Determinism

I don’t know if we will ever be able to know. This may be the last frontier - the last of humanity’s unsolved mysteries about existence. Seriously though, some people just don’t have the time. Keep in mind that what is interesting to you may not be interesting to others. I get something out of nearly everything that I read. But for me peacegirl, it goes something like this…I have a family that I want to spend time with every day, I have to go to work each day, there are household chores that need to be done and a whole bunch of other stuff that occupies my life including a little time for entertainment and keeping up with what is going on in the world and also a bunch of books already on my reading list. Yep life is pretty busy and ILP gets a little bit of my time but most conversations here do not require a huge amount of effort to take part in - a lot of my posts are done while I am at work - I work in front of a computer nearly every day and am able to post on different forums and social networks in between tests of what I am working on and experiments that I am working on that require no interaction. At the end of the day, it is nice to spend time away from the technology that I use the most. Barbeques, beaches, mountains, and forests…so much to do.

And there are times that I take long breaks from a lot of social platforms, be they forums or any other format.

I am pretty sure I will be able to get around to reading the three chapters of the book though, even if I still have no real idea of what I am getting into.
I only really have your word for it being a good book - maybe someone else who has read it will be kind enough to go into here on ILP.

I will also have to trust that the link you provide does not lead to some malware being installed on one of my computers via some fancy malicious redirect.

Thanks for sharing. You certainly have a well rounded life which is healthy. But I want to emphasize that this is a discovery not just any book. That’s why I’m so passionate about sharing it in the hope that people will want to spread the word. I can’t reach anyone in the field (like Sam Harris) who could put his stamp of approval on it and get more people to study it. I know you don’t know me from Adam but you can trust me. You don’t even have to download the chapters onto your computer. Just read it online. The only thing I ask is that you don’t jump ahead. Read each chapter in the order it was written.

Sam Harris? As in four horsemen fame?

Surely people that work in similar fields are not too hard to access. I know the “field” I work in is even smaller than his “field” and it has close to one thousand people from around the world.

The well known philosophers are impossible to get in touch with. It’s like a treasure is right next to them but they don’t know it’s there.

Sorry guys. Even unknown philosophers at times are hard to understand notwithstanding.

My reasons for being here ade manyfold but #1 is that I love philosophy and philosophers.

The others follow, … And I like Russian dolls, too and enrollment to social places particularily, and I say this with all honesty, I like to like those who do the same without regret.

Note to nature:

Huh?!!

If I’m compelled to ask you myself.

There was a couple of inside jokes in it. Nothing to be concerned about. I have been thrown into the world just like everyone else.

Yes, but this thread concerns itself more with grappling with who – God? – or what – nature? – threw us into it.

Then the part where once we’re thrown, we grapple further with pinning down whether, among other things, the exchanges on this thread themselves are only ever as they could have been. In the only possible reality given a wholly determined universe as I am either compelled or opt freely to speculate about it myself.

Inside jokes themselves would seem to be no exception.

Then the part where, compelled or not, we go all the way out to the very end of the metaphysical limb and grapple with all of this ontologically and teleologically.

It’s just that to the chagrin of those like peacegirl, I suggest this must go all the way back to the complete understanding of existence itself.

But this in particular discourages some because it begins to dawn on them just how utterly futile this task actually is. Like me, compelled or not, they pursue it only because they can’t “will”, will or peacegirl’s “will” themselves not to.

And then, I ask myself, how could that frame of mind not be rooted in dasein?

It’s rooted in each person’s heredity and environment.

See what he does? Here or there, he completely avoids addressing the points that I raised above – in or out of dreams – and just goes right on assuming that his own conclusions about victims and God and the universe are the only ones that all the others in his own masters class are obligated to preach in turn.

And, again, the sheer irony embedded in all of this!!

He loves to go on and on about “herd mentality”. And yet he demands that others must think exactly like he does about free will in his very own KT clique/claque. And if they don’t? Well, compelled or not, he sentences them to the dungeon. And, even there, he “disappears” entire threads.

