Determinism

[iambiguous]

If you don't like the switch to Trump, choose any context that you wish.

I'm going to select my "Road to the Enchanted Caste" context, because it's simple and it shows what I'm trying to say.

Note to nature:

Are you compelling him to avoid my point here more or less than you're compelling me to suggest that this is precisely what he is doing?

And "free" is meant to suggest that, in a determined world, it reflects only the psychological illusion of freedom. Whereas free is meant to convey an actual freedom embodied in the brains of matter that evolved into life that evolved into "I".

I don't know how "the psychological illusion of freedom" works in practical terms. Nor do I know how "an actual freedom embodied in brains of matter" works in practical terms. You seem to think that they are very different.

But that is precisely my point!

No. If you thought that they were essentially the same then you would simply adopt the most useful one, you would not hesitate to switch when circumstances changed and you would not be concerned about others adopting a different one. Yet, these things appear to bother you. They are part of the reason for your "fractured I".

My fractured "I" is only relevant in a world where human autonomy is the actual reality. Which it may well be. If I am free to choose whether abortion is moral or immoral, I am stymied by fact that here and now I have thought myself into believing that "I" here is the embodiment of dasein living in a world of conflicting goods that, sans God, comes down to who has the political and economic power to enforce a set of behaviors that sustain what they construe to be in their own best interest.

They would be essentially the same only in a world where human behaviors are wholly compelled by nature. Some may believe that they are free to choose what they do, others may believe that they are not. But what difference does that make for all practical purposes if, in the end, the laws of nature compel the matter that has evolved into the human brain, to line up -- necessarily, inherently -- with those laws?

Therefore, I come to the conclusion that you think that those two ideas about freedom are different in some critical way.

Yes, but, once again, you have yet to demonstrate to me that you have reached this conclusion of your own free will. This is, after all, the whole point being raised by the hard determinists: that brain matter somehow evolved into a human psychology that compels you to believe that you are free existentially to conclude that, when, in fact, essentially, you are not.

The part that neuroscientists continue to explore experientially.

Instead, you merely assert things like this....

I'm autonomous in all my decisions. Nature is not some sort of external controller which can take away my autonomy. I am part of nature and separate from nature. My sensory input comes entirely from nature and my processing is entirely the product of nature.

...as though asserting that they are true makes them true.

You could have a dream in which you assert the same thing, right? How autonomous is "I" then? And that's always been where the mystery lies. Squaring the reality of "I" that seems clearly compelled physiologically [beating hearts, functioning organs, dreams, mental illnesses, psychopathic states, "I" on drugs etc.] and the "I" that intuitively seems within our grasp autonomously.

I'm not arguing that you are wrong so much as you are unable to actually demonstrate beyond all doubt that you are right. In other words, like all the rest of us.

And that if, one day, someone is able to demonstrate it conclusively, he or she is all everyone would be talking about.

Yes, but you've got your own rendition of God. That allows you to put nature in perspective.

I didn't mention God in any of this. You can put nature in perspective without God.

But, in ny view, you can only take the perspective of any particular "I" up to that clearly existing gap between what "I" believe is true about all of this "in my head" "here and now", and all that can be/must be believed about existence itself. With or without God.

The part objectivists of your ilk just shrug off because the whole point of believing that you really do understand these things is the psychological balm it allows you to wallow in.

Freely or not.

From my frame of mind it's that you know, not what you know. And, in particular, regarding the is/ought world and questions like this. You intertwine this certainly into the "real, autonomous, me in touch with the right thing to do".

At least until you bump into other objectivists who share your conviction that the right answers are within reach...but only if you accept that their answers [not yours] are the right answers.

But Satyr eschews God. He seems to depict religious folks with the same sort of contempt he spews on the "modern" "nihilist" folks like me.

He has contempt for the religious who are obsessed with an afterlife. They are nihilistic in the sense that they deny this life in favor of an afterlife.

Hasn't he ever heard of the Protestant Reformation? But that's what he does. He lumps all religious folks into the same "one of them", "not one of us" compartment. And, on this side of the grave, it is hardly nihilistic to subscribe to the existence of a God, the God, my God. Quite the contrary. If you are looking for meaning and purpose in life, what could possibly be less nihilistic than to predicate all of the things you think, feel, say and do on one or another received Scripture?"

The irony then being that his own genes/memes dogma is but one of hundred and hundreds of secular narratives that have popped up down through the ages. Again, his whole point basically being to separate the Desperate Degenerates from the Ubermensch. Ironically enough, the sheep that follow him over at KT.

On second thought, one could extend it those religious who are more concerned about the will of God than their own will. That could also be considered nihilistic.

Okay, but, autonomously or not, I still await a description of your own behaviors that intertwine the manner in which you think of God and of objective morality in an actual context.

[iambiguous]

The point is that they can only be rooted subjectively because the question of how to live ones life is a subjective one and absolutely so as well
You have no capacity to provide objective answers because none exist and any declaration of supposed objectivity will by default be subjective

Still, on this thread the point revolves around the extent to which you are able to demonstrate that you either are or are not able to 1] freely think this up and 2] freely post it.

If you and I are wholly compelled by nature to think, feel, say and do all of the things that we choose...?

Well, would not everything in reality be necessarily subsumed in the laws of nature?

That's where we all seem to be stuck: taking one or another existential leap to one or another conclusion regarding what "I" deems to be essentially true.

Again, unless there is in fact a demonstrable resolution to all of this that has yet to come to my attention. That's always possible. Especially given the billions of planets that are suspected to harbor life in turn. Who among us really knows what is known about all of this "out there"? Does anyone here believe that human intelligence necessarily reflects the highest form of intelligence in the cosmos?

And that's before we get to the part about God.

But: Assuming some measure of autonomy in a No God world, how, technically, do philosophers make that crucial distinction between the subjective "I" and all that exists objectively independent of matter having evovled into the conscious mind?

Has any philosopher actually pinned that down such that all other philosphers defer to him or her when this subject comes up?

Instead, there seem to be facts about reality [human or otherwise] embedded in what folks like me call the either/or world. Nature and it's laws are all around us, in us, of us.

But: The leaps to a seeming certainty that we take in regard to those relationships explored using the "scientific method" are clearly on more solid ground than the leaps taken by, say, ethicists in regard to the behaviors we choose in the is/ought world. Or in regard to human beings expressing opinions about food or music or sports or art or beauty or political agendas. Or in speculating about the Big Questions like this.

It still comes down to those things that we are able to demonstrate are true for all of us and those things that are deemed true by us but not by others.

[phyllo]

If you don't like the switch to Trump, choose any context that you wish.

I'm going to select my "Road to the Enchanted Caste" context, because it's simple and it shows what I'm trying to say.

Note to nature:

Are you compelling him to avoid my point here more or less than you're compelling me to suggest that this is precisely what he is doing?

I realize that most Americans on both sides of the divide think that the universe revolves around Trump's ass, but at this point, I have little interest in him.

phyllo wrote:
Therefore, I come to the conclusion that you think that those two ideas about freedom are different in some critical way.

Yes, but, once again, you have yet to demonstrate to me that you have reached this conclusion of your own free will. This is, after all, the whole point being raised by the hard determinists: that brain matter somehow evolved into a human psychology that compels you to believe that you are free existentially to conclude that, when, in fact, essentially, you are not.

The part that neuroscientists continue to explore experientially.

I was presented with some data, I processed it and that was my conclusion.

Instead, you merely assert things like this....

phyllo wrote:
I'm autonomous in all my decisions. Nature is not some sort of external controller which can take away my autonomy. I am part of nature and separate from nature. My sensory input comes entirely from nature and my processing is entirely the product of nature.

...as though asserting that they are true makes them true.

Most of that is either straight from the dictionary or simple observations. Which parts do you dispute?

Am I not part of nature?

Am I also not a separate entity?

Where do inputs come from if not nature?

Am I not autonomous by the dictionary definition?

I'm not arguing that you are wrong so much as you are unable to actually demonstrate beyond all doubt that you are right. In other words, like all the rest of us.

As far as I can tell, it's demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. I don't feel any need to demonstrate it "beyond all doubt". (Whatever that even means.)
That's your obsession, not mine.

I didn't mention God in any of this. You can put nature in perspective without God.

But, in ny view, you can only take the perspective of any particular "I" up to that clearly existing gap between what "I" believe is true about all of this "in my head" "here and now", and all that can be/must be believed about existence itself. With or without God.

The part objectivists of your ilk just shrug off because the whole point of believing that you really do understand these things is the psychological balm it allows you to wallow in.

People clearly understand some things, otherwise they would be dead - nature and evolution would squish them quickly. Nature constantly gives you feedback.

If you are looking for meaning and purpose in life, what could possibly be less nihilistic than to predicate all of the things you think, feel, say and do on one or another received Scripture?"

It's nihilistic to live a life described in a book rather living your own life. It's a denial of yourself in favor of a character like Jesus or Luke Skywalker or Robin Hood, etc. You are none of those people. You are a unique individual, so live your own life.

Ironically enough, the sheep that follow him over at KT.

He does have sheep. That is ironic.

Okay, but, autonomously or not, I still await a description of your own behaviors that intertwine the manner in which you think of God and of objective morality in an actual context.

You have a long wait.

[iambiguous]

You presume [I presume] that mindless matter evolving into living matter evolving into human brains evolving into "I" are not wholly the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature.

Nope. I'm entirely the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. The only difference between me and a robot constructed in a factory and programmed, is that I'm aware of my own self.

Right. Now all you have to do is to fully explain how mindless matter was able to evolve into this awareness.

Not only that but in regard to your own particular "I", this transformation resulted in a capacity on your part to distinguish objectively moral from objectively immoral behavior.

Instead, in my view, you merely assume that it did because you believe that it did.

Really, I get this part. But: do you? Does peacegirl?

Somehow God intercedes to make you autonomous.

Nope. Although He has loaded me(and humans and animals in general) with some pretty impressive programming and hardware.

Same thing. You assert this to be true, but offer no actual hard evidence that He has in fact loaded you and everyone else with this impressive programming and hardware.

It is enough that, given human autonomy in sync with an omniscient God, it comforts and consoles you to believe that this is true.

I get that part too. If only because in the past I once believed it myself.

And, sure, it may still be true. And, if so, in an autonomous world, we can explore the implications of that in regard to, say, theodicy?

[iambiguous]

You presume that mindless matter evolving into living matter evolving into human brains evolving into I are not wholly the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature

Everything is the embodiment of nature because that is all there is.

How can you possibly know if that is true or, perhaps, more importantly, what it means, without a complete understanding of nature itself?

What can you tell us definitively about God here? What can you tell us definitively about nature and "nothing at all"? What can you tell us definitively about the evolution of mindless matter into your own particular "I" able to assert things like this?

Evolution is an ongoing process and so mindless matter evolving into living matter and so on is simply evolution going from the simple to the complex - there is no mystery to this because it is what nature does.

If evolving from the simple to the complex, from hydrogen and helium atoms to the human brain, from [possibly] nothing at all to everything there is, involves no mystery for you then, well, what can I possibly note here that would put even a dent in your own --- ontological? -- objectivism.

And when evolution finishes then entropy takes over for they are the two eternal states . A mind not understanding the more complex aspect of this process - such as free will for example - is an entirely separate matter . Nature simply does - it does not have to explain itself - that is not its function

This sounds like an answer that one might expect from God. After all, there's not much that He doesn't know about everything, right?

[phyllo]

Nope. I'm entirely the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. The only difference between me and a robot constructed in a factory and programmed, is that I'm aware of my own self.

Right. Now all you have to do is to fully explain how mindless matter was able to evolve into this awareness.

I don't know why I would have to do this.

Not only that but in regard to your own particular "I", this transformation resulted in a capacity on your part to distinguish objectively moral from objectively immoral behavior.

How does moral and immoral behavior suddenly pop into this discussion of determinism and free-will? Seems not to be applicable to anything that I wrote.

Instead, in my view, you merely assume that it did because you believe that it did.

Where did I write about morality??

You assert this to be true, but offer no actual hard evidence that He has in fact loaded you and everyone else with this impressive programming and hardware.

You don't agree. That's life.

"What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so."

[iambiguous]

"Defending Free Will & The Self"
Frank S. Robinson in Philosophy Now magazine

Dennett argued in his 1991 book Consciousness Explained that the common metaphor of your self as a captain at the helm of your mind is wrong: it’s really more like a gaggle of crewmen fighting over the wheel. In other words, there really isn’t a ‘self-contained’ self, but rather, a lot of neurons sparking all over the brain. They’re not acting with any intentions; but the effect of their interaction is that at any given moment one neuronal activity has shoved its way to the forefront of the neuronal processing. And that, says Dennett in Freedom Evolves, is how mental contents become conscious – “by winning the competitions against other mental contents for control of behavior.”

Think about that. All the crewmen are fighting over the wheel. But the fight itself cannot be reduced down to any particular one of them. There is no crewman # 1 ultimately calling the shots. Instead the crewmen are physiological interactions -- chemical, neurological -- that, in and of themselves, unfold in sync with the laws of nature. So the "winner" is merely the transaction that, naturally, could only have won. Unless, of course, there is an element of randomness that even nature itself is not entirely in command of.

The quantum world certainly hints at that. But how then, given some element of autonomy, does that randomness impact the choices that we do have some control over? Is this randomness able to mutate into chaos -- a helter skelter, hit or miss world such that, in any particular context, no one and no thing is the final arbiter? Involving perhaps dimensions of reality intertwined in parallel universes that become intertwined in ways that we can't even yet imagine?

Then cue God?

So what still makes you feel that there’s a you in there? Dennett would reply that asking this question echoes Cartesian dualism, which conceives of the ‘you’ as something in addition to all the brain and body activity. On the contrary, what you are, he asserts, “just is this organization of all the competitive activity between a host of competences that your body has developed” – which you ‘automatically’ know about because it’s your body.

Okay, as an intellectual contraption, this way well be closer to reality than any of the ones that we encounter here. But if you are interacting with someone and he asks you to explain your behavior, how do you suppose he will react when you tell them that your behaviors reflect an "organization of all the competitive activity between a host of competences that my body has developed"?

Let alone be able to convince him that this settles the question of whether those behaviors were only ever what they could have been --- given the relationship between this competitive activity in a human brain that has to confront dualism as one possible explanation. That or God.

If neither, than what does explain it?

However, an amoeba has a body without ‘knowing’ anything, especially not in the self-reflective way you do. I think the answer to the mystery of our selves instead lies in our layering of representations – unlike an amoeba, not merely knowing things, but knowing we know them.

Another example of "sheer speculation". Does knowing we know something prove that we could have freely chosen to know something else instead?

Use the "layering of representation" conjecture to walk us through the behaviors that you choose.

[surreptitious75]

If you and I are wholly compelled by nature to think feel say and do all of the things that we choose ?

Well would not everything in reality be necessarily subsumed in the laws of nature ?

Were we wholly compelled by nature then free will would not exist at all and yet it does
Therefore free will is an aspect of nature - I can accept this but you apparently cannot but what is your reason for this
We may not be able to understand precisely how nature works but we should not be in denial about what we do know

[surreptitious75]

It still comes down to those things that we are able to demonstrate are true for all of us and those things that are deemed true by us but not by others

Collective or universal consensus is still subjective at the individual level because ultimately we are all free thinkers
We may feel compelled on ocassion to think as others do - for whatever reason - but no mind can actually force another to think like it does
By the laws of averages sometimes there will be collective or universal consensus and sometimes there will not be - this is perfectly natural

[surreptitious75]

If evolving from the simple to the complex from hydrogen and helium atoms to the human brain from [ possibly ] nothing at all to everything there
is involves no mystery for you then well what can I possibly note here that would put even a dent in your own - ontological - objectivism

Why should a dent be necessary when evolution is an observable process ? I may not understand reality in any absolute sense
but understanding it on a very basic level - one that is exclusively scientific - is simply acknowledging the process as it is

I am an objectivist when it comes to accepting facts about reality - anyone who is not is simply in denial of those facts

[iambiguous]

Nope. I'm entirely the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. The only difference between me and a robot constructed in a factory and programmed, is that I'm aware of my own self.

Right. Now all you have to do is to fully explain how mindless matter was able to evolve into this awareness.

I don't know why I would have to do this.

Well, given my own existential leap to the antinomy -- "a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable" -- that I see embedded in the age old determinism/free will debate, you have to because the laws of nature compel you to.

Only I am no more able to demonstrate that than I presume you are able to demonstrate that in fact your own will is free here.

Instead, that demonstration would seem to revolve around the ongoing attempt by science to explore matter evolving from mindless interactions into interactions that are anything but.

And I suspect that you and I will be long dead and gone before anything definitive is within our reach there.

Not only that but in regard to your own particular "I", this transformation resulted in a capacity on your part to distinguish objectively moral from objectively immoral behavior.

How does moral and immoral behavior suddenly pop into this discussion of determinism and free-will? Seems not to be applicable to anything that I wrote.

Because, as KT will insist, that is [eventually] what I always come around to: "I" in the is/ought world.

Besides, how on earth can a discussion of human autonomy not get around to that which would seem to be by far the greatest consequence of a resolution: our responsibility regarding the actual things that we think, feel, say and do.

My advice is that you steer clear of my posts if you won't [eventually] go there.

Unless, of course, nature has other plans for of us.

You assert this to be true, but offer no actual hard evidence that He has in fact loaded you and everyone else with this impressive programming and hardware.

You don't agree. That's life.

But the whole point behind peacegirl's posts regarding Decline and Fall of All Evil is that life can be understood in regards to free will and "choice"; such that in a "progressive future" all evil will -- must -- decline and fall. And, as with you, attempts on my part to probe the manner in which [and the extent to which] she approaches all this through the lens of God and religion got me nowhere fast.

In particular in regard to the "choices"/choices she makes pertaining precisely to her own day to day interactions.

But now [compelled or not] she's gone.

"What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so."

And this is relevant to a discussion of determinism...how?

[iambiguous]

If you and I are wholly compelled by nature to think feel say and do all of the things that we choose ?

Well would not everything in reality be necessarily subsumed in the laws of nature ?

Were we wholly compelled by nature then free will would not exist at all and yet it does

Okay, demonstrate to us that it does. Demonstrate it other than in merely asserting that it does. Other than in pointing out that you just know that it does. That, deep down inside intuitively, viscerally, you are absolutely certain that you are of your own free will choosing to read these words.

Because there is definitely a part of me no less convinced that I am of my own free will typing these words.

But how can I demonstrate that?

Let me ask you this...

Dreams. I always come back to them because in them I am equally convinced that I am thinking, feeling, saying and doing things of my own free will. And yet I wake up recognizing that my brain is entirely responsible for creating this reality. I'm everywhere, doing everything in my dreams. But I am in turn nowhere doing nothing other than sleeping in my apartment.

Now, what is the definitive connection/relationship between "I" in my dreams and "I" wide awake here and now?

What do you make of it?

There are men and women -- scientists -- conducting any number of experiments in any number of contexts in order to grapple with this relationship empirically, materially, phenomenologically.

And yet if you google "dreams and free will" there's almost nothing relating to that. The closest most folks come to connecting these dots is in regard to "lucid dreaming".

This thing:

"A lucid dream is a dream during which the dreamer is aware that they are dreaming. During a lucid dream, the dreamer may gain some amount of control over the dream characters, narrative, and environment; however, this is not actually necessary for a dream to be described as lucid."

Which is obviously intriguing because it raises the question of "I" being in control of a dream.

Therefore free will is an aspect of nature - I can accept this but you apparently cannot but what is your reason for this
We may not be able to understand precisely how nature works but we should not be in denial about what we do know

But: do you accept it because nature compels you to accept it or because you were free to opt for not accepting it, thought it all true, and, of your own volition "here and now", took that existential leap to accepting it.

An existential leap from my frame of mind because, even given some measure of autonomy, "I" is still ceaselessly constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed from the cradle to the grave. At least is regard to value judgments and to big questions like this.

Bottom line: You can never really be certain [again, given autonomy] what new experiences, relationships and access to ideas might do to change your mind.

[phyllo]

phyllo wrote:
Nope. I'm entirely the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. The only difference between me and a robot constructed in a factory and programmed, is that I'm aware of my own self.

Right. Now all you have to do is to fully explain how mindless matter was able to evolve into this awareness.

phyllo wrote:
I don't know why I would have to do this.

Well, given my own existential leap to the antinomy -- "a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable" -- that I see embedded in the age old determinism/free will debate, you have to because the laws of nature compel you to.

Only I am no less able to demonstrate that than I presume you are able to demonstrate that in fact your own will is free here.

This makes no sense in the context of what I wrote about determinism, free-will and autonomy. You don't actually read my posts, do you?

But the whole point behind peacegirl's posts regarding Decline and Fall of All Evil is that life can be understood in regards to free will and "choice"; such that in a "progressive future" all evil will -- must -- decline and fall. And, as with you, attempts on my part to probe the manner in which [and the extent to which] she approaches all this through the lens of God and religion got me nowhere fast.

In particular in regard to the "choices"/choices she makes pertaining precisely to her own day to day interactions.

But now [compelled or not] she's gone.

Wake up.
I'm not Peacegirl. So why are you writing about her posts and not mine?

My advice is that you steer clear of my posts if you won't [eventually] go there.

That's good advice.

[iambiguous]

It still comes down to those things that we are able to demonstrate are true for all of us and those things that are deemed true by us but not by others

Collective or universal consensus is still subjective at the individual level because ultimately we are all free thinkers

Okay, demonstrate what that means to you when these free thinkers interact and come into conflict over "the right thing to do" in any particular context.

My "obsession" here as phyllo might insist.

Then demonstrate how you are able to prove beyond all doubt that scientists investigating the human brain in the act of choosing have concluded beyond all doubt in turn that human autonomy is in fact the reality here.

And how might a "collective or universal consensus" among them become reconfigured at the level of the individual into a subjective frame of mind.

What on earth does that mean?

We may feel compelled on occasion to think as others do - for whatever reason - but no mind can actually force another to think like it does
By the laws of averages sometimes there will be collective or universal consensus and sometimes there will not be - this is perfectly natural

All you do here [yet again in my view] is to assert something that "here and now" is true for you "in your head" in a "world of words".

Then around and around we go.

[surreptitious75]

Therefore free will is an aspect of nature - I can accept this but you apparently cannot but what is your reason for this
We may not be able to understand precisely how nature works but we should not be in denial about what we do know

But do you accept it because nature compels you to accept it or because you were free to opt for not accepting it thought it all
true and of your own volition here and now took that existential leap to accepting it ?

An existential leap from my frame of mind because even given some measure of autonomy I is still ceaselessly constructed
deconstructed and reconstructed from the cradle to the grave . At least is regard to value judgments and to big questions like this

Bottom line : You can never really be certain [ again given autonomy ] what new experiences relationships and access to ideas might do to change your mind

I do not think that there is any aspect within Nature that absolutely compels me to accept any particular thing otherwise every mind would think the same

Any new knowledge or experience will always affect a mind because it processes everything it is exposed to and never stops functioning even during sleep
Although there will often be shared knowledge or experiences between minds they can still process it differently to each other despite the commonality

The mind is constantly developing as it experiences the eternal now just like all other phenomena within this eternal Universe . Indeed one could
say that the observation and study of the mind is that of the Universe in microcosm : an independent dynamic system in a state of eternal change

[iambiguous]

If evolving from the simple to the complex from hydrogen and helium atoms to the human brain from [ possibly ] nothing at all to everything there
is involves no mystery for you then well what can I possibly note here that would put even a dent in your own - ontological - objectivism

Why should a dent be necessary when evolution is an observable process ? I may not understand reality in any absolute sense
but understanding it on a very basic level - one that is exclusively scientific - is simply acknowledging the process as it is

Come on, even within the scientific community itself there are any number of arguments that grapple with pinning evolution down to the definitive explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ary_theory

And that's before we get to taking the arguments devised by intelligent life on this planet all the way back to an explanation for existence itself. Or the arguments proposed by the theologists. Or the arguments that subsume all such arguments in a wholly determined universe.

I am an objectivist when it comes to accepting facts about reality - anyone who is not is simply in denial of those facts

Your facts of course. But as with me and my facts, we either are or are not able to demonstrate why [in turn] all rational men and women are obligated to accept them as facts applicable to all of us.

But, even here, by first assuming this all unfolds in this exchange among autonomous human beings.

My argument is basically to suggest that objectivism is embedded as much in human psychology as in philosophy or science. It's more that you believe what you believe that brings about a certain measure of comfort and consolation in regards to situating "I" out in the staggering vastness of the world around us.

But, again, assuming we do this of our own volition. Maybe we do, maybe we don't.

[iambiguous]

Nope. I'm entirely the embodiment of the mechanical laws of nature. The only difference between me and a robot constructed in a factory and programmed, is that I'm aware of my own self.

Right. Now all you have to do is to fully explain how mindless matter was able to evolve into this awareness.

I don't know why I would have to do this.

Well, given my own existential leap to the antinomy -- "a contradiction between two beliefs or conclusions that are in themselves reasonable" -- that I see embedded in the age old determinism/free will debate, you have to because the laws of nature compel you to.

Only I am no more able to demonstrate that than I presume you are able to demonstrate that in fact your own will is free here.

This makes no sense in the context of what I wrote about determinism, free-will and autonomy. You don't actually read my posts, do you?

Okay, fine. Nature has compelled you to point out that nature has not compelled me to not read your posts. I freely choose of my own volition not to read them instead because of all the dishonest and devious things that KT has concluded about me here.

Compelled or not as it were.

But the whole point behind peacegirl's posts regarding Decline and Fall of All Evil is that life can be understood in regards to free will and "choice"; such that in a "progressive future" all evil will -- must -- decline and fall. And, as with you, attempts on my part to probe the manner in which [and the extent to which] she approaches all this through the lens of God and religion got me nowhere fast.

In particular in regard to the "choices"/choices she makes pertaining precisely to her own day to day interactions.

But now [compelled or not] she's gone.

I'm not Peacegirl. So why are you writing about her posts and not mine?

I'm going back to the OP. To the manner in which she intertwines "life" in a "choice" that I have never really been clear about as it pertains to God and religion. As that pertains to our moral responsibility in a world argued to be determined. These dots are always intertwined in my argument. You more than anyone ought to know that by now.

My advice is that you steer clear of my posts if you won't [eventually] go there.

That's good advice.

Damn straight. Now let's see if it is in sync with nature.

[surreptitious75]

My argument is basically to suggest that objectivism is embedded as much in human psychology as in philosophy or science . It is more that you believe
what you believe that brings about a certain measure of comfort and consolation in regards to situating I out in the staggering vastness of the world around us

Objectivism by definition ideally would have to be something entirely independent of human interpretation
So human definitions of objective could be more accurately described as a virtual absence of subjectivity

I think though that there are some aspects of reality that are fundamentally truly mind independent or objective :

Existence is eternal and extends infinitely into the past and into the future
Absolute nothing cannot persist which is why the above statement is true
Death is eternal for all life but non life will always exist in some form
Reality creates minds while minds interpret reality [ often wrongly ]
Absolutely nothing at all matters within the grand scheme of things

The delicious irony of a mind declaring mind independent truth

[Meno_]

My argument is basically to suggest that objectivism is embedded as much in human psychology as in philosophy or science . It is more that you believe
what you believe that brings about a certain measure of comfort and consolation in regards to situating I out in the staggering vastness of the world around us

Objectivism by definition ideally would have to be something entirely independent of human interpretation
So human definitions of objective could be more accurately described as a virtual absence of subjectivity

I think though that there are some aspects of reality that are fundamentally truly mind independent or objective :

Existence is eternal and extends infinitely into the past and into the future
Absolute nothing cannot persist which is why the above statement is true
Death is eternal for all life but non life will always exist in some form
Reality creates minds while minds interpret reality [ often wrongly ]
Absolutely nothing at all matters within the grand scheme of things

The delicious irony of a mind declaring mind independent truth

75:

True, but there are really 3 levels ascribed to this topic, which is suggestive of what You are saying: That consisted of perspective, suggested by an early pre-existentialist: Nietzche. The either/or relations is modified by a meta-effective Kantianism, that suggests a mind within mind is as fallible as Sure/and/or/ Russell-Wittgenstein. Thus the eyeternally reductive mind within a machine&/or machine within a mind is left unresolute.

I have some articles in reserve I could dig up in all two scenarios, but it is within a deep state of uncategorical files.


As far as original sin is concerned, western philosophy has a comparable model: the eastern idea of karma. That may not be a coincidental
but design related structural hierarchy.

[iambiguous]

Our inveterate abstractionist brings out the big guns:

Sartre, Jean-Paul wrote:
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.

And that settles it, right? With this one particular assertion, Sartre has clearly demonstrated beyond all doubt that we choose of our own free will. Authentically as it were.

Weininger, Otto wrote:

I am never able to comprehend why I committed the original sin, how the free could become un-free. And why? Because I can only recognize a sin when I am no longer committing it. Therefore I cannot comprehend life so long as I am living it, and time is the mystery because I have not yet overcome it.

Unless of course this "general description intellectual contraption" from Weininger comes even closer to pinning it all down.

Or, sure, perhaps our very own hero here comes the closest of all:

The exercise of free-will, through choice, is what is described as “original sin” in the Old Testament. An “affront” on God’s Divine and absolute Will.

On the other hand, I tried exercising my own free will in discussions with him in the agora. And, of his own free will, he dragged me to his dungeon.

Why? Well over there religion revolves solely around agreeing with the meaning and the definition that he gives to all the words that comprise his hopelessly abstract philosophical arguments.

The dungeon then becoming the equivalent of Hell?

And then of their own free-will, we are told, the Desperate Degenerates who [moronically of course] enslave themselves by embracing one or another religious dogma are magically transformed into...nihilists?

Go ahead, ask him.

Still, compelled as I am to say this, he is off the hook in being compelled by nature himself in turn.

Though he still seems intent on asserting that he actually does choose of his own free will to be, among other things, made a fool of. And not just by me.

Go get him, Magnus!!

[phyllo]

. I freely choose of my own volition not to read them instead because of all the dishonest and devious things that KT has concluded about me here.

Compelled or not as it were.

You don't read my posts because of something KT wrote about you???

I'm going back to the OP. To the manner in which she intertwines "life" in a "choice" that I have never really been clear about as it pertains to God and religion. As that pertains to our moral responsibility in a world argued to be determined. These dots are always intertwined in my argument. You more than anyone ought to know that by now.

I wrote a bunch of stuff in several posts which you blatantly ignored and instead you are "going back to the OP". I see.

[iambiguous]

. I freely choose of my own volition not to read them instead because of all the dishonest and devious things that KT has concluded about me here.

Compelled or not as it were.

You don't read my posts because of something KT wrote about you???

No [as I point out over and over and over again], I don't know for certain if nature compels me to read the posts of yours that I do "choose"/choose to read and the posts that I "choose"/choose not to read.

Just as nature either compelled me or did not compel me to "choose"/choose that aside regarding the disdain that nature either compels or does not compel KT to level on me here at ILP.

I'm going back to the OP. To the manner in which she intertwines "life" in a "choice" that I have never really been clear about as it pertains to God and religion. As that pertains to our moral responsibility in a world argued to be determined. These dots are always intertwined in my argument. You more than anyone ought to know that by now.

I wrote a bunch of stuff in several posts which you blatantly ignored and instead you are "going back to the OP". I see.

Okay, note the most blatant point of all that I ignored. Let's start there.

Note to others:

And, of course [presuming at least some measure of autonomy here], he never -- never ever -- ignores any of the points that I raise with him in our exchange here.

[phyllo]

No [as I point out over and over and over again], I don't know for certain if nature compels me to read the posts of yours that I do "choose"/choose to read and the posts that I "choose"/choose not to read.

Just as nature either compelled me or did not compel me to "choose"/choose that aside regarding the disdain that nature either compels or does not compel KT to level on me here at ILP.

I have no doubt that KT would change how he responds to you, if you changed how you interact with him. However, I don't think that you would change how you respond to him, if he changed how he interacts with you. IOW, if he dropped his "disdain", you would stay the same.

Okay, note the most blatant point of all that I ignored. Let's start there.

Over and over, I have tried to nail down the meaning of the word 'autonomy" and entirely without success. You use the word all the time. So what does it mean?

I use the dictionary definition. According to the dictionary, people have autonomy. And it's impossible to lose autonomy to "natural laws".

And, of course [presuming at least some measure of autonomy here], he never -- never ever -- ignores any of the points that I raise with him in our exchange here.

Autonomy has nothing to do with it. If we have autonomy, I don't respond to all your points. If we don't have autonomy, I don't respond to all your points.

I don't respond for several reasons:

1. I'm tired of many of your standard responses to my replies to your points. If I just keep getting those responses, then I might as well not bother at all. Responses like ...

"You're just asserting that."
"It's just in your head."
"You're compelled to write that."
"You have to demonstrate that, beyond all doubt, for all reasonable men and women" (forever and ever)

2. Your points are very repetitive. I think that I have covered them in the previous posts.

3. I think that often your point is a way to try to avoid dealing with my point. It's a distraction tactic.

[Karpel Tunnel]

have no doubt that KT would change how he responds to you

AS in me or as in Satyr or Know Thyself in general.

[phyllo]

It's about you. He has brought you in the last couple of posts and I'm responsing to it.