Determinism

Quite the contrary of course. It is the advocates of free will who are forced to create this wholly inexplicable entity – “me” – in the brain.

After all, the human brain is but the culmination of mindless matter going all the way back to whenever matter first came into existence.

How then are we to explain, to encompass human consciousness as something other than matter created from the laws of nature itself.

Instead, those like Satyr are left with nothing more than this: “It just happened, that’s why”.

At least the religious folks have God.

Just because everything is matter does not mean there is no God. I don’t see any contradiction here. A soul does not have to be magical nor does God have to be magical and esoteric…a god might as well be an agent in the physical world…This is old stuff…you Yanks are regressing to the times of Hume and Leibniz and Newton and the whole universe as a machine argument…on what basis can you claim that matter somehow excludes the existence of a God like agent in the universe…where do you have this knowledge from??? you or the kook SATIRE??? I’d like to know which science has provided you with such certainty to be able to exclude the possibility of a God like agent in the universe or explain free-will when we barely understand the basic operations of our brains…both you kooks talk about free will as if its a done and dusted topic thats as self evident as grass growing on pavements…what are your accreditations???you two should really stop…two grown ass men making a circus out of themselves…a Greek-Canadian expert who can bearly put a coherent and grammatically correct sentence together in English and a kook who has spend years studying dasein yet can’t define what the term means…time to grow up.

Thomas Hobbes would agree, but if there is a god, then he would have to be tangible like matter.
So, one thing Hobbes did not say, which I ask; where is god?

God is not somewhere…just like the universe is not somewhere and you cant catch a flight there…the reasons for a naturalistic God are such:
if we assume that the world is a causative machine then we must address:

  1. universe as a paradox for a human cognition as it must either be infinite or have an end beyond which there is nothing, clearly both are nonsensical but nobody can propose a third solution
  2. we broke into an atom and found something even smaller and we might continue to do so indefinitely or at least assume it is possible to do so until we find a way to exhaust the depth of the matter
  3. be able to exhaust the explanation of the origin of everything
    no machine that is conceivable to human cognition presents the above characteristics, as in unexplainable depth and width so we must speculate and we can speculate about a possibility of some kind of designer intelligence or some other mechanism of action and if we can and want to speculate about an explanatory designer and universalist intelligence then we must attribute to it logic since reason must have logic so we can reasonably assume that a designer and universalist God would operate on some quasi-human, superior type of logic so a universal God in the naturalist sense is a potential explanation for the depth and width of the universe; so God would be a type of a being with a type of intelligence and potential which would allow it to solve for these paradoxes and understand, unlike us, what it means to create something out of nothing, what is either nothing or indefinite something(and how to cause and maintain it) and be able to operate completely present in all as in both the width processes as in the depth processes and things. The argument for God stems from the evident proof of our limited scope due to our mammalian brains in a form of paradoxes we can construe, know to be both valid and nonsensical and yet be unable to resolve them nor prove them nonsensical so it is reasonable to assume we might be missing something and this is where the real science ends and real philosophy enters. A type of theoretical being or a similar process or something.

Something makes me seriously doubt you ever red Hobbes or if you did, if your little peanut brain managed to put it all together if you are asking idiotic questions like that which Hume and the familia addressed at several books length. If you want to know how everything started, you can always visit SHITthyself…SATIRE smeared the Christians with the supposed anti-nature, anti-reality absolute thing and in his idiocy and arrogance did not think the whole thing through and eventually realized that absolute is neither idiotic nor nihilistic so he felt compelled to prove it so and he has an almost certain theory of the origin and mechanism of everything. :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: apparently, if you are a kook and say chaos and dynamism and throw few ancient Greek words and names around it all makes sense…i did not try…

Nice PY, we will make a spooky kook out of you yet.

:laughing:

I am already a kook bro…afterall, I was in the SHITthyself little virgin cult for few good years…and I even managed to somehow become a Polish neo-nazi…despite multiple family members butchered savagely and my grandfather put into an orphanage after the Nazis ran his father down in the concentration camp because he was a principal of a school in Ukraine or my great-grandmother having her front teeth knocked out by an SS-man for being ‘suspect’ because of the neighbors’ underground activity. so I might be the biggest kook here, now I see the bullshit in all of it but you have to be a bit off to even believe in all of it in the first place… :confused: :confused: :confused: what saved me is that I am not a Canadian and I can speak a language other than English so I have had access to the less littered and chaotic side of the internet and the fact that I always want to hear the opposing views and take them seriously to see if what I read and believe is worth fuck all…this is how I found out that lying neo-nazi kook David Irving is full of shit…I simply red the historians he critiqued and their critiques of him compared to his defence of himself.

Again, how is the way we define things any less inherently embedded in the only possible world? There’s nature compelling us to “define” things as we do, the human brain capable of defining things autonomously or how you “define” things from your own wholly unintelligible [to me] free will/no free will intellectual contraption.

Yes, I “know”. That’s what I keep “trying” to “explain” to you.

Note to others:

You tell me!!!

Okay, let’s move on to this:

Given the author’s assessment of all this in the book, what’s his take on teleology? What would he ascribe to purpose and meaning in the lives of those who have utterly no free will.

