Determinism

They are only different in the sense that they have different capabilities but they are still on the same spectrum
Because everything that exists in the observable Universe is either all made of or from the same natural elements
These elements are the building blocks of all organisms and objects which share this commonality if not much else

Yes it does because any observable function is a feature of the spectrum because the spectrum is all there is - there is nothing else
This does not just include the observable Universe but everything that is non observable as well for it is literally everything there is

In other words, the part we seem bascially in sync regarding.

Yes, the part that we are compelled by nature not to be in sync regarding at all.

As though the “value” that “I” place on this instead of that is not in turn just another inherent manifestation of natural law.

This mysterious part of your own particular “I” that, at the moment of “choosing”, is compelled by nature to be convinced that, unlike the bullet in the gun, does in fact get to “choose”.

That it is only what nature compels you to choose is beside the point. What’s important is that nature compels you to believe that this is a crucial, important distinction between the trajectory of your “I” and the trajectory of the mindless bullet in the mindless gun.

But: over and over and over again, I may well be incorrect regarding my understanding of all this. Either because nature compels me to be or because my thinking as an autonomous beings is inferior to yours as an autonomous being.

I don’t deny the possibility of that.

When machines finally replace humans they will be able to study us from a more clinical perspective
They will not be compromised by the psychological traits that prevent us from being truly objective

Waking states and dream states are functions of the brain and therefore exist on a spectrum
Different parts of the brain are activated but it is still the same organ that is doing all of this

We like to compartmentalise and split things up and put them into little boxes but reality is just a single continuum
Everything is ultimately connected to everything else - there is no real separation in reality - separation is an illusion

Still more from our hardcore intellectual:

Yes, that’s precisely the point. But then we get to the part where he insists that our universe is not absolutely ordered. Why? Because, well, he insists that it’s not. And his “demonstration” of this consist of yet more assertions still. Always a world of words in which the argument itself is merely assumed to be the embodiment of his own free will.

And this [in my view] reflects the part about why it is so important to him to possess free will. After all, without it, his accusation that all who refuse to share his own own point of view here would be but another manifestation of nature compelling him to label them as morons. Instead nature compels him to call them morons because nature compels him to believe that they could freely choose to agree with him but don’t.

And that just won’t do.

Instead, from my frame of mind, assuming some measure of human autonomy, what makes him a moron is the same thing that makes him an objectivist: the psychological need to believe that he is in touch with the real me in touch with the right thing to do in touch with the one and only true understanding of human reality itself!

He gets nature. The morons don’t.

As though the only possible alternative to a wholly determined universe is a wholly random one. Instead, from my point of view, the tricky part always revolves around those things that we are able to demonstrate as true objectively for all of us…and those those we are not.

But: even that assumes some measure of autonomy. Which both scientists and philosophers are still grappling with. Unless of course someone out there already has pinned down The Whole Truth here.

Link me to it.

From my frame of mind, this would just make the mystery all the more surreal. Mindless matter evolves into living matter evolves into human beings inventing a mechanical/machine matter that may or may not have minds the same as we grope to understand our own.

But if human psychology is just another necessary manifestation of matter evolving over billions of years into “I”, how would that really be different from the mentality of machines? Either all matter is inherently in sync with however cause and effect is understood going back to the explanation for existence itself, or there is that long grappled with “dualism” in regards to some matter that is not applicable to other matter.

With or without God.

Everything is on a spectrum so all matter is therefore directly or indirectly connected
There is no disconnect because reality is a continuous process with no gaps anywhere

More from our objectivist “serious philosopher”:

But, again, when you challenge him to demonstrate how he is able to actually prove that that his own definitions are derived freely from his own autonomous “will”, all he has for you are yet more arguments.

Arguments ever and always embedded in “general description” “intellectual contraptions” that allow for no one to test beyond merely accepting that his own definitions are ever and always the default in any “philosophical” exchange.

It’s not a question of being in a mental prison so much as others being obligated to be in his. To be “one of us”. And if you choose not to be then by definition that makes you a moron.

Or a chimp. :wink:

Here is a mind that can only hope that nature does in fact compel his every word. And, thus, lets him off the hook.

More from our die-hard abstractionist…

This frame of mind starts with the assumption that free will has in fact already been demonstrated to be a part of the human condition.

That many in both the scientific and philosophical communities continue to debate its actual existence, is simply dismissed out of hand.

Of course he has free will. After all, if he didn’t, how could he pride himself on grasping it better than anyone else? How could he know that those who refuse to think of it exactly as he does are degenerates and morons and part of the contemptible herd?

The supreme irony here then being that while championing his free will, he holds in contempt all those who, in exercising their free will, don’t think about everything exactly as he does.

