Determinism

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).

People of the immemorial past who talked as You do were living symbols of the sceptic tradition.

Every day, some have to get up from their slumbers and reorganize themself to find the faith and courage to live.

How does that work, are any of us capable to do that and invent ourselves without the tradition which may look at the positive series of events behind us of countless generations which may certainly have bogged down without some reason to carry on?

Is cosmic love not axiomatic with the primal love for our offspring, for whom we can not sacrafice them for the sake of our passions?

God anthropomorphised man , so he can realize what real passion is, and what it should be if men do not yet know it.

That is what God is, and not the old man upstairs trying to touch man’s finger with his own , as Leonardo so well represented.

Septic? Stay calm man.

This is on a different level to the everyday.

Meaning? What’s the difference and how can You reintegrate apart from slight mistakes of routing along the way?

In fact very slight discrepencies may add up and cause You to land in unfamiliar territory, and I don’t mean the kind of mistaken reading of the written word,

There are levels which are incimprihensible but they neverthe less exist, even if, yet. Unfamiliar

Something about familiarity breeding a loss A con-tempt of something which exists because of proximity and untested relational expectations , which have not been realized as of yet.

It’s interesting how contempt and contemplate are relational topically.

Just saying, not that it may mean any more then an optical illusion.

Here is how one person analized this ‘illusion’;

"Contemplation on Contempt



Or, rather, on its relation to detachment.

After a long while of observations and various experiences, I believe that the most common (and probably the easiest) way to become detached is to induce contempt in oneself.

Did your friend just say something you don’t agree with? — Remember their favorite music genre? Absolutely not your cup of tea, people with these trashy tastes don’t deserve your attention.

Did someone close just hurt you? — Gosh, remember that annoying habit they have, remember how they pick their nose or throw their socks around? How foul.

Do you just need a reason to reject someone because you don’t want to waste your time trying to understand them? — They’re so disorganized, and that is really beneath a civilized human being, such as yourself.

And everything is suddenly so easy on you.

Here, have a gold star, you just totally freed yourself from the shackles of attachment. Oftentimes, it’s as simple as that, especially if this thinking persists over a relatively long period of time.

Arguably, the process of detachment can go much faster if you have a bunch of friends convincing you something in the other person deserves contempt. Which… may or may not have to do with the famous bandwagon effect.

At first, I thought this simple insight deserved a full-scale article, but I quickly realized people have been writing about it in different words for a while now. I’m leaving it here as a bunch of notes.

I personally believe being contemptuous and unaware of it is quite dangerous and truly unkind, even though conscious contempt comes in handy against undesired emotional connections."

Just I thought i’d add it, in case of a re-view.

Skepticism is a topic of interest in philosophy for good reason. Very useful when we concern ourselves with knowledge.

If someone comes at me with determinism as the solution to all of our problems they had better be ready to prove it.

Determinism on the other hand is a simple tool for different domains that does have its uses.

Philosophy does not just concern itself with how to live right - it concerns itself with pushing us forward to make the best decisions.

Knowledge is a big part of this.

Meno, perhaps your delusion is fuelled by misplaced optimism in your ability to judge me. You are making the assumption that I never take god into account.

To reiterate:

I have to remove some of the fluff that is less relevant to my position - not totally irrelevant.

I am not an expert on god - I make “real” things work without god - things that I can see and touch - I may be able to make things work better with god but the texts are mostly(emphasis) not useful.

Contempt? There is only so much time in a day Meno.

Did you get out of bed on the wrong side today?

No, Decode, You can’t mind my using a partially derived name Yours, beyond that the course is topological, I too mentioned that on passing via.allusion to the ancient practice of environmental arrangement.

But I am glad that that You cleared up something that I found paradoxical in the above, Your quote.

That there is contention otherwise, may be illusive.

Encode, I hope to bback on track to show , from this angle that we are mostly determined

Admittedly, I’m not at all sure what your point is here. As it relates to free weill and determinism.

Why don’t you focus in on a particular context – an experience that you had – and explain what you mean above given the choices that you had made.

Here, of course, assuming some measure of free will. Otherwise, given determinism as I understand it, this entire exchange that we are having is inherently/necessarily embedded in the only possible reality.

Or, rather, given in turn the complete understanding of the laws of matter.

In other words, assuming that you are free to opt for one rather than the other.

Well, it’s helpful perhaps to note that for most religious folks, God is not compared to nature so much as nature is understood to be the creation of God. Then the tricky part in which we wonder if God created the laws of matter as well or if the laws of matter created a God only able to create anything in accordance with the laws of matter themselves. For example, "each second there are about 100 billion ghostly solar neutrinos passing through the tip of your finger."

So, why do you suppose God felt the need to make this the case? Or is God himself constrained by the necessity that this be so?

Again, whatever that means going back to a definitive understanding of existence itself.

Then the the part where we fit our understanding of science into our understanding of God into our understanding of the laws of matter that may or may not allow us to do so autonomously.

As for this…

…I think I might grasp it, but I prefer to take “intellectual contraption” assessments of this sort out into the world of human interactions and explore the conclusions given actual back and forth behaviors between people in a particular set of circumstances. I am merely more interested in exploring this given conflicting moral or political value judgments. And given the assumption that we either do or do not have free will.

Again, assuming a real deal free will experience for mere mortals here on planet Earth – given the staggering vastness of “all there is” – I am far more interested in distinguishing the times when we are not taking leaps of faith at all to subjective/subjunctive “personal opinions”. Why? Because the thing we are discussing is rather easily confirmed to be the objective truth for all of us.

In other words, the distinction between the seeming objective fact that peacegirl created this thread as a way to get others to read the author’s book, and the seeming subjective opinions regarding our reactions to the conclusions that the author comes to in regard to free will and evil.

I will attempt to read through the chapters, as peacgirl recommends…

…as soon as I get the time…

…assuming I even have a choice in the matter.

Then if I feel motivated(whatever this means at this point) to comment on any material in these chapters, I will.

Until the above conditions are met, I will freely/non-freely take my leave from this thread.

I can only hope that this post is more easily understood.

Yeah, some here might suspect that I reduce objectivist minds of his ilk down to, well, whatever you want to call this.

But, based on my vast experience with them over the years, they don’t need any contribution from me.

This is meant to be ironic of course. Only I’m not the one creating dungeons for those who refuse to think exactly like I do about, well, everything, right?

I recognize instead that in regard to 1] philosophical questions that are this fascinating and 2] moral and political value judgments, no one has access to the whole truth.

No one one grasps anywhere near a definitive understanding of where genes stop and memes begin, where nature reconfigures into nurture, where the brain becomes intertwined in mind intertwined in what may or may not be an autonomous self.

It’s just that some like Satyr, for reasons rooted in dasein, can’t bring themselves to recognize just how much their own hapless dogmas are rooted existentially instead in the OP here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=185296

What I really don’t get though is why he won’t come here and discuss and debate this with me. Now that the new effort to impose moderation seems to have collapsed. Or, sure, as scathing polemicists in Rant.

Isn’t it an opportunity to finally put me in my place? You know he’s itching to, right?

Not at all what I didn’t expect. Or couldn’t not expect.

You are more part of the furniture around here than me, iambiguous. I don’t have anything to prove and for whatever reason, I just like the place(ILP). I am always happy to learn something, however.

I may have annoyed you for no good reason - my apologies if I have. I am done horsing around in this thread. My sense of humor will still remain - I will just take it elsewhere. Simple!

Yeah? Nice.

It would be just as easy for you to do that but I don’t think either of us really needs to at this point.

Don’t get me wrong, this is interesting but I would sooner read a discussion between you and someone else that goes into further detail about it.

I am not motivated to consider political value judgments of any type which would leave conflicting moral judgments and this:

The vastness of “all there is”…is exactly one of the things that turn me off going down this path - I don’t have enough free time to contribute to a discussion about any of this in a substantial way. I have my own ideas on the topic of free will and how much of it we actually have. Not knowing what is in the book makes it difficult to talk about what is in the book. I don’t know what the discovery is that peacegirl is referring to and most discoveries can be summed up well enough in a paragraph to motivate someone to read more about them. I am aware of my own misbehavior in this thread and I am not ashamed to admit to it - there was a cause for it, however. I conclude that I don’t have enough to enter a substantive discussion with you iambiguous…it would be great if I did - but I simply don’t.

More to the point [on this thread] are you “done” [given determinism], done [given free will] or “done” [given peacegirl’s own rendition of compatibilism] horsing around?

Me? Okay, the experience I am having right now is in typing these words. But I do not seem to have access to an argument or to evidence that would pin down once and for all whether I could freely opt to do something else instead. So, given the gap between what I think I know here and know and all there is to be known about existence itself, I have taken an existential leap to determinism. Rooted in dasein. Rooted in the laws of matter.

I have no idea what you mean by that. And how, even given a real deal free will world, could I go into further detail about it when I am not an astrophysicist myself? Nor a theologian. Only they would seem qualified to explore it further.

Turned off by it or not doesn’t make it go away. And the whole point of this thread is to explore the meaning of such things as “substance” and “substantial”. All the while acknowledging the surreal situation that we seem to be in given mindless matter somehow configuring into mindful matter given the biological evolution of lifeless matter into living matter on planet Earth. The staggering mystery of it all.

Okay, so read the first three chapters of the author’s book and come back to the thread.

Compelled or otherwise.

Satyr is not a dogmatist.

Note to nature:

Settle this, okay?

Determinism versus Determinism
Nurana Rajabova is determined to sort it out.

Okay, so given his understanding here what are we to make of this:

“Baruch Spinoza, was a Jewish philosopher who, at age 23, was put in cherem (similar to excommunication) by Jewish religious authorities for heresies such as his controversial ideas regarding the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible (which would formed the foundations of modern biblical criticism) and his pantheistic views of the Divine. Prior to that, he had been attacked on the steps of the community synagogue by a knife-wielding assailant shouting “Heretic!”, and later his books were added to the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books.”
wiki

Are all of the human interactions that unfolded here historically in turn but “merely facets or modes of this one infinite, indivisible divine substance in which they all dwell.”

Spinoza comes to the conclusions that he did…but only because he was never able not to conclude anything other than that? In the only possible reality? Is this in sync with his conclusions?

Again, the irony. A book entitled Ethics in a universe where the moral and political value judgments of mere mortals are but another manifestation of “all things have necessarily flowed, or always followed, by the same necessity and in the same way as from the nature of a triangle it follows, from eternity and to eternity, that its three angles are equal to two right angles.”

Or, sure, I am missing something here that makes human ethics somehow qualitatively different from human biology and physics and chemistry.

So, Spinoza went about living his life from day to day convinced that everything he thought, felt, said and did was destined, fated, rendered inevitable in the only possible reality?

Is that what he proposed?

And did he also recognize that his conclusions were really little more than one of nature’s “thought experiment” insofar as he was never able to establish his own assumptions as those that all rational men and women were obligated to embrace.

How, here, was he not in the same boat that all the rest of are in given “the gap” above?

Including this part:

You tell me.