And is he still around “out there” somewhere embodying it?

lol what a kook :confused: :confused: :confused:

Right, like this explains how matter that evolved into stars and rock worlds like planet Earth then evolved further into biological matter that thinks that it is free to note things like this merely by insisting that it thinks this is true.

Again, how is he not back to this: “It just happened that way, asshole, so there!”

Now, sure, if he had the intellectual honesty and integrity to at least admit that his own guess here is merely as good or bad as mine or yours or anyone else, that might be something to point to.

Instead, he has to huff and puff and insist that anyone who does not share his own WAG is, among other things, a “desperate degenerate”.

And [of course] ever and always up in the clouds of intellectual contraptions. While having the gall to insist in the very next post that “Nihilism survives on abstractions…”!!!

I recognize over the years the immense difficulty involved in trying to have a discussion with someone who has a different understanding of, and use for, the words I know that I see used.

It’s such an immense difficulty that it would require far too much time then I’d be willing to allot to such an endeavor. Derrida had a term for this problem in writing… forget what it was. But if every concept has a word in it, and what a word means must be established before it’s use, then every statement would have to be substantiated by another statement and so on. You’d never even begin an argument with someone if this were the case - you’d be caught in the endless repetition of defining what you meant - and if you thought you were arguing with someone, you were clearly as confused as the guy you thought you’re arguing with, was.

This is wut I call linguistic nihilism, Biggs. I do not deny the activity of communication and the corresponding behavior of human beings that goes with it. What I deny is that all language must make sense (must not be nonsense) in order to work, to be efficacious.

How can anyone communicate without a basic understanding of the very words they’re using? This is so basic it sometimes gets overlooked as unimportant yet it’s the most important communication tool of all.

Removed for irrelevance.

Yeah no I’m not saying communication is impossible, PG. I was alluding to what appears to be meaningful communication in a lot of philosophical exchanges. In this thread for example, special ‘philosophical’ uses of abstract technical terms (‘determine’, ‘will’) without exception causes confusion. Seen it happen every time.

“Once again, the word ‘free’ is misleading. Yes, man has the ability to make choices in a particular direction, but you will soon see that this does not make his will free.”

Yes because we are free to substantiate and deify any prior claim, thus although we are free to do it, once it’s done, it has bearing wether we believe it or not. Even the most absurd notions become a symbolic sub-strata, substantially pre-integrated in the mosaic of beliefs and laws which connect to the present , as a necessary ingredient.

Greek myths and ideals are as necessary to the eschotologycal beliefs of Western religion, as they were formulated in ancient past.

Meno, that’s what this author was saying all along. I can’t stay here with the diversions unless the thread gets on track for why I posted it to begin with. I’m asking you and others to think about the authors proof of no free will and how we can actually create a better world for all.

declineandfallofallevil.com/ … APTERS.pdf

The bearing it has is very minuscule in most cases Meno. Right now most of humanity is in a state of deadlock. Most people talk, very few people take action. The future is uncertain for most human beings.

Let us also take into account that we should be contemplating a much more immense number than the population of the earth before jumping in bed with such childish notions. Saying that we only have 8 billion variables to take into account when making changes to our future is ridiculous at best. What is the current number of corrupt variables that we must take into account? This does not stop with human beings anyway…

A number no man can fathom.

Peacegirl, Encode Decode:

Both of You are special ed, so the deterrance IS apropos. The nature nuture contraversy hinges on the memetic genetic uncertainty, and the point taken is the problem sustains it’s shadow as the shadow sustains it. It is so deep rooted that the types of depth psychology that entertains them can not even yet overcome the primal power of the will in sexual and other taboo.

The latent power of naturalistic fallacy has not broken through the freeze of the frozen remains of pre naturalism. The value of thick layers of crystallized diamond structures become symbolic artifacts here to stay. Can’t beat it.

The liberalism of a hundred years will suffer terribly changed demarcations with the waning of the idea of a worldly sustained empire, and the ultimate war in this regard, do You incline to believe is the source of Man’d insecurity.

The Blakean cosmic struggle between literally the benign and the other rise forces has reduced morality to atrophy, but engrained in a volumous shadow, and as such, nothing will or does diverge from the primary dubstances : earth, wind and fire.

My argument is not with peacegirl. My argument is with anyone assuming they are at the top of the “save the world” hierarchy in this era. Not even the current paradigms are enough to save humanity from itself when the end comes. No messiah has been able to fix this problem yet and most species have a limited timespan of existence. Humans are currently and arrogantly assuming they can overcome their own extinction. There is a lot of “wannabe” saviors but clearly, none of them have the right stuff. As far as peacegirl is concerned, she is promoting a book, I appreciate her continued effort in promoting that book and hope she can make a difference - I hope we all can but the time for following any given singular person has passed. If we look back through history and see how the idea of following one paradigm and one person and one god has worked out, what do we see? We were never meant to be the same anyway and we were never meant to all hold one belief. It is all so obvious and yet, more than 95% of us don’t see it. How many times do we have to see the same old failures before we actually learn something?

I appreciate your words Meno - they do have value.

Nothing changes the fact that everyone needs a “reality check”. We all have work to do - we can all add something to our collective experience. All of us…

“proof of no free will and how we can actually create a better world for all”

See but you could create a better world and even keep the illusion of freewill. I’m fact, you have to keep it because it comes with the wiring.