Yes, and then this principle bumps into the principle that nature compels us to move only in the direction of that which it has, in turn, already compelled us to conclude is the direction of our greater satisfaction. That principle then thought to be no less SOUND than yours.
Then what?
Well, then nature either compels others to move in the direction of one point of view or the other.
Whose conscience, pertaining to what environment, pertaining to what two-side equation, pertaining to what actual chosen behaviors?
What on earth does that mean?!!!
Yes, the aliens residing in autonomous part of the universe have the actual option to choose – to either note how the author’s own options reflected merely the psychological illusion of choice back then or to note how your own options today can never be more than nature compelling you to “choose” to come back into this exchange with me.
Only in my own rendition of determinism, it’s nature all the way down. And then all the way back to an explanation for existence itslef.
Note to others:
Is it even possible, in terms of the behaviors that we do choose, to encompass the meaning of “for all practicle purposes” in a more obscure, obtuse and hopelessly abstract manner.
From my frame of mind [compelled or not] it encompasses instead precisely how the author’s “discovery” above [encompassed in excerpts] is little more than an “intellectual contraption”.
She brings none of it down to earth, in my view.
Yes, I agree that probing the brain of a particular woman with an unwanted pregnancy hooked up to fMRI technology is not the same as probing it in the context of the choices/“choices” she makes on the way to the abortion clinic.
It’s just a start until the technology is shrunk down to an instrument able to be taken into the clinic with her.
But how on earth is the author’s discovery applicable to the brain of this woman making her choices. How on earth does he connect the dots between here and now and a progressive future where the hurt inflicted on the shredded fetus and the hurt inflicted on a woman forced to give birth somehow just go away. If, for now, only in the author’s head?
We know that in our dreams we are no less convinced that we are freely choosing to behave as we do. Or, rather, that’s the way it is in my dreams. Only upon waking do we become cognizant that this “reality” was created entirely by the brain in our brain.
Only how do we demonstrate in turn that our becoming cognizant of the dream upon waking is no less a necessary manifestation of nature having remarkably evolved into matter able to accomplish this?
Where is the author’s explanation for that?
And if you actually see no connection between the points I raise about dream reality and waking reality in a wholly determined universe, then, well, damned if I know.
Back again to that mysterious manner in which [here] you are in sync with my own frame of mind, but…
…but then make our “choices” both 1] a part of a necessary unfolding of history into that which it can only ever be and 2] able to particpate in the author’s “progressive” future in the moment of “choosing” to before the true “no free will world” kicks in.
In other words, whatever that means. And, no, for me, it’s not just “for all paractical purposes”. Even as an intellectual contraption itself it makes no sense to me.
But, I’m willing to acknowledge two things…
1] that the problem is me…your explanations are more reasonable than mine but I am unable to grasp them…though only as nature compels this to be
2] that we both have some measure of autonomy here…and that your reasoning is still more sophisticated than mine
peacegirl, you refuse to provide me with the sort of evidence that demonstrates to me that the author is able to bring his intellectual contraptions down to earth…such that I am enticed to explore his discovery in full
Besides, nature has yet to compel me to read it.
Right?
Okay, step by step, in regard to the global economy today, note how the author is convincing in persuading us to see this transformation more clearly.
Also, just out of curiosity, how did he react to the manner in which Marx and Engels also envisioned a progressive future predicated on the historical evolution of political economy into a classless society which as well minimized the pain and suffering of humanity?
Theoretically.
Of course they actually brought their own speculations down to earth by noting the actual evolution of political economy over the course of human interaction down through the ages. Focusing on the means of production and the manner in different types of human communities predicated social and political interactions – the superstructure – on these fundamental forces. The infrastructure. The economic base.
Over and over and over again you level this sort of accusation at me — in much the same manner that those who embrace free will would.
The irony then being completely lost on you.
Keep telling yourself that. After all, it’s not like you actually have the option not to. But that’s between you and nature.
But [compelled or not] I’m sticking to my own assumption. That, psychologically, this exchange with me is creating more and more cracks in your own objectivist font.
And that won’t be tolerated. Not for now. And I know this because it took years before the cracks finally led to the crumbling of my own objectivist font. Fonts, actually. God. No God.
No one I suspect would ever want to end up construing things as grimly as I do “here and now”. I sure as shit don’t.