hester_prynne wrote:Man, there is way too much thinking going on here for this heartist.
Here's how I feel about it:
Big wow whistle!
H
"too much thinking" indeed!Speaking of unemployment
-
Non Sum
Hes & Soo: "too much thinking" indeed!
NS: What does that mean? Keep it dumb?
I'd say the opposite, 'too little thinking.' Strain your brain, fight Alzheimer's.
MT, You are sounding rather vague on this issue of 'choice.'
Are you saying that, if a choice is made that necessarily means that it was done freely?
NS: What does that mean? Keep it dumb?
I'd say the opposite, 'too little thinking.' Strain your brain, fight Alzheimer's.
MT, You are sounding rather vague on this issue of 'choice.'
Are you saying that, if a choice is made that necessarily means that it was done freely?
-
Non Sum
MT: Absolutely, unless someone else is making that choice for you.
NS: We are speaking here of the actual mental act of ‘making a choice,’ not the resulting selection made. So, your answer doesn’t quite fit my query.
If you are given the post-hypnotic suggestion that at 12:00pm you will engage in an act of choosing by your own volition, you appear to be saying that this would be one more proof of freewill. This is why a determinist can make choices all day long, all of which are attended with a sense of free volition, and yet see absolutely No proof inherent in that act that supports either freewill nor determinism; because none is provided by any mental/physical act in itself.
I’m sure freewillers throughout the ages wished it were as easily proven as you would have it; i.e. determinist admits to making a choice, freewiller points at them and says: “ha, gotcha!” But, that would be a poor argument in a world where both admit to chains of preceding influences and causes.
These causes, to a soft determinist would comprise multiple environmental (including hypnotists) and genetic causes, and, to a hard determinist, a clock like universe, an omniscient god, or any number of other metaphysical explications necessitating even the most trivial acts.
NS (Necessity’s Stickpin)
NS: We are speaking here of the actual mental act of ‘making a choice,’ not the resulting selection made. So, your answer doesn’t quite fit my query.
If you are given the post-hypnotic suggestion that at 12:00pm you will engage in an act of choosing by your own volition, you appear to be saying that this would be one more proof of freewill. This is why a determinist can make choices all day long, all of which are attended with a sense of free volition, and yet see absolutely No proof inherent in that act that supports either freewill nor determinism; because none is provided by any mental/physical act in itself.
I’m sure freewillers throughout the ages wished it were as easily proven as you would have it; i.e. determinist admits to making a choice, freewiller points at them and says: “ha, gotcha!” But, that would be a poor argument in a world where both admit to chains of preceding influences and causes.
These causes, to a soft determinist would comprise multiple environmental (including hypnotists) and genetic causes, and, to a hard determinist, a clock like universe, an omniscient god, or any number of other metaphysical explications necessitating even the most trivial acts.
NS (Necessity’s Stickpin)
NS: We are speaking here of the actual mental act of ‘making a choice,’ not the resulting selection made. So, your answer doesn’t quite fit my query.
I thought the word, 'absolutely' defined my answer quite well. My addition following that was merely suggesting one may follow another's choice rather than their own.
NS: If you are given the post-hypnotic suggestion that at 12:00pm you will engage in an act of choosing by your own volition, you appear to be saying that this would be one more proof of freewill.
How does what I have written have anything to do with this supposition of a 'post-hypnotic suggestion?' It sounds as if your determinism is pulling rabbits out of a hat to make your point truth, my friend.
NS: These causes, to a soft determinist would comprise multiple environmental (including hypnotists) and genetic causes, and, to a hard determinist, a clock like universe, an omniscient god, or any number of other metaphysical explications necessitating even the most trivial acts.
Why make these distinctions between soft and hard when you obviously believe in only one determinist theory, i.e. 'hard determinism' over any other choices (which, btw, indicates to the reader that you yourself, has made a choice).
C-
I thought the word, 'absolutely' defined my answer quite well. My addition following that was merely suggesting one may follow another's choice rather than their own.
NS: If you are given the post-hypnotic suggestion that at 12:00pm you will engage in an act of choosing by your own volition, you appear to be saying that this would be one more proof of freewill.
How does what I have written have anything to do with this supposition of a 'post-hypnotic suggestion?' It sounds as if your determinism is pulling rabbits out of a hat to make your point truth, my friend.
NS: These causes, to a soft determinist would comprise multiple environmental (including hypnotists) and genetic causes, and, to a hard determinist, a clock like universe, an omniscient god, or any number of other metaphysical explications necessitating even the most trivial acts.
Why make these distinctions between soft and hard when you obviously believe in only one determinist theory, i.e. 'hard determinism' over any other choices (which, btw, indicates to the reader that you yourself, has made a choice).
C-
_________________________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow not destiny to intrude upon Now
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow not destiny to intrude upon Now
-
Non Sum
MT: I thought the word, 'absolutely' defined my answer quite well.
