been? And, if so, are we not both off the hook regarding the compelled reactions of others?

Where does it get a domino compelled to topple over onto another domino? The question is this: how is it determined that these toppling posts of ours were not in turn compelled to topple only as they must given the assumption that our two brains are no less embedded necessarily in the immutable, mechanical laws of matter?

Clearly, it is more important to some than to others. Now, is this due entirely to the fact that nature has compelled it to be this way? Or, in fact, did nature somehow evolve into life on earth evolving into human brains evolving into conscious minds evolving into particular “selves” that are somehow able to not be compelled about choosing some things.

Here, in choosing to explore determinism in order to arrive at answers. But this part [in my view] is embedded in the existential contraption that I construe to be daein.

Capitalism and the global economy have destroyed a lot of lives as well. Am I certain about that? Yes. But, in turn, I have thought myself into thinking only a fool would/could actually be convinced that this particular belief does not require a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.

Especially if that comprehensive understanding includes the fact that human behaviors are entirely intertwined in nature’s material laws. And, thus, that the “choices” made by Communists and fascists and capitalists were never able not to have been made.

Such that blaming them for choosing what they did is no less a necessary, inherent component of nature’s laws.

Again, I make that assumption based only on the additional assumption that I do possess some measure of autonomy. And that, of my own free will, given different experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge, I might have opted to conclude just the opposite.

Indeed, it might well be. Now, demonstrate to me and others why we might be obligated to believe that. While, concurrently, demonstrating that any conclusion we come to reflects the indisputable fact that we are free to arrive at it autonomously.

“Defending Free Will & The Self”
Frank S. Robinson in Philosophy Now magazine

This just takes us to the part where we try to explain where the rider ends and the elephant begins…given our current understanding of how the brain itself functions as a wholly integrated component of nature. Just one more natural manifestation of existence no less compelled to be in sync with the laws of nature than any other matter.

It’s always back to human minds attempting to explain human minds…minds that in some profoundly problematic way have somehow acquired the capacity to actually do this.

We are “inside” a “reality” that we would seem only able to encompass if we could get “outside” of it.

Instead, we become entangled in all the convoluted ways there are in which to think about it:

I still recall an experience I once had in which I was completely absorbed in thinking about a woman while driving nearly 10 miles on “autopilot”. Out of the blue I realized I had driven from Iona Terrace to Kenwood Avenue without [seemingly] doing so consciously. I simply didn’t remember accelerating of braking or turning the car in a new direction.

Or the times I would read the same book to my daughter over and over again and somehow my mind was able to go to other things while continuing to read the words as though in a trance.

And then those extraordinary dreams I have in which “I” am doing all manner of amazing things that I am not really doing at all.

The mind as matter is really something we are just scratching the surface in understanding.

So, anyone here able to fully explain why?

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

In the post I responded to you asked with incredulity what could possibly be more important that finding out whether determinism or free will is the case. That’s objectivism. As if importance was an objective value. It’s not.

In a reply to Phyllo, you seem to understand that the importance of the issue varies from person to person.

Then in response to me you go back to objectivism and universalism. Or to descholastisize this…

You assume everyone is like you when you say…

I don’t think it is crucial at all. I don’t try to figure out which is true and I spend much more time on looking for better work, doing creative things and spending quality time with my wife. It doesn’t make this list. Even her I am not trying to find the answer, though I do find people’s ways of justifying their positions interesting, sometimes. But less than I find paintings interesting, and I don’t even paint.

I can only assume that people in other cultures with other psychologies also do not think it is important. Most presume they know. Most americans I meet mix in their speech deterministic and free will type explanations for things and seem quite happy with that mix and don’t try to resolve it.

We’re not all the same, re: dasein, genetics…

I asked that precisely because we are in a philosophy venue and on a particular thread that is devoted to an exploration into determinism.

And over and over and over again, I make it clear that in regard to 1] the is/ought world in an autonomous universe and 2] in exploring questions this inherently problematic all the way our on the metaphysical limb, “I” can only note what “here and now” seems reasonable to me.

If that doesn’t seem reasonable enough to you, there is still the possibility that this exchange itself is unfolding only as it ever could. And if that is the case, how can either of us be held responsible for “choosing” only that which nature compelled us to?

In other words, for “choosing” anything at all!

So what? That doesn’t resolve the matter of whether in “choosing” to do this, you were exerting anything in the way of an actual autonomous will.

Simply unbelievable. Well, if not entirely determined of course.

Note an instance when I have argued that everyone is like me. I merely assume that in the either/or world – a world of human interactions embedded in some measure of autonomy – the laws of matter are applicable to all of us.

And that in a wholly determined universe, the laws of nature encompass the psychological illusion on the part of human minds, that the is/ought world is not as well also a necessary component of the laws of matter.

Everything would seem [to me] to be either/or in a determined universe. Including this exchange. Including what either of us “choose” to do in regard to it.

I merely point out that in speculating about all of this, I have no capacity to demonstrate that what I believe is true. Let alone true going all the way back to the most comprehensive explanation of existence itself.

And I am assuming that in a determined universe as I currently understand it nothing is not part of the only possible objective reality.

I’m merely compelled or not compelled to speculate that in a philosophy venue on a thread such as this one – and for all practical purposes – it seems reasonable to me “here and now” that until we can know for certain whether the things we choose we could have opted not to choose, is clearly a very, very important consideration for philosophers in a venue such as this.

  1. your question was framed as incredulous that anything could be more important and framed as if importance was an objective quality. You didn’t ask what was important to us.

  2. Further I answered your question, explaining what was more important to me and others. You did not respond to that, you acted as if this was me saying something about practical matters being autonomous.

You asked a question. I answered. My answers did not matter to you. You acted like I was arguing practical issues like the ones I raised demonstrated free will, when the context, with quotes, could not have been clearer.

Well, duh. Of course not. It is however relevent to the question

you

asked

You asked a question,

I pointed out the objecitvism implicit in your formulation of the question. I then answered the question.

LOL right there in what you quote is one, I pointed out twise. I pointed out two quotes, your question where it is implicit: what could possibly be more important that determinism? (objective speak and universal speak`

Then later when you say

There it is. We all, like you, think that answering this issue is crucial.

Right there in 'print´.

But you will deny this.

You’re damaged, either freely or via determinism.

REally damaged. I’m sorry. I should have realized this earlier. I thought you were fucking with us. Or something more intentionally pernicious or at least willing to deny things out of stubbornness or ill will. This feels very damaged.

I’ll leave you alone.

Here we go again.

The problem is me.

The solution is for others to recognize that the manner in which you are exposing me here is really all that matters.

Hoping that maybe, just maybe, we are actually in possession of the free will needed to have this confimed as in fact true. Both existentially and essentially. True because though others might opt for a contrary point of view in an autonomous world, they do so only at the risk…

Of!
Being!!
Wrong!!!

But, okay, let’s assume that you really can choose to leave me alone.

If that’s the case then really mean it this time.

All you are exposing [to me] in tantrums like this is just how effective I am perturbing your peace of mind.

I suspect that my arguments are beginning to really sink in. And, in your own repetitive way, you need to strike out at me because of this.

You are just one of many, many posters I have bumped into over the years that, convinced they see things as they really are, become really, really disgruntled when I and others don’t concur.

No, really, I can’t read your stuff more. You actually don’t know what you’re doing. It’s like I got in a scuffle with an abused child. I apologize. Perhaps you’ve even tried to tell me somewhere.

I’m compelled to say it: Whatever.

A Compatibilism / Incompatibilism Transformation
By Trick Slattery
From the “Breaking the Free Will Illusion” web site

Here’s where I always get stuck. Beyond definitions – definitions it would seem all of us are compelled by nature to give to these words – the act of clumping these defined words together to make arguments like this one would in turn seem to be just another manifestation of nature. Only this time embodied in brain matter that compels these exchanges to unfold only as they ever can.

There is no real “revisionsism” here. Why? Because the one compelled by nature to revise the definition is interchangeable with the one compelled by nature to react to that revision only as he must.

Nothing would seem to escape the inexorable toppling of all matter over onto other matter as nature itself unfolds necessarily in sync with its own laws. The fact that this matter has now become conscious of itself as matter able to be self-conscious of itself as matter embedded in nature…well…how does that change things?

What earthly difference can it make if the conmpatibilist says one thing and not another if it was the only thing he/she was ever able to say? Just as we are compelled to react to what we hear being said as our own brain-matter compels us.

Instead, I can only assume that there are important points being made here that I keep missing. But, given how I understand determinism, others are then either compelled or not compelled to point them out.

More non-answers which avoid discussion rather than moving it along. Endlessly repeating the same idea.

Shifting away to economic systems. Why not stay on death camps and gulags and actually say something about it?
You can’t even say “death camps bad”?
So capitalism destroyed a lot of lives … Does that change the fact that people were killed in death camps?

Communist, fascists and capitalists were not able not to set up death camps??? They decide not to do it all the time. “Should we set up a death camp today? No, let’s not do that.”

You should consider not telling people what they are obligated to do and think. It’s annoying. You would have better conversations if you didn’t do it.

With any luck [for both of us] you were compelled by nature to respond to what I was compelled by nature to post above.

But if there is any measure of autonomy embedded in the choices that I make, I choose to respond to you in retort mode as I choose to respond to KT in retort mode:

All you are exposing [to me] in tantrums like this is just how effective I am in perturbing your peace of mind.

Though I suspect that, unlike KT, you will manage to stumble into the grave with your objective morality and your God still largely intact.

separate morality from free will
by Phil Goetz
at the lesswrong website

But: Even if both sides agree that moral behavior revolves around intention, what do they agree about regarding the extent to which intention itself does or does not revolve around the laws of matter?

If our brains/minds autonomically precipitate neurological and chemical interactions that become our intentions then how are “both sides” not wholly in sync with the only behaviors they are able to choose in their interactions with others?

How are all “cognitive agents” not just more of nature’s “living, breathing…thinking” dominoes? Or, if you prefer, nature’s own computers?

“I” and my “environment” would seem to be of one and only one inherent reality. The only reality possible given the laws of matters.

Which would necessarily take us back to wondering if we are in possession of just enough free will to explain mind as matter of our own volition. As a species on this planet in the vastness of all there is going back to an explanation for existence itself.