Determinism

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:30 pm

.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:38 pm

.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Fri Jun 17, 2022 9:44 pm

..
Last edited by Meno_ on Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:42 am

.
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:47 am

Sorry deleted
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:48 am

Sorry deleted
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 19, 2022 6:15 pm

Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It
Andrea Lavazza at the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience website

Thus defined [see post above], free will is a kind of freedom that we are willing to attribute to all human beings as a default condition. Of course there are exceptions: people suffering from mental illness and people under psychotropic substances.


Of course, this gets tricky because in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, mental health and mental illness are themselves interchangeable. Brains are brains are brains. And if they act in ways that we construe to be examples of mental illness they are construed that way by us only because we were never able to not construe them in that manner. If someone believes that they are Napoleon their beliefs are actually on par with Napoleon believing it himself.

That's how surreal it gets once you go all the way out on the limb here. Meanwhile going out there itself may well be no less a manifestation of the only possible reality.

Nevertheless, the attribution of free will as a general trend does not imply that all decisions are always taken in full freedom, as outlined by the three conditions illustrated above: “We often act on impulse, against our interests, without being fully aware of what we are doing. But this does not imply that we are not potentially able to act freely. Ethics and law have incorporated these notions, adopting the belief that usually people are free to act or not to act in a certain way and that, as a result, they are responsible for what they do, with the exceptions mentioned above”


Of course, when the discussion gets around to this, at times, considerably more opaque "reality", I shift gears from the either/or to the is/ought world. Even granting some measure of autonomy, there does not appear to be an objective reality that we can fall back on in order to establish what free men and women ought to think and feel and say and do. There we are all on our own as individuals. In other words, re dasein, with all of the many, many different and conflicting assumptions we make about right and wrong and good and evil.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:42 pm

iambiguous wrote:Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It
Andrea Lavazza at the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience website

Thus defined [see post above], free will is a kind of freedom that we are willing to attribute to all human beings as a default condition. Of course there are exceptions: people suffering from mental illness and people under psychotropic substances.


Of course, this gets tricky because in a wholly determined universe as some understand it, mental health and mental illness are themselves interchangeable. Brains are brains are brains. And if they act in ways that we construe to be examples of mental illness they are construed that way by us only because we were never able to not construe them in that manner. If someone believes that they are Napoleon their beliefs are actually on par with Napoleon believing it himself.

That's how surreal it gets once you go all the way out on the limb here. Meanwhile going out there itself may well be no less a manifestation of the only possible reality.

Nevertheless, the attribution of free will as a general trend does not imply that all decisions are always taken in full freedom, as outlined by the three conditions illustrated above: “We often act on impulse, against our interests, without being fully aware of what we are doing. But this does not imply that we are not potentially able to act freely. Ethics and law have incorporated these notions, adopting the belief that usually people are free to act or not to act in a certain way and that, as a result, they are responsible for what they do, with the exceptions mentioned above”


Of course, when the discussion gets around to this, at times, considerably more opaque "reality", I shift gears from the either/or to the is/ought world. Even granting some measure of autonomy, there does not appear to be an objective reality that we can fall back on in order to establish what free men and women ought to think and feel and say and do. There we are all on our own as individuals. In other words, re dasein, with all of the many, many different and conflicting assumptions we make about right and wrong and good and evil.


When seen in total perspective there is no right and wrong, good and evil. There is only what we are compelled to do, in the direction of greater satisfaction. The good news is that when the environmental conditions change, so, too, do our individual preferences change in a direction that hurts no one.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Meno_ » Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:36 pm

LOL
Meno_
The Invisible One
 
Posts: 13260
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:03 pm

The treasure that lies behind the door of determinism is truly amazing (when the corollary is extended), for there is a way to prevent from coming back that for which all the blame, hatred, revenge, war, and punishment were previously necessary!
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sat Jun 25, 2022 5:54 pm

Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It
Andrea Lavazza at the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience website

Throughout the centuries, despite its conceptual progress, philosophy hasn’t been able to solve this dilemma. As a result, today there are different irreconcilable positions about human free will: determinism is not absolute and free will exists; free will does not exist for a number of reasons, first of all (but not only) determinism; free will can exist even if determinism is true.


