Can something that profound ever be truly resolved to the satisfaction of all ? For will there not always be some philosophical objection to it ?
Also a wholly determined Universe cannot be possible because randomness is an observable feature within it so it is only partially determined
[ Randomness here does not mean absolutely anything happening by chance but only possible outcomes having an equal chance of happening ]
"It took 380 000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei forming the first atoms . These were mainly helium and hydrogen which
are still by far the most abundant elements in the universe I . 6 million years later gravity began to form stars and galaxies from clouds of gas
… evolved into living matter that over billions of years evolved into human minds able to discuss it as / in the embodiment of I !
From zero minds to this exchange . And how it all became possible going back to a complete understanding of existence itself . And
then going forward to how those of own species thousands of years into the future will clearly be more informed than we are now
But : informed autonomously ?
Will that finally be resolved once and for all ?
And what does it mean to resolve anything at all in a wholly determined universe"
{{{{{{{{Yes it can become autonomously sourced, because the referential temporal/spatial inductive gap will approach to an undifferentiable limit.
In other words, the technological/technical memory will reduce general-field multi function devices to few specific ones, where autonomy will be thus generated. ]]]]]]]]]
So talk to him in the dungeon.
If you are going to post his statements here, then at least counter them instead of dismissing them as “worlds of words”, “intellectual contraptions” and “not demonstrated”.
That’s what’s being discussed … the meaning of ‘choice’. And your take on it is different from his.
Obviously you know what ‘shrill’ means since you just accused him and me of being shrill sometimes.
It looks to me like his claims can be seen in ordinary human behavior. Now, you can try to demonstrate we are wrong about those observations.
Autonomy has nothing to do with. It’s a description of human behavior. It’s true or false whether we are autonomous or not. It’s like saying “people hit tennis balls with tennis rackets”. One can analyze how often it happens if at all, who does it and where.
So by not providing a demonstration , you are demonstrating that demonstrations are not possible. Is that it???
It seems that he is correctly describing human behavior. That’s the bottom line as far I’m concerned. I don’t care if you call it an existential contraption. That’s basically an empty label.
He didn’t make up the meanings of the words … they are listed in the dictionary. And those words and meanings were created based on human experiences. I don’t see the lack of connection to human interactions. Which words are you claiming are disconnected?
Mary has choices. She chooses one which she has the power to enact and acts. There are consequences to her decision.
That’s not really an argument against what he is saying is it?
“this atheist believes in free will”
James Kirk Wall from the ChicagoNow web page
In a way, this encompasses just how absurd it seems to believe in a truly “hard determinist” assessment of human reality.
Something exist. Either out of nothing at all or because there was never not something. And if somehow we can unravel all the pieces that encompass all there is, we’ll find that nothing in it could ever have been other than what it only could have been.
Right up to me typing these words and you reading them.
And yet from somewhere deep down inside our “hearts and souls” we just know that this is completely preposterous. “Prove it” is the obvious reaction. But then those who argue for it can always come back with “prove that it’s not”.
Then what? Where’s the definitive argument coupled with the definitive evidence that finally resolves it beyond all doubt?
But, in my view, most folks can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge it has not been pinned down yet. They merely assume that their own point of view need be as far as they go. They become objectivists. Why? Because, psychologically, convincing yourself that you have the answer is more important than whatever the answer might possibly be.
In other words, “I” being but another “celestial body” on a celestial body that we call Earth.
Only, for all mindless celestial bodies, there does indeed seem to be a set of laws – the either/or world – that they must obey going all the way back to the Big Bang.
It’s mindful bodies that throw everything for a loop. Surely they must be an exception somehow. Either through God or through some extraordinary component embedded in the evolution of mindless matter into minds into “I”.
Something we will just have to wait for science to figure out so that one day in the future it will be confirmed that, yes, we do indeed have at least some capacity to freely shape our own lives.
Still, folks like me then go on to suggest that, even to the extent our will is free, “I” in the is/ought world is no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein. That, in the is/ought world, the subjective/subjunctive “I” still appears to prevail.
He walked out on that exchange. You know, compelled to or otherwise.
Again, in regards to this, we are in two different exchanges. Either he will embed his general description assessments of determinism in contexts in which he makes an attempt to demonstrate that his will is free or he won’t.