He becomes the expert, the authority, the judge, the jury, the warden, the guard of his own intellectual domain.

Well, not that he isn’t compelled to of course. :wink:

But that still begs the question:

Did you think this up of your own free will or has mindless matter somehow evolved into self-conscious matter compelled by the laws of nature to become your own particular “I” compelled to think this up…and to post it here.

Is there anything in this exchange itself that might not have been given that either of us might have freely chosen an option in the past such that either of us might not be participating in the exchange at all?

After all, I might have freely chosen an alternate option in my past such that it resulted in my death.

What happens within reality has no bearing on the actual existence of reality
And so had I never evolved or had you died before now then reality would be entirely unaffected by either of these alternative events
Anything possible can happen even if it never does but no single event / events can eliminate reality itself - that is forever impossible

What still ever boggles my mind is how other minds can assert things like this as though they actually do have the capacity to demonstrate that is true for all rational men and women. And, I suppose, for all other intelligent beings on all other planets throughout the staggering vastness of the universe.

That you believe this here and now “in your head” is one thing. That you can explain its meaning “for all practical purposes” regarding the behaviors that you choose over, say, the next 24 hours, another thing altogether.

But, sure, go ahead, give it a shot.

There is no assertion and it is not something that only exists within my head either. Because it is a fundamental feature of the Universe that change
is happening all the time. For it is always occurring within reality regardless of anything else. Reality is simply the description of the eternal change
I hold this to be demonstrably true but cannot compel other minds to also accept it as true. As what they think is entirely a matter for them not me

It’s a bit hard to imagine that someone thinks a particular event, like the events we experience, even explosions, would eliminate reality. IOW what viewpoint could the quote above be arguing against. Is there someone who thinks that a single event would eliminate reality? I suppose if we consider the Big Crunch that some physicists think might hapen an event, but otherwise who is the group that believes what you are arguing against?

‘Anything possible can happen’
?
From our limited perspective, sure. But then why didn’t those things happen? Why didn’t an avalanche happen? Why didn’t all those other events that could have happened happen? One can’t even use free will there, since it could have rained but the sky didn’t choose to not rain. Or are you panpsyhcist?

But that still just begs the question:

“Did you think this up of your own free will or has mindless matter somehow evolved into self-conscious matter compelled by the laws of nature to become your own particular “I” compelled to think this up…and to post it here.”

Of course this exasperates many. Any answer that they choose to post here merely becomes another example of nature compelling them to “choose” it…wholly in sync with the laws of matter.

I am basically compelled by nature to remind everyone that no one is able to demonstrate beyond all doubt that exchanges of this sort involve some measure of human autonomy.

And it is always the not knowing for sure that we take to the grave, right?

Mindless matter [ physics / chemistry ] evolved into self conscious matter [ biology ] over a period of four and a half billion years assisted by the laws of nature
And an infinitesimally insignificant part of that resulted in the creation of my own particular I that among other things thought this reply up and posted it here

It don’t matter if you don’t mind.

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

Here though it depends on where you draw that ever so slippery free will line. What if the brain events that compelled Breivik to become a mass murderer are the same brain events that compelled each of us to react to him as we did? What if the killings and any and all consequences that came after them [including the legal process] were also compelled by those overarching laws of nature — laws that compel all matter.

Applicable in turn to, say, Adolph Hitler.

It seems we have no way in which to demonstrate beyond all doubt, once and for all, the whole truth here. And so we all take our own existential leap to “I” believe this or “I” believe that.

Only we have no way to demonstrate that “existential leaps” are not in turn merely embodied in the psychological illusion of opting to leap of our own free will.

Again, that’s where it gets tricky. We know of actual brain disorders that clearly do propel certain behaviors. We know of any number of conditions in which “I” is not entirely at our command. With determinism, it’s just a matter of concluding that even those behaviors we are convinced are within our command, we are only compelled to believe they are by the ubiquitous laws of matter.

Same with environmental factors. We know that children raised in poverty and in increasingly dsyfunctional communities are far more likely to behave in ways that those children raised in affluent, staple communities are not.

But what if these distinctions are as well subsumed in the only possible reality there can ever be for all children. The one compelled by nature.

That’s what scientists exploring the functioning brain are basically looking for, isn’t it? That mysterious “bit” of matter in the brain that explains both the part compelling us to do only that which we must do and the part where “I” actually has the option to choose something else.

But when will we have a trial where the neuroscientist takes the stand and is able to demonstrate precisely the behaviors the defendants are wholly responsible for and the behaviors they are not?

Or entirely as a result of the laws of matter. The laws of matter don’t assist me in typing these words, they compel me to.

Science, philosophy and, for some, theology are simply unable to fully explain the difference yet.

Let alone explain how we are to grasp the part where matter becomes mind becomes “I”.