So, how is KT not then itself just another herd?! They become the “one of us” masters and those who are “one of them” become the “desperate degenerate” slaves.

In other words, just another sad, pathetic rendition of the Ayn Randroid Syndrome.

And yet here I am having thought myself into believing that he was never able not to be other than what he could only ever be in the only possible reality.

In other words, as with polishyouth, he’s off the hook too!!!

Note to nature:

Compelled or not, explain yourself!!!

Of course I can partially derive it after some thought but it will have to be a play, of words or even a play within a play kind of like a rarely staged Tiny Alice, rather than a less structured wait, as for godot.

This partiality broadens an impartial characterization?
May be.

Yes, right up to the point where I think how differently my father and son are to me and wonder whether their environment may have had something to do with this and furthermore how relevant this is to my being. We have some unresolved entities here but before I think, I have to be - I also have to occasionally check that I am not falling into the traps that others unintentionally/intentionally lay down for me. Whether others are intentional or not is not the point here because within the next few seconds whatever I have just considered is gone to give way to that which comes next. What is important is what is now.

The question of god or nature…hmm…

What threw me into this?

Then, of course, there is the problem of our language…the biggest roadblock in this discussion…and…there are infinitely different ways to think about things…

Well, it sounds good to me. Right now, at least.

Language is important because clear communication is dependent on the words being used. That’s why defining terms is so important. The truth I’m sharing is an invariable law. There is no other way to think about the fact that 1+1=2.

Language is important. Definitions are useful especially when we consider how often we all fumble with the use of language.
Part of the problem is inherent to how our language is built - how it is structured - in its grammar, however, I will leave this for another discussion in some other thread or instance in my life.

I was referring to what some perceive as Heidegger’s problem with language.

This perception if used the right way(whatever this means) can intelligently show that we are not masters of language.
Of course, this whole idea can also illuminate much more than this(again if used the right way).

How does it concern itself with these two possibilities?

The problem I have with this comes down to first proving that there is anything outside the mind - if there is then how do I access that without some kind of faith?

I am genuinely interested. I personally have some kind of faith but no real way to prove anything without relying on this faith.

This or I am simply dreaming, at times sleeping inside this dream, and in turn, dreaming inside this sleep < hence my reference to Russian dolls.

Well, if a God/the God does in fact exist and He is as most of the faithful believe Him to be, both omniscient and omnipotent, it must be explained how, in turn, the faithful insist that this God can be reconciled with human autonomy.

On the other hand, if He does in fact exist at least that creates a transcending font that mere mortals can turn to in order to resolve the quandary once and for all.

With a No God nature, however, things would seem to become inherently more problematic. Nature “throws” us into existence, but only [to the best of my current knowledge] at the tail end of biological evolution on planet Earth. And how do we go about assessing nature’s capacity here to reconfigure mindless matter into mindful matter? Is there a point, a thing, a place in the universe we can go too as the faithful go to God? Where is the argument backed up with evidence that pins down how this happened? Instead, as with those like Satyr, many will just be obliged to shrug and insist, “Free will? It just happened, that’s why”.

Indeed, how is this possible without an existential leap to one or another conclusion that you or another “thought up” in your head/their head? Unless, of course, someone has in fact solved this vexing quandary going back to the pre-Socratics. And how are they any less than us embedded in that gap between what any particular individual thinks he or she knows about questions this big and the biggest question of them all: how do we explain the existence of existence itself.

The Russian doll , in the version of Tiny Alice is likened to the reductive phenomenology.

I try to connect that to the innermost reductive phenomenological smallness with the near limitlessly small doll, that is covarient to the most general concept-phenomenon, like the phenomenally thinking dog.

That is representative of the certainty we are all waiting for, like Godot is.

Now the other concept of the Einsteinian premise , vis. that combines an evolutionarily natural objective that needs a necessarily coincidental perception to realize it’s self, and You see the necessity of creation arriving from thought as an ideal , integral construction to exostence as a product of that developed consciousness.