Or, if you are convinced that he already has, cite examples of it.
You’re missing my point though. Assuming we do possess some measure of autonomy, my point is less in regard to the points being raised themselves and more in regard to the extent to which one insists that only his or her points reflect that which all rational men and women are oblgated to embrace.
[i]Or else they become “morons” or “desperate degenerates” too! [/i]
Let’s face it, with him there are any number of your own arguments that make you a moron or a desperate degenerate.
What does it mean to speak of ordinary human behavior when to the best of my knowledge here and now it has not been demonstrated definitively that what we choose to do we choose to do of our own volition.
And then the part I always come back to: the way in which the human brain seems able to create both ordinary and extraordinary behaviors in our dreams such that, while in them, we are convinced that we are calling all the shots of our own volition as well.
At least that’s how it works in my dreams.
Autonomy has everything to do with it. Are we compelled by the laws of nature to describe what we do? Or to hit tennis balls with tennis rackets? Or to analyze to one conconclusion rather than another?
Everything here seems to revolve around a comprehensive understanding of how the brain actually accomplishes this. And then going back to a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.
Sure, many will just shrug off, “but there are also unknown unknowns…there are things we don’t know we don’t know”.
They already know what they do know and they’re ready to just move on to the next thing that they already know that they do know.
Well, I’m not one of them.
I don’t know if demonstrations are possible. And someone can always insist that he did in fact demonstrate it but that I really am a “moron” and keep failing to grasp it. Or, in turn, that you have in fact demonstrated your views about Communism…only I keep missing that too.
I never deny the possibility of that. It always comes down to that which any particular “I” is convinced has been demonstrated. Then it becomes a matter of how one demonstrates in turn that enough folks are convinced of the demonstration that it is accepted as true for all of us. The either/or world interactions for example.
Where I draw the line here myself is in regard to “I” in the is/ought world; and in regard to “I” going all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical limb where questions such as this are explored.
Those demonstrations. Or the lack thereof. The part where your “empty labels” kick in?
Yes, and you merely assume that these choices are free. That these consequence are solely as a result of that assumption. And that becomes a demonstration enough for you.
It’s my argument. An argument predicated on my assumptions. An argument, however, that I am not able to demonstrate one way or the other is of my own actual volition.
Another person who walked out on an exchange with you. I wonder why? 
Look at how you handle yourself in these discussions. You don’t embed your general descriptions in contexts and you don’t demonstrate them.
Why should he? Or anyone for that matter?
In your last post, you brought up the context of Mary and her abortion. But what did you actually analyze about it? What did you explain with it? What did you demonstrate?
Who wants to discuss “what all rational men and women are obligated to embrace” when you can’t even agree to some simple dictionary definitions of words??
You act as if he has some crazy ideas about ‘freedom’ which he has completely fabricated out of a web of words. Settle that before moving on to the obligation of all rational men and women. Please. [-o<
I don’t have any control over what he thinks of me. Therefore, I’m not concerned about it.
It’s observed human behavior whether it’s chosen of “our own volition” or not.
No. Once you describe something, then the description is either accurate or inaccurate. The words correspond to a high degree with the something or they don’t. Autonomy doesn’t enter into it.
Sure, you may not be capable of producing an accurate description but that’s separate from the evaluation of the description.
Notice that I did not use the word ‘free’. After one establishes that she has choices and that she acts on a choice that she has the power to execute, then one can go on to discuss what it means for the choice(s) to be ‘free’.
Do you concede that she has choices, power to act and that she acts?
If not, then what is she doing?
There was this guy in like the 70s Eric Berne, a psychologist, who came up with a set of games. Patterns people engage in where it looks like their goal is one thing, but really it is another.
In this case, the real problem is not on the table. On the table are conflicting goods, determinism and having no way to know what the real ‘I’ is.
In context we could ask if he can help but play this game. And then the next issue of would hearing of the game offer a chance for change - even in a deterministic universe.
Often these two things are conflated.
[i]A: In a determinist universe I can’t help to act this way.
B: Sure, but now that the problem has been pointed out a new cause is in play.
A: But what if it’s a determinist universe?
B: Well, some people do change when their patterns are pointed out.
A: But perhaps I can’t help but not be affected.[/i]
B: Sure, but that means, even in a deterministic universe, that you are a particular kind of person, and likely have motivations that you cannot face. IOW, you are a poor discussion partner, even if you can’t help that.
And when this is pointed out, he plays…
Look how hard I tried. In this scenario he is the husband, the wife is anyone who is a discussion partner, and the therapist is the gallery he appeals to with ‘I leave it to others to decide…’
There’s even a game called ‘Let’s you and him fight.’ LOL
Now Berne’s empirical evidence for these games was not rigorous. It was based on his experiences with clients, his observations. But I find it amusing how a number of them keep coming to mind with these threads.
Does ‘playing games’ mean anything in a deterministic universe?
I think so. It wouldn’t be about blame, but still about what people are like. IOW saying that one kind of interaction is more gamelike, less honest, more convoluted, in some sense a con, could still have meaning. It’s just we ‘shouldn’t’ really blame the person. I put citation marks around ‘shouldn’t’ because in determinism without blame we also lose moral shoulds.
A sign at a beach bathing area saying that poisonous jellyfish have been seen in numbers in the water so bathing is considered dangerous today are still useful, however, in a deterministic universe.
LOL
That’s interesting.
In this case, is there any way to change the game or to end it?
I have always been approaching it with the idea that if one could produce a shift away from a static “I” or absolute certainty or universal obligations, then the game would change. But maybe I’m completely wrong about it.
Pardon these long rants. I am working out this as I write. Thinking out loud. And who else but you could possibly understand.
But I do go on and on below. No worries if you can’t find the interest to go to the end. Imagining you reading this was part of me exploring a few ideas below and that was useful regardless. I think it is actually important because we all have a bit of iamb in us.
I think with most things, there needs to be some sense on both sides that there has been game playing. And the internet is not a great environment for change since both parties have so much control over what is shown. All self-doubt, fear, mixed feelings can be hidden and the best foot put forward. Calling out the game might affect someone, but I think that’s rare. And there needs to be some motivation for someone to want to end the game.
Of course this was mainly speculative fun. But I have found that responding to and thinking about iamb has led me to a lot, I mean a lot, of insight into people in general.
He even helped me today with the concept of Jouissance, Lacan’s version…
IOW at face value this is all about finding answers to important questions: how to resolve all moral claims - I mean, that would be great, we’d all get along and treat each other well - find out for sure if we are free or not, find a way to be authentic (have a capitalized ‘I’ and know what one wants. Important stuff, at least possibly. So the enterprise has a spirit of seriousness, even, ironically a moral imperitive. (implicitly he is claiming to be doing good: ‘how could anything else be more important?’ he has said a number of times.)
But when presented with experiential approaches to alleviating his pain - which has been presented as the motivation - he is absolutely not interested unless he can be convinced in advance that it will work for him and treats these attempts as objectivism and some kind of proselytizing situation. When present with philosophical approaches, there is often avoidance of actually dealing with the positions presented and they generally elicit him restating his positions.
He always makes it clear that he is not convinced - in a sense as if this is evidence. And then also gives out criteria for the solution that all rational people would be forced to agree.
IOW an impossible goal and also the first criteria gives him a kind of final say. Try to get me to believe something. See it didn’t work. As if his motivation and his experience and willingness to explore are necessarily unimportant.
So, perhaps, what is happening is actually what he enjoys. What happens is the main goal.
And Lacan was clear that even if one also experiences pain, it can still be because one enjoys, gets satisfaction out of the process.
He wants us to fail against him over and over.
Which doesn’t mean he doesn’t also want answers. I am sure he would also like to resolve conflicting goods, etc. But I don’t think that’s the main thing that is going on.
I am not quite sure what yo mean here. Like if you could convince him that we don’t need to be 100 percent sure to live and act, the discussion would flow better, we could get down to practical application…? Things like that. Yes, I can see that. I mean, that might work with someone else, or might work here in a year. Or those criteria of his might be part of the game, since they lead to dead ends. Or both.
I used to try to point out that he was, in fact, acting in the world, already. And that his choice of actions were based on things that he believed. If he was certain 100% about those beliefs, well, how? If he’s not, well, then he is acting in the world without being 100% certain, so it isn’t necessary. He could minimize even further his influence on others, by not posting here. He could protect the world even more from his actions since he cannot be 100% sure he knows how one ought to act. That line never got anywhere. Though it was interesting coming up with it.