NS: So, I am to understand that in “absolutely All” instances of choice (inclusive of: hypnotic suggestion, pre-conditioning, programmed chip implant, duress, etc.) any given act of choosing is freely initiated. That is the absurdity you wish me to accept as your "absolute" position?
MT: It sounds as if your determinism is pulling rabbits out of a hat to make your point truth, my friend.
NS: A rabbit comes out of a hat only if the rabbit was first placed in it. Determinism’s very point is that all rabbits are pre-positioned. Freewill takes the view that rabbits just appear in that surprising instance of willing a rabbit.
MT: Why make these distinctions between soft and hard when you obviously believe in only one determinist theory,
NS: To show that both forms of determinism are committed to antecedents, each in their own way.
MT: … indicates to the reader that you yourself, has made a choice).
NS: That would be indicative only to an overly assumptive, shortsighted, reader. It would be a reader whom, upon watching the initial break in a game of pool, would take the resulting motions of the 15 balls as their individual (freewill) choices.
NS: So, I am to understand that in “absolutely All” instances of choice (inclusive of: hypnotic suggestion, pre-conditioning, programmed chip implant, duress, etc.) any given act of choosing is freely initiated. That is the absurdity you wish me to accept as your "absolute" position?
MT: It sounds as if your determinism is pulling rabbits out of a hat to make your point truth, my friend.
NS: A rabbit comes out of a hat only if the rabbit was first placed in it. Determinism’s very point is that all rabbits are pre-positioned. Freewill takes the view that rabbits just appear in that surprising instance of willing a rabbit.
MT: Why make these distinctions between soft and hard when you obviously believe in only one determinist theory,
NS: To show that both forms of determinism are committed to antecedents, each in their own way.
MT: … indicates to the reader that you yourself, has made a choice).
NS: That would be indicative only to an overly assumptive, shortsighted, reader. It would be a reader whom, upon watching the initial break in a game of pool, would take the resulting motions of the 15 balls as their individual (freewill) choices.
-
Non Sum
Yes, That is an important feature of Mysticism, and can be found in all of the major religious & philosophic Mystic traditions. The essential element in all of them is to deny one’s human self (body, mind, and acts) as being one’s actual self. Hindus and Buddhists will then attribute all actions to the impersonal forces of nature, a Taoist to the workings of Tao, a Christian, Moslem, Jew to the willing of God. What must never be done is to take ownership of any power upon one’s self. Ironically, this position is quite liberating for those who take it to heart.
”If everyone believed that all their thoughts and deeds were inevitably foreordained by fate, then people would behave just exactly as they pleased. In other words, they would become dangerously free!” (Alan Watts)
“Scripture tells us that "In God we live, and move, and have our being." This teaches us to find and own the power and operation of God in everything that passes within us, it keeps us continually turned to God.”
“There is nothing evil or the cause of evil to either man or devil but his own will; there is nothing good in itself but the will of God: he, therefore, who wholly renounces his own will turns away from all evil; and he who gives himself up wholly to the will of God puts himself in the possession of all that is good.” (William Law)
”If everyone believed that all their thoughts and deeds were inevitably foreordained by fate, then people would behave just exactly as they pleased. In other words, they would become dangerously free!” (Alan Watts)
“Scripture tells us that "In God we live, and move, and have our being." This teaches us to find and own the power and operation of God in everything that passes within us, it keeps us continually turned to God.”
“There is nothing evil or the cause of evil to either man or devil but his own will; there is nothing good in itself but the will of God: he, therefore, who wholly renounces his own will turns away from all evil; and he who gives himself up wholly to the will of God puts himself in the possession of all that is good.” (William Law)
Using that same belief system the suicide bomber taking the lives of the innocent simply excuses those needless deaths as being nothing more nor nothing less than 'the will of Allah."
It's apparent to me that this philosophy of determinism works well for some and ruins the lives of others, i.e. another example of the superiority of yin/yang over any other philosophical theory.
Man obviously has a trust in (a) God and uses this belief to dump the responsibility we have, and often feel too challenged to deal with, as the hu'mans we are.
Should determinism be trusted over the sense of conscience we are endowed with? I feel much better with my Self trusting in the instinctual truth of conscience over that of a more intellectual approach thru yet another philosophical endeavor amongst volumes in print to explain life, i.e. compatibilism, soft determinism, incompatibilism, libertarianism, hard determinism, pessimistic or "hard" incompatibilism to name but a few, (I'm sure). But this conversation is not intended to challenge each others beliefs, which is better or which is worse. To those questions there are no fair and honest answers that can contain the vastness of our potential to be better than a belief.
It's apparent to me that this philosophy of determinism works well for some and ruins the lives of others, i.e. another example of the superiority of yin/yang over any other philosophical theory.