Exactly my point! If there really was a definitive argument able to solve this profound conundrum, wouldn't it be well accepted by now? Let alone one derived from an accumulation of experiential and/or experimental evidence.

On the other hand, come on, even if we all did agree on one and only one argument how exactly would we go about determining for certain that this in and of itself was not but the only possible reality in the only possible world?

Suppose nature itself can play God?

A little more than 30 years ago, neuroscience and empirical psychology came into play. Although biological processes cannot be considered strictly deterministic on the observable level of brain functioning (nerve signal transmission), new methods of investigation of the brain, more and more precise, have established that the cerebral base is a necessary condition of behavior and even of mental phenomena. On the basis of these acquisitions, neuroscience has begun to provide experimental contributions to the debate on free will.


Strictly deterministic. And how to pin that down even among brain scientists themselves. What definitively does it mean to speak of "the cerebral base is a necessary condition of behavior and even of mental phenomena". Is the mental phenomena I am using now to point this out also included in the cerebral base? Might not the experimental contributions be as well?

Or how about the "soul"...God's own contribution?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sat Jun 25, 2022 6:27 pm

iambiguous wrote:Free Will and Neuroscience: From Explaining Freedom Away to New Ways of Operationalizing and Measuring It
Andrea Lavazza at the Frontiers in Human Neuroscience website

Throughout the centuries, despite its conceptual progress, philosophy hasn’t been able to solve this dilemma. As a result, today there are different irreconcilable positions about human free will: determinism is not absolute and free will exists; free will does not exist for a number of reasons, first of all (but not only) determinism; free will can exist even if determinism is true.


Exactly my point! If there really was a definitive argument able to solve this profound conundrum, wouldn't it be well accepted by now?

Peacegirl: No

Iambiguous: Let alone one derived from an accumulation of experiential and/or experimental evidence.

Peacegirl: There IS an accumulation of evidence but the problem is the impasse of blame and responsibility that continues to confound philosophers and the legal system.

Iambiguous: On the other hand, come on, even if we all did agree on one and only one argument how exactly would we go about determining for certain that this in and of itself was not but the only possible reality in the only possible world?

Peacegirl: Because we can only move in the direction of what offers more satisfaction than what the present position offers. Having options does not change this fact.

Iambiguous: Suppose nature itself can play God?

A little more than 30 years ago, neuroscience and empirical psychology came into play. Although biological processes cannot be considered strictly deterministic on the observable level of brain functioning (nerve signal transmission), new methods of investigation of the brain, more and more precise, have established that the cerebral base is a necessary condition of behavior and even of mental phenomena. On the basis of these acquisitions, neuroscience has begun to provide experimental contributions to the debate on free will.


Strictly deterministic. And how to pin that down even among brain scientists themselves. What definitively does it mean to speak of "the cerebral base is a necessary condition of behavior and even of mental phenomena". Is the mental phenomena I am using now to point this out also included in the cerebral base? Might not the experimental contributions be as well?

Or how about the "soul"...God's own contribution?


Peacegirl: These terms are very abstract and divert attention away from what actually does prove determinism true. In fact, bringing in words such as God and soul are misleading because you are implying that they are necessary for proof, which is funny because every person has a different definition of what these words mean to them.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Sun Jun 26, 2022 6:56 pm

Marianne Williamson’s on the overturning of Roe vs Wade:

https://youtu.be/9Kw4BcvPYWI
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Tue Jun 28, 2022 7:01 pm

Harris on the 2 main mistakes people make who are new to the free will debate:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/nofreew ... 409625040/
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Ben JS » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:11 pm

iambiguous wrote:What we do or do not do with Mary, how we respond or do not respond to her, how we approach or do not approach her...how is that in turn but one more necessary/inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world?

I agree, it is an inherent manifestation - our choice determined long before we were even aware of the question.

Yet, we're still here expressing our being. The question itself affirms our structure. It's only the living - the biased, that have an interest in one result as opposed to another. By the very concern we demonstrate for understanding, we are implicitly saying 'We care about what's happening and we have a preferred result'.

So even if it's all determined, as I and others believe, we're still trying to act in a way that we anticipate may contribute to an outcome in reality which is preferable than other outcomes that aren't preferred. It is our ignorance that leaves us with the idea of possibility, that we do not know what the future holds - so we seek for the ideal possibilities.

Given that we do not know the future, why ought not we seek to influence change which we value? If one believes that indifference to action, in itself isn't ideal, then isn't it reasonable to instill truthful reasons why actions matter - even in the face of great adversity? To say we should never have expectation of another is terribly harmful. We should not condone harm - for regardless of whether it was determined or not, we still suffer.
Formerly known as: Joe Schmoe

As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I'd still be in prison. [...] For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. - Mandela

Compassion is the wish to see others free from suffering. - Dalai Lama

I can do no other than be reverent before everything that is called life. I can do no other than to have compassion for all that is called life. That is the beginning and the foundation of all ethics. - Schweitzer

If you have any sense my friend, don't plant anything but Love. - Rumi

To love is not to ask anything in return, not even to feel that you are giving something- and it is only such love that can know freedom. - Krishnamurti

We are one, after all, you and I, together we suffer, together exist and forever will recreate each other. - Chardin

User avatar
Ben JS
Human Being
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Australia

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:57 pm

Ben JS wrote:
iambiguous wrote:What we do or do not do with Mary, how we respond or do not respond to her, how we approach or do not approach her...how is that in turn but one more necessary/inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world?

I agree, it is an inherent manifestation - our choice determined long before we were even aware of the question.

Yet, we're still here expressing our being. The question itself affirms our structure. It's only the living - the biased, that have an interest in one result as opposed to another. By the very concern we demonstrate for understanding, we are implicitly saying 'We care about what's happening and we have a preferred result'.

So even if it's all determined, as I and others believe, we're still trying to act in a way that we anticipate may contribute to an outcome in reality which is preferable than other outcomes that aren't preferred. It is our ignorance that leaves us with the idea of possibility, that we do not know what the future holds - so we seek for the ideal possibilities.

Given that we do not know the future, why ought not we seek to influence change which we value? If one believes that indifference to action, in itself isn't ideal, then isn't it reasonable to instill truthful reasons why actions matter - even in the face of great adversity? To say we should never have expectation of another is terribly harmful. We should not condone harm - for regardless of whether it was determined or not, we still suffer.


Peacegirl: That is so true Ben, but the irony is that society’s expectations don’t always deter “wrongdoing.” In fact, the very act of creating prohibitions and threats of punishment (which is the cornerstone of our present legal system) may mitigate one’s responsibility in an action.

That is why the book I am presenting is so vitally important because the author demonstrates what happens when we remove all blame from the environment (which includes all authority and control) To repeat: The irony is that blame and punishment (which is only a partial deterrent) is actually preventing the very behavior we all want, which is not to hurt another because it is the least preferable choice.

Until that day comes (and it is), we can only try to ease suffering. It takes an enlightened person to turn the other cheek and to forgive without making efforts to retaliate wrongs done to him. If we are not hurt (which only means having things done that we don’t want done to ourselves), then we won’t need to seek revenge (an eye for an eye) or turn the other cheek.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... APTERS.pdf
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Ben JS » Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:53 pm

peacegirl,

I think forgiveness may be the hardest part of love.
Some say loss, but love is not lost.
-
Even if determinism were false,
and we each had our own free will,
if one can love the present,
then one can learn to love the past,
as a necessary condition that lead here.
And with that,
even atrocity can be forgiven,
for we can create beauty surpassing it.
And if we can't outweigh it with value,
who is to blame, if not ourselves?
For are we not free,
to create a better world?
-

Stay awesome, friend.
Formerly known as: Joe Schmoe

As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I'd still be in prison. [...] For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. - Mandela

Compassion is the wish to see others free from suffering. - Dalai Lama

I can do no other than be reverent before everything that is called life. I can do no other than to have compassion for all that is called life. That is the beginning and the foundation of all ethics. - Schweitzer

If you have any sense my friend, don't plant anything but Love. - Rumi

To love is not to ask anything in return, not even to feel that you are giving something- and it is only such love that can know freedom. - Krishnamurti

We are one, after all, you and I, together we suffer, together exist and forever will recreate each other. - Chardin

User avatar
Ben JS
Human Being
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Australia

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:58 pm

Ben JS wrote:peacegirl,

I think forgiveness may be the hardest part of love.
Some say loss, but love is not lost.
-
Even if determinism were false,
and we each had our own free will,
if one can love the present,
then one can learn to love the past,
as a necessary condition that lead here.
And with that,
even atrocity can be forgiven,
for we can create beauty surpassing it.
And if we can't outweigh it with value,
who is to blame, if not ourselves?
For are we not free,
to create a better world?
-

Stay awesome, friend.


Of course we can do our best to forgive. What makes it easier is knowing that what happened had to be. That said, it does not change our broken hearts and our hope for things to be different going forward. Would you not want a world that eliminated the need to forgive because no one did those things that made forgiveness necessary? There is no doubt we want a better world but thus far it has eluded us.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby Ben JS » Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:14 am

peacegirl wrote:There is no doubt we want a better world but thus far it has eluded us.

We can have our modest impact, creating little islands of compassion.
And the world's the better for it, and I believe, our own lives too.
There never is a final frontier, rather, a gradual process of striving to be closer to the ideal.
Along the way, hopefully the wisdom to appreciate the lighter parts of existence.
But perhaps 'better' is a trap - a kinder world might be specifically what the focus is.
-
That's straying offtopic, so..

Power to you, and I hope life's kind.
Formerly known as: Joe Schmoe

As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I'd still be in prison. [...] For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. - Mandela

Compassion is the wish to see others free from suffering. - Dalai Lama

I can do no other than be reverent before everything that is called life. I can do no other than to have compassion for all that is called life. That is the beginning and the foundation of all ethics. - Schweitzer

If you have any sense my friend, don't plant anything but Love. - Rumi

To love is not to ask anything in return, not even to feel that you are giving something- and it is only such love that can know freedom. - Krishnamurti

We are one, after all, you and I, together we suffer, together exist and forever will recreate each other. - Chardin

User avatar
Ben JS
Human Being
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Australia

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Fri Jul 01, 2022 2:25 pm

Ben JS wrote:
peacegirl wrote:There is no doubt we want a better world but thus far it has eluded us.

We can have our modest impact, creating little islands of compassion.
And the world's the better for it, and I believe, our own lives too.
There never is a final frontier, rather, a gradual process of striving to be closer to the ideal.
Along the way, hopefully the wisdom to appreciate the lighter parts of existence.
But perhaps 'better' is a trap - a kinder world might be specifically what the focus is.
-
That's straying offtopic, so..

Power to you, and I hope life's kind.


I appreciate your response. Lighter may be a better word than better because what is better” is subjective. Were you able to read the first three chapters I posted? I’m trying to take an informal poll. Any feedback would be quite helpful.
Last edited by peacegirl on Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Fri Jul 01, 2022 5:10 pm

Ben JS wrote:
iambiguous wrote:What we do or do not do with Mary, how we respond or do not respond to her, how we approach or do not approach her...how is that in turn but one more necessary/inherent manifestation of the only possible reality in the only possible world?

I agree, it is an inherent manifestation - our choice determined long before we were even aware of the question.


Okay, on this part -- compelled or not? -- we seem to agree. Whatever set into motion the laws of matter "somehow" evolved into the extraordinary matter that is human brains. And thus "somehow" Mary's choice to abort Jane was determined long before there ever was a Mary or an unborn Jane.

If, of course, in a free will world, I understand this as you do.

But then this "yet" part...

Ben JS wrote: Yet, we're still here expressing our being. The question itself affirms our structure. It's only the living - the biased, that have an interest in one result as opposed to another. By the very concern we demonstrate for understanding, we are implicitly saying 'We care about what's happening and we have a preferred result'.


How are we not "expressing our being" in the only manner in which our wholly in sync with the laws of matter brains compel us to express it? How mentally, emotionally and psychologically is anything that we think and feel not but an inherent manifestation of the only possible world?

How is what we think we understand and is happening around us any different from what we care about here, if both emanate from a consciousness emanating from a mind emanating from a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

Now, I'm certainly not insisting that how "I" think about all this is optimal understanding, only that if there is to be an optimal understanding that would come from the brain scientists themselves rather than from philosophers.

Or, if "a God, the God" is demonstrated to exist from the theologians?

Ben JS wrote: So even if it's all determined, as I and others believe, we're still trying to act in a way that we anticipate may contribute to an outcome in reality which is preferable than other outcomes that aren't preferred. It is our ignorance that leaves us with the idea of possibility, that we do not know what the future holds - so we seek for the ideal possibilities.


Again, if it's all determined, we're not trying to act, we're acting in the only manner in which the laws of nature compel us to act. Our "contributions" are no less destined/fated.

How are our "anticipations" not in turn inherently embedded in this:

"I agree, it is an inherent manifestation - our choice determined long before we were even aware of the question.[/i]

Then [for me] it's just more of the same: you speculating here as someone convinced that they have free will would:

Ben JS wrote: Given that we do not know the future, why ought not we seek to influence change which we value? If one believes that indifference to action, in itself isn't ideal, then isn't it reasonable to instill truthful reasons why actions matter - even in the face of great adversity? To say we should never have expectation of another is terribly harmful. We should not condone harm - for regardless of whether it was determined or not, we still suffer.


Back to you telling this to someone in a dream. You wake up and realize it was entirely your brain creating the words you "spoke".

Ah, but, of course, the waking brain is just "somehow" different.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:25 pm

An Examination of Free Will and Buddhism
Barbara O'Brien

The term "free will" signifies the belief that rational people have the capacity to make their own life choices. That may not sound terribly controversial, but, in fact, the nature of free will, how it is exercised, and whether it exists at all, have been argued about fiercely in western philosophy and religion for centuries.


Exactly.

And what does this tell us? That if, after centuries, some of the greatest minds around could not come up with the definitive argument for or against free will, it's either because there is no free will and these minds came up with only that which they were never able not to come up with or there is free will and this is a very, very, very tough nut to crack. Both scientifically and philosophically.

And applied to Buddhism, "free will" has an additional hurdle -- if there's no self, who is it that wills?


That again. Those who claim that with Buddhism there is no self. As though Buddhists, just like all the rest of us, don't know perfectly well that in their interactions with others in the either/or world, of course there is a reasonably objective Me.

Am I [and not you] typing these words in my own here and now? Are you [and not me] reading them in your own here and now. Unless of course at the very moment you read them I go back and read them again myself. But here whether someone is a Buddhist or not, the laws of matter seemingly don't change.

No, again, for me, the far more problematic quandary revolves around "I" in the is/ought world. Are we free to opt among alternative points of views and behaviors? Because if we are not what does it really mean to speak of moral responsibility.

Other than as we were never able not to.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:49 pm

From PN:

bahman wrote:Determinism by definition is, going from one state to another state, let's call this chain of causality, and it is true until we reach the options when we have some available chains of causality. That is when the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options.


Okay, but I don't focus on how we define it but on whether or not we can demonstrate [scientifically and/or philosophically] that we defined it freely. That, given whatever the definitive relationship is between the human brain and the laws of matter, we could opt of our own volition to define it differently given a new experience or access to new information and knowledge.

That "somehow" when lifeless matter evolved into living matter all those millions of years ago "something" happened that led to an autonomous human brain.

Now, as with your conjectures regarding something and nothing, you have "thought up" the conclusion here that "the mind intervenes and freely chooses one of the options."

And how exactly do you go about actually demonstrating it?

By merely believing it of course.

Just as there are those here who believe that an omniscient God provided Adam and Eve with free will and they, uh, blew it?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=176529
Then here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296
And here: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=194382

"Sure, it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

Danny Embling: "People wonder how Hitler managed to get so many followers...it's never surprised me."
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 46383
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: Determinism

Postby Ben JS » Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:57 pm

iambiguous wrote:How are we not "expressing our being" in the only manner in which our wholly in sync with the laws of matter brains compel us to express it?

Again, you're right. It'll all unfold as it was influenced. My word choice was poor, and you highlighted that. "Expressing our being" was intended to mean expressing the culmination of our will, ideals & beliefs - but it's true, our being is the messy / ordered bits alike. And a step further, the external environment is as much a part of us, as we are of it - perhaps moreso.

iambiguous wrote:How is what we think we understand and is happening around us any different from what we care about here, if both emanate from a consciousness emanating from a mind emanating from a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

It's possible to envision a scenario, where our interests/desire/will aren't realised - that the objective for that which we care, isn't attained/satisfied/completed. This scenario represents having an interpretation of what is happening, that is not in accord with our desire. It's common to actively seek for this not to be be the case, or remain the case.
While both the contents/events of reality and our cares are inseparably chained together, the image of what we think is happening (reality), and the image of what we want to be happening (objectives), often don't match. So there's reason to draw distinction between them.

iambiguous wrote:How mentally, emotionally and psychologically is anything that we think and feel not but an inherent manifestation of the only possible world?

Yes, you're right. But if the only possible world has led one to suffer in the present, ought one still not seek it's reduction in the future?

iambiguous wrote:
Ben JS wrote:So even if it's all determined, as I and others believe, we're still trying to act in a way that we anticipate may contribute to an outcome in reality which is preferable than other outcomes that aren't preferred. [...]

Again, if it's all determined, we're not trying to act, we're acting in the only manner in which the laws of nature compel us to act. Our "contributions" are no less destined/fated.

Our expectations are very important here and I'd ask you to reread my statement quoted above.
Yes, we'll always act - but that's not what I was saying. I was specifically speaking about acting in a way that we predict, or anticipate will result in a preferred outcome as opposed to a non-preferred outcome.
Let's say I'm hungry and decide to resolve this. My solution: I plan to hit my arm with a hammer in hope it will put food in my stomach. Now, you as a neutral party, do you expect this to work? Do you anticipate my strategy to be effective? I assume not. In this scenario, I'm trying to attain a goal, but failing.
My point? That our acts, and the intent of our acts, are different. The trying, which I was referring to, was directly regarding trying to effectively achieve our objectives based on our plan of action - trying to act wisely. -- yes, we're always acting, but not always achieving the contents of our will.

iambiguous wrote:Back to you telling this to someone in a dream. You wake up and realise it was entirely your brain creating the words you "spoke".

Even if it's all a dream, we're still living it. Our experiences are real, even if a terribly poor representation of objective reality. If you're in a dream, and don't know it, then the contents of your will, reasonably should be in concern to the contents of the dream.

I hope your dream (& life) has many rich and meaningful experiences, friend.

----

[and as slight aside, I don't consider myself Buddhist. I respect specifically the Dalai Lama (his wisdom and teachings), and have many mutual beliefs with Buddhism, but also disagreements. So the odds are, you wont find me trying to explain or reconcile the doctrines of Buddhism.]
Formerly known as: Joe Schmoe

As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind, I'd still be in prison. [...] For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. - Mandela

Compassion is the wish to see others free from suffering. - Dalai Lama

I can do no other than be reverent before everything that is called life. I can do no other than to have compassion for all that is called life. That is the beginning and the foundation of all ethics. - Schweitzer

If you have any sense my friend, don't plant anything but Love. - Rumi

To love is not to ask anything in return, not even to feel that you are giving something- and it is only such love that can know freedom. - Krishnamurti

We are one, after all, you and I, together we suffer, together exist and forever will recreate each other. - Chardin

User avatar
Ben JS
Human Being
 
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:12 am
Location: Australia

Re: Determinism

Postby peacegirl » Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:21 pm

Ben JS wrote:
iambiguous wrote:How are we not "expressing our being" in the only manner in which our wholly in sync with the laws of matter brains compel us to express it?

Again, you're right. It'll all unfold as it was influenced. My word choice was poor, and you highlighted that. "Expressing our being" was intended to mean expressing the culmination of our will, ideals & beliefs - but it's true, our being is the messy / ordered bits alike. And a step further, the external environment is as much a part of us, as we are of it - perhaps moreso.

iambiguous wrote:How is what we think we understand and is happening around us any different from what we care about here, if both emanate from a consciousness emanating from a mind emanating from a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter?

It's possible to envision a scenario, where our interests/desire/will aren't realised - that the objective for that which we care, isn't attained/satisfied/completed. This scenario represents having an interpretation of what is happening, that is not in accord with our desire. It's common to actively seek for this not to be be the case, or remain the case.
While both the contents/events of reality and our cares are inseparably chained together, the image of what we think is happening (reality), and the image of what we want to be happening (objectives), often don't match. So there's reason to draw distinction between them.

iambiguous wrote:How mentally, emotionally and psychologically is anything that we think and feel not but an inherent manifestation of the only possible world?

Yes, you're right. But if the only possible world has led one to suffer in the present, ought one still not seek it's reduction in the future?

iambiguous wrote:
Ben JS wrote:So even if it's all determined, as I and others believe, we're still trying to act in a way that we anticipate may contribute to an outcome in reality which is preferable than other outcomes that aren't preferred. [...]

Again, if it's all determined, we're not trying to act, we're acting in the only manner in which the laws of nature compel us to act. Our "contributions" are no less destined/fated.


Peacegirl: That has been recognized ad nausium for those who understand that we don’t have free will, never did, and never will. Why you keep bringing this up I suppose is for those who have never explored this debate. It’s like being put back in kindergarten.

Ben: Our expectations are very important here and I'd ask you to reread my statement quoted above.
Yes, we'll always act - but that's not what I was saying. I was specifically speaking about acting in a way that we predict, or anticipate will result in a preferred outcome as opposed to a non-preferred outcome.
Let's say I'm hungry and decide to resolve this. My solution: I plan to hit my arm with a hammer in hope it will put food in my stomach. Now, you as a neutral party, do you expect this to work? Do you anticipate my strategy to be effective? I assume not. In this scenario, I'm trying to attain a goal, but failing.
My point? That our acts, and the intent of our acts, are different. The trying, which I was referring to, was directly regarding trying to effectively achieve our objectives based on our plan of action - trying to act wisely. -- yes, we're always acting, but not always achieving the contents of our will.

iambiguous wrote:Back to you telling this to someone in a dream. You wake up and realise it was entirely your brain creating the words you "spoke".

Ben: Even if it's all a dream, we're still living it. Our experiences are real, even if a terribly poor representation of objective reality. If you're in a dream, and don't know it, then the contents of your will, reasonably should be in concern to the contents of the dream.

I hope your dream (& life) has many rich and meaningful experiences, friend.

----

[and as slight aside, I don't consider myself Buddhist. I respect specifically the Dalai Lama (his wisdom and teachings), and have many mutual beliefs with Buddhism, but also disagreements. So the odds are, you wont find me trying to explain or reconcile the doctrines of Buddhism.]


Peacegirl: Our dreams are reflections of our waking life and are meant to resolve our fears and conflicts. You cannot compare a dream from the wakened state where actions may compel a person to kill. I’d rather be dead in a dream that helps to resolve conflict in the dreamer than to have it acted out in reality. Can anybody notice the difference that Iambiguous tries to conflate, or is it just me?
http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Decline-and-Fall-of-All-Evil-10-18-2020-FIRST-3-CHAPTERS.pdf

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested: that is, some books are to be read only in parts, others to be read, but not curiously, and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

“Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health,
lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys
information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.” – Michael Ellner



peacegirl
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users