I generally tried to treat the dialogue itself as moral ground and a concrete one. IOW for me Mary’s abortion is not concrete. Though i did respond to his requests for concrete actions I had made in specific situations with conflicting goods. This however, did not solve his problems (suprise surprise) and then he quickly forgot about it starting demanding I do it as if it never happened.
Since our interaction with his is a shared concrete experience and as concrete as possible since it is there on the ‘page’, it seemed to me the best possible set of examples. But he simply cannot follow such things. Even when presented with direct quoted evidence of what he did, he glides away from it and places the interaction in some other context.
So that failed too, though it was also interesting.
I and you have tried a wide range of approaches. Now we don’t agree about things. It’s not like we have some unified position on life.
I think though we share a common belief that we are doing nothing wrong by living. I think there is something very anti-life in what he is implying and doing. How dare you all go around, more confident than me - in different ways - and not suffer like I am.
For different and perhaps overlapping reasons, we don’t feel like we are doing anything wrong by being alive and trying to accomplish things and interacting with other people. And so the message is
Prove to me you are not sinning.
As ironic as it is for a nihilist non-objectivist to have that message.
Now most people think that the words they say are what they are doing.
But what we are doing is actually about the dynamics of the process of interaction.
So despite the irony, I think our nihilist here is telling us we are sinners. (though he may be wrong, lol, it is our job to convince him we are not sinners.)
And he gets pleasure when we fail to convince him. And even more pleasure if we get irritated.
Because it indicates we are not happy, he thinks.
I think he wants an answer that is absolute and objective and entirely satisfactory not just to himself but to everyone else
For he wants nothing less than a universal explanation for the question of conflicting goods in relation to human existence
It is doomed to failure as there is no such explanation as each individual has to decide for themselves what is true to them
Yep, that has been the general pattern over the years. In particular with the objectivists.
I’ve narrowed it down to three possible reasons:
1] I argue that while philosophers may go in search of wisdom, this wisdom is always truncated by the gap between what philosophers think they know [about anything] and all that there is to be known in order to grasp the human condition in the context of existence itself. That bothers some. When it really begins to sink in that this quest is ultimately futile, some abandon philosophy altogether. Instead, they stick to the part where they concentrate fully on living their lives “for all practical purposes” from day to day.
2] I suggest in turn it appears reasonable that, in a world sans God, the human brain is but more matter wholly in sync [as a part of nature] with the laws of matter. And, thus, anything we think, feel, say or do is always only that which we were ever able to think, feel, say and do. And that includes philosophers. Some will inevitably find that disturbing. If they can’t know for certain that they possess autonomy, they can’t know for certain that their philosophical excursions are in fact of their own volition.
3] And then the part where, assuming some measure of autonomy, I suggest that “I” in the is/ought world is basically an existential contraption interacting with other existential contraptions in a world teeming with conflicting goods — and in contexts in which wealth and power prevails in the political arena. The part where “I” becomes fractured and fragmented.
And, really, how long will many philosophers [objectivists especially] pursue exchanges that revolve around assumptions like this? They become philosophers to find answers. Then they bump into me. And I argue that, in all likelihood, answers to the Big Questions will never be known by them, or are compelled by nature, or, in regard to their interactions with others in the moral and political spheres, are but existential fabrications ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed in in a world teeming with contingency, chance and change.
But: That this, in turn, can only be my own existential contraption. At least until I come upon an argument able to convince me not to think as, here and now, I do.
My point is that it seems reasonable to connect the dots between the human brain as matter in sync with the laws of matter, and the behaviors I choose – any behaviors – as being entirely in sync with that in turn.
Only I acknowledge that I am not myself able to demonstrate that. Instead, on this thread, I copy and paste arguments made by others and react to them.
If he does in fact believe he is in possession of free will, how does he explain this beyond his “general descriptions”? Beyond what I construe to be his pedantic assertions about these relationships?
Only here and now I am “stuck” with believing that nature may well have compelled me to assert this myself. I just don’t know what to believe because I have no capacity to know what to believe for sure.
Over and again I point out I am not in possession of either the knowledge or the experience needed to demonstrate what seems reasonable to me “in my head”.