Man obviously has a trust in (a) God and uses this belief to dump the responsibility we have, and often feel too challenged to deal with, as the hu'mans we are.
Should determinism be trusted over the sense of conscience we are endowed with? I feel much better with my Self trusting in the instinctual truth of conscience over that of a more intellectual approach thru yet another philosophical endeavor amongst volumes in print to explain life, i.e. compatibilism, soft determinism, incompatibilism, libertarianism, hard determinism, pessimistic or "hard" incompatibilism to name but a few, (I'm sure). But this conversation is not intended to challenge each others beliefs, which is better or which is worse. To those questions there are no fair and honest answers that can contain the vastness of our potential to be better than a belief.
_________________________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow not destiny to intrude upon Now
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow not destiny to intrude upon Now
-
hester_prynne
- Posts: 2363
- Joined: June 26th, 2006, 12:35 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
- Contact:
1. Hard determinism/Soft determinism.
2. Deny one's self as being one's self.
3. All actions attributed to nature's impersonal force.
4. Never take ownership of any power upon one's self.
1. Extremes are more about lack of balance.
2. This can't be forced or even known, it just happens. Then you remember it.
3. Not all. That is not my experience anyway.
4. Indeed!
I think the balance is simply to be on the ride. And as you both know, I am all about the balance.
H
2. Deny one's self as being one's self.
3. All actions attributed to nature's impersonal force.
4. Never take ownership of any power upon one's self.
1. Extremes are more about lack of balance.
2. This can't be forced or even known, it just happens. Then you remember it.
3. Not all. That is not my experience anyway.
4. Indeed!
I think the balance is simply to be on the ride. And as you both know, I am all about the balance.
H
"I am a victim of society, and, an entertainer"........DW
NS: Hes & Soo: "too much thinking" indeed!
NS: What does that mean? Keep it dumb?
I'd say the opposite, 'too little thinking.' Strain your brain, fight Alzheimer's.
Yeah, keep it dumb. I follow Nate's example, keep it simple and your remark just shows how clueless the ego is. Most folks think they have all the answers when they don't even know what the question is. They just want to prove how smart they are and frankly, that is not important to me. Dumb animals have more sense that most so-called intelligent humans and Nate has more wisdom than most Mensa members.
Back to your circular arguments... Have fun.
NS: What does that mean? Keep it dumb?
I'd say the opposite, 'too little thinking.' Strain your brain, fight Alzheimer's.
Yeah, keep it dumb. I follow Nate's example, keep it simple and your remark just shows how clueless the ego is. Most folks think they have all the answers when they don't even know what the question is. They just want to prove how smart they are and frankly, that is not important to me. Dumb animals have more sense that most so-called intelligent humans and Nate has more wisdom than most Mensa members.
Back to your circular arguments... Have fun.
Freedom's just another word...
http://soozen.livejournal.com/
http://soozen.livejournal.com/
-
Non Sum
MT: Using that same belief system the suicide bomber taking the lives of the innocent…
NS: “Belief” (or ‘faith’) is: “acceptance of or confidence in an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof.” (Webster)
Belief is a bird of quite another color from a serious intellectual inquiry, reasoning, and weighing of the pro-con arguments, such as some of us are attempting here. Even where there is no clear resolution, the act of reasoned investigation deepens the understanding of all its participants. But ignorant ‘belief’ otoh, wants nothing to do with ‘thinking’ (‘man’s excellence,’ according to Aristotle) and labels it as nothing more than brash ‘egotism,’ or ‘of the devil.’ How else could they view it, when they have no drive of their own to think well.
MT: It's apparent to me that this philosophy of determinism works well for some and ruins the lives of others, i.e. another example of the superiority of yin/yang over any other philosophical theory.
NS: This presupposes that a fool’s life would not have been “ruined” by foolish decisions had they not accepted determinism as working foolish acts through them, but had instead taken full credit for each of their foolish decisions. We all are unaware of the future, and must make “our” best guess as to which present decision to make. Determinists don’t just lie there waiting for directions. The eventual decision doesn’t alter one wit due to one’s understanding of its ultimate source.
MT: Man obviously has a trust in (a) God and uses this belief to dump the responsibility we have, and often feel too challenged to deal with, as the hu'mans we are.
NS: That is likely true for “Believers.” But, speaking as one of many atheistic determinists, I would suggest that Man too often is a control freak seeking to dominate nature to his own will, rather than face the (to him) abhorrent fact that he is fully nature’s creature, and not the other way around. That is ‘Taoism.’
MT: Should determinism be trusted over the sense of conscience we are endowed with?
NS: Neither determinism, nor free will, deny a sense of conscience. They only differ in its origins and the effectiveness of its influence. (greater effect goes to soft determinism)
MT: I feel much better with my Self trusting in the instinctual truth of conscience over that of a more intellectual approach thru yet another philosophical endeavