Determinism

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.

Really, isn’t this the option that, of our own free will or not, is all it takes to sweep questions of this sort under the rug?

Existentially as it were?

Then just go about the business of living our lives convinced that we call the shots.

Especially if, in our day to day interactions with others, we are awash in all manner of success.

Of course we call the shots! Let the losers fall back on a belief that their own miserable failures are derived solely from things that are totally beyond their control…rather than from their own willed weakness or stupidity.

Here’s the thing though. We’re not barbarians. Instead, we are among the very few folks in this modern world that do come into venues like this one. Men and women that do in fact take questions like this and grapple with them “philosophically”.

And pondering the extent to which we choose to do this freely is no small thing.

Right?

A new low.

Of course, if you want to talk to yourself, then this is the way to achieve that goal.

Let’s agree to call it a new low for both of us. And, just to be on the safe side, let’s agree that nature conspired to stage and then to sustain the whole thing.

In or not in league with God.

Look, in regards to either yourself or KT, I am more than willing to exchange posts that actually revolve around determinism.

It is only when I perceive either of you as being in what I call “retort mode” that I’m really not interested.

The bottom line is that I have a great deal of respect for the intelligence of both of you. Just not in retort mode. When you basically come after me, you may as well be one of the fucking Kids here.

But trust me: This post is no less an existential contraption. In no way, shape or form would I ever argue that all rational men and women are obligated to think like I do about you.

And then there is this part:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I think this explains a lot about me here, but I can never really be sure why. It’s buried down deep in dasein.

And, of late, godot.

No, I don’t agree to that. I had valid points.

Repeatedly saying “compelled by nature” is not a discussion of determinism. It explains nothing and it describes nothing.

It’s similar to this :

“Why is that airplane flying?” “It’s compelled by nature.”

“Why did that airplane crash?” “It was compelled by nature.”

Useless answers.

If the human brain is matter and matter obeys nature’s laws, how are our behaviors then not compelled by them? In other words, how are our behaviors not inherently, necessarily obligated to be in sync with the laws of matter?

How would you go about demonstrating that the laws of nature did not compel you to read these words?

How would you go about demonstrating that these laws do not explain and describe everything?

No, it is not similar to that at all in my view. The reason the airplane flies can in fact be demonstrated with a great deal of sophistication. Why? Because all of the parts that comprise it are wholly in sync with the laws of matter as we have come to understand them in the either/or world.

But what about “we” ourselves? What about the matter that comprises the brain, the mind, the self-conscious awareness of all those able to invent those parts and put them together to invent the airplane?

How is this matter the same or different from the clearly mindless matter that comprises the plane parts?

Is the answer to this something that philosophers have [using the tools at their disposal] been able to finally pin down definitively after thousands and thousands of years of contemplating such quandaries as “dualism”?

What, in your view, is the most “useful” answer?

I didn’t say that behaviors are not in sync with the laws of matter or that one is not compelled by the laws of matter.

I’m saying that the way you are referring to the laws of matter amounts to saying nothing at all. When any and every behavior has the same explanation “compelled by nature”, then there is no value to the explanation. You could just as well say “compelled by Pixies” and it would explain just as much as “compelled by nature”.

It’s similar because it accounts for the behavior of the airplane just as much as “compelled by nature” accounts for human behavior - not at all.

That’s why scientists and engineers don’t stop at “compelled by nature”. They look at the details, the patterns, the similarities and differences in situations. Therefore, you end up with a science of flight dynamics. And that’s a useful way of looking at airplane behavior.

If you do believe human behaviors are in sync with the laws of matter – laws that compel them – then what in your own view constitutes a discussion of this that enables someone to reflect something rather than nothing?

Cite some examples of this.

The point isn’t whether I say “compelled by nature” or “compelled by pixies”, but the extent to which one is able to demonstrate that human brains either allow or do not allow us the option to choose one rather than the other?

I must be misunderstanding your point. It is the fact that nature has evolved into life on earth evolving into the human species evolving into the human brain able to grasp the science of flight dynamics intertwined with/in the invention of the airplane that philosophers grapple with in trying to understand such things as dualism.

What are “the details, the patterns, the similarities and differences” that allow us to grasp the distinction between mindless matter and matter able to become conscious of itself as matter either compelled or not compelled by the self-same laws of matter to build airplanes?

The gap in our knowledge here may well be beyond the reach of the human brain.