“I” here being an existential contraption. In other words, in regard to determinism, I am basing my thinking now on the actual confluence of lived experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge. Put all of these variable together and over the years “I” have come to believe what I do. I can only speculate as to how my thinking here and now might have been very different had the variables in my life been very different.
Thus: taking that into account, how do the philosophers and scientists come to pin down an argument that transcends “I” as an existential contraption, and arrives at an argument [complete with evidence] that finally pins down once and for all the extent to which “I” is in possession of actual volition.
Is he himself in possession of that knowledge and experiential background? It would seem that he certainly believes that he is. Otherwise where would he get the confidence to insist that those who don’t think like he does are morons and desperate degenerates?
To wit:
Come on, over and again I challenge folks to take the dictionary definitions of words – “freedom”, “justice”, “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “evil”, “determinism”, “autonomy” – and use them to describe their own interactions with others. Sometimes in the context of morality, sometimes in the context of free will.
So, was any particular Mary in any particular context free and just in opting for a particular abortion because abortion was the right thing for her to do given that she was free to opt not to have one?
Okay, Mr. Philosopher, what say you?
This thread merely focuses the beam on Mr. Philosopher demonstrating that whatever he says was in turn always predicated on the fact that he could have freely opted to say something else instead.
In other words, regarding what in particular and in what actual context, ought all rational men and women agree?
That’s preposterous. Cite something on this thread that I posted to indicate that this is how I react to him.
Yes, but you merely assume that you do have some measure of control over it and have freely opted not to be concerned about it.
You just know this. Even though I have myself yet to come upon an argument [backed up with ample evidence] to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to share this argument as well.
Right. You observed it. So the fact that you observed it makes determining whether you observed it of your own volition…irrelevant?
Note to others:
A little help please. Is he making an important point here that I keep missing? What is he actually saying about describing something? Something that I fail to grasp given my own assumption that in a wholly determined universe, we can only describe what nature compels us to describe given that the descriptions themselves are derived from a human brain that is derived from the evolution of mindless matter into conscious matter that is no less embedded in the laws of matter themselves.
Mind is mysterious matter, no doubt about it. It may well be derived from the God that he believes in. Or there may well in fact be some component of the human brain that somehow was able to bring about human autonomy.
I’m just looking for the argument and the evidence able to convince me of that.
Okay, let’s try another context. One that most here will be familiar with. Describe for me the difference between Trump being “free” to argue that The Squad in Congress ought to go back from where they came, and, instead, him being free to argue it.
How is it fully determined that in fact this easily observed/described decision on his part is not but the psychological illusion of “choice”?
How are all of us here not in the same boat that I suggested above:
In fact, one suspects that his only recourse here [as with mine and probably yours] is to Google those folks who are in fact exploring this experimentally, scientifically, phenomenologically etc., and extracting the arguments most in sync with his own particular subjective prejudice.
How is this not “for all practical purposes” still the bottom line here?
No, I’m more curious about the extent to which those answers are actually within the reach of philosophy and science.
How would an answer that qualifies be expressed?
Clearly, in the either/or world of mindless matter, there are any number of relationships that “for all practical purposes” seem to be as close as we have come so far to being true objectively. In other words, true for everyone. Leaving aside that gap between these supposedly scientific and mathematical and logical truths and an understanding of existence itself.
But what of the is/ought world?
And what of the world grappled with in posing the Big Questions? Like the one that encompoasses this thread?
What of answers here?
How is it finally established that both the questions and the answers are not but a necessary, inherent component of a determined world?
Assuming some measure of human autonomy, how do you go about demonstrating that it is doomed to failure? Instead, you merely assert it to be so embodying what I construe to be the objectivist frame of mind. You have come to accept certain assumptions/premises about the human condition, and, thus, your conclusion follows from that.
But what is actually proven?
Let’s first see what you had to say about the last context that you brought up - Mary’s abortion.
That’s the extent of your analysis. An unsubstantiated accusation that her consequences are the result of my assumptions. A claim that you lack the knowledge and experience to demonstrate anything. And a bunch of questions.
Now you want to change to another context where your contribution will be just as meager?
No thanks.
Look what you wrote here :
and here :
and here :
and here :
Sounds like you are saying that he has absolutely nothing to support his statements - that’s it’s entirely a “world of words” or “web of words”.
Every answer provided is called an “intellectual contraption” by you.
I call intellectual contraption!
Don’t take the bait, biggs. He’s trying to contrap you.
Surreptitious, Phyllo (since you also responded to this and that’s where I saw this…)
Notice how surreptitious mentions objectivity, which would lead to a conclusion accepted by science and philosophy. Already odd. No, I’m more curious…and ends up mentioning science and philosophy which would be concerned with objective answers.
But here’s the really odd part.
Here he says he is not interested in the answer. He is interesting in how that answer would be expressed. Suddenly actual concrete answers, for example about how to live, or whether there is free will, are not interesting. What is interesting is how they would be expressed. IOW suddenly abstraction is the goal. (and, of course, if you had the answer, you would see in it how it is expressed)
Something bothered him about you pointing out what he wants. So, he disagreed, though partially by agreeing. And then shifted to wanting abstract descriptions about how answers, without knowing one, would be expressed.
And he will not or cannot acknowledge any of this strangeness or the ever gliding away from really responding to people he does.
I think he is damaged and I also think that the discussion is not what it is presented as.
The goal is not the results of the discussion. The goal is your failure.
And he can always tell you that you failed to convince him.
Discussing things with him is allowing an avoidance to be maintained. He’s hurting and this is the best solution he has come up with. A discussion that is not supposed to arrive anywhere.
Over and over and over again, I note that in regard to Mary choosing an abortion or Trump choosing to attack The Squad or you and I choosing to do anything at all, I have taken a subjective/existential leap “here and now” to the argument/belief that nature compels all matter to unfold in accordance with its immutable laws.
In other words, all the way up to me typing these words and you reading them.
But: I have no capacity to demonstrate why and how others ought to think that way too.
My argument with the objectivists is that they assert certain things to be true. And that, if others refuse to toe their own dogmatic line – to become “one of us” dittoheads – they become the equivalent of morons.
Now, your turn. How do you differentiate Trump being “free” to attack The Squad, from Trump being free to attack those women of color in Congress?
And how do you then actually demonstrate to us that you are either “free” or free to make this claim?
All I was asking of Mr. Philosopher – or Mr. Objectivist – was to note their reaction to a particular context in which a particular woman chooses an abortion.
Either in the context of a discussion of morality or a discussion of autonomy in a world deemed to either be or not to be wholly in sync with nature’s laws of matter.
My own assumption then being that human beings are in turn a part of nature. And, concomittantly, that human minds are a profoundly problematic component of the laws of nature that some are exploring experiementally, scientifically, phenomenologically.
Note to others:
Please peruse the examples he cites above and explain to me how my reaction constitutes “some crazy ideas about ‘freedom’ which he has completely fabricated out of a web of words.”
All I ask of him is that he bring his arguments about free will down out of the scholastic clouds and to demonstrate how he does in fact have some measure of autonomy when confronting the desperate degenerates in exchanges like this.
How are his arguments in regard to actual human interactions not basically just a world of words?
Note the many examples where, on the Free Will thread, he does in fact bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth.
If that’s true, then …
Calling you a moron must also be in accordance with nature’s immutable laws.
So what’s the problem?
Why are you asking me? Ask nature’s immutable laws instead.
And while you are at it, explain to them why you sometimes write the word ‘free’ in quotes and sometimes in italics. Cause I have no idea what you mean by it.
Oh, the reaction to a context is the important part of the discussion. That being different from what? A description of what is happening in the context?
For example : I love this car. I think this car is ugly. I think this car is underpowered. Versus. This car is red. It seats 5. It accelerates to 60mph in 2.5 seconds.
Is that it? You want the subjective reaction to a context?
Science only deals with observable phenomena so cannot provide any satisfactory answer to such a question
Philosophy does not answer questions definitively but does however explore the nature of human existence
Ultimately though there is no single objectively true answer that will satisfy everyone
That is because any answer however grounded in logic it is will always be subjective
Stating an obvious truth is not an assertion - namely that you cannot apply an objective metric to the human condition
Because there are no objectively true answers to the question of our existence or of how we should live our lives
If you disagree then say what are the objectively true answers to them - ones that can actually be demonstrated