That trajectory follows a sequential ontological parrallel, so consciousness can be said to be logically object oriented

That that object has been an anthropological course, shows that the alpha has an ideational, identificational origin toward the omega of a constantly rechanneled interconnective change.

It does not mean that objective can not differently configure and as such transform into smaller , and less identifiable aspects of reality.( existence)

The smaller and consequently denser this configuration, the less appearent freedom for it ‘s (existance) with the conclusion that the atomic and subatomic substrata become necessarily singular entities, motionless, timeless, and in It’ s self being

God is absolutely constrained to choose only that which is motionless, up a level it may very slightly move by vibration, but it is pure Parmenedis, a pure and absolute yet hidden thinking being.

To exist is to perceive,( and to be perceived); to think is to be.

The conscious essence in between are the essential and ceaseless movements, which forever move from the elemental to the most evolved, and back, eternally

This to me is utter certainty.

of 'God’s certainty of Being.

To give You an illustration of what is meant here,
Kerouac alludes to his experience when climbing Desolation Peak , he says, " You can’t fall of the mountain’. Nietzche elludes to this geeling, when he intimates that how would it be when in the next life and the next, You’l l experience the exact reality to a T?

I have also experienced th OS feeling, which agrees with the idea that free will is mostly a cognitive paradox.

Now the way I recreate this state of mind, may not be literally comprehensible, but some things in life, such as these, are ‘proven’ incomprehensible fof lack of credible proof.

There is a lot to be had through adding up every interaction you have ever had and thinking for five seconds what you may have missed without such interactions - but only worth five seconds of your time maybe a couple of times in each of our lives. Networks of people work stuff out at an astonishing rate for so many reasons that we have no time for now. This adds up to constant change with only some cycles appearing persistent. I can not begin such a conversation without traversing some sort of thought spectrum that contains inconsistencies and contradictions - no perceived progress would be made without removing such inconveniences and following a more narrow field/spectrum of thought. This narrow pathway could lead off in the wrong direction. Then again all roads may lead to Rome - but who knows?

I am going to be self-centered about this rather than humane. Comparing God to Nature is not helpful. If there is a god then this should help explain nature. We know more about nature than god so I would be inclined to start with nature and work my way out from there. This is of course following a scientific thinking bias. I follow this line of thought because a lot of god stories appear to be mostly that - stories. This does not mean there is not a god, just that the god people do not explain it well. I am not one for having any appreciation of fancy party tricks of logic, so this won’t do for me either - only useful logic for me and how do we know what logic we need to use to solve such a conundrum. Mathematics also appears to be able to invent things that are not really there either. So if there are things that I am missing it is because my mind and others are not sufficient to be able to piece everything necessary for an adequate explanation. Ego-centric people who would get some self-satisfaction by jumping in and ripping my words to pieces do not have the goods to prove anything either - I know this right this minute because that has been my experience up until now - they are full of more hot air than proof.

Thinking bias is problematic and a lot of it can be removed but still not enough right now to make any satisfactory progress - neither you nor I would be happy with today’s outcome even if bias is removed. Currently, there is not enough information or not enough acceptance for what information there is. It is easier to uncover flaws in thinking than it is to prove any of this God and Nature, or, God or Nature business. Perhaps our methods and languages have been flawed enough throughout our history to ever help us solve certain questions - not excluding mathematics. So close yet so far perhaps. We should not give up necessarily but we may have to accept certain things within our lifetimes. I am an expert with some things and otherwise comfort myself with childish notions for other things - then there is all the stuff in between. Right now, some things are still out of reach.

Leap of faith? Jumping out of the mind to look around seems like it will always be problematic to me. Plenty of things are going on according to my mind and I don’t dismiss that everything I have come to “believe” is just some weird dream. The dream may only be analogous to what is actually happening - perhaps I am in some simulation - in which case my silly brain is all too ready to contemplate the reality of whoever is running that simulation and it may not even be a whoever. All this before I even get to determinism - determinism itself is reliant on some conditions that may, or may not, have been met. Sorry if you read this and think, what on earth is he talking about - but this, according to my mind(if there is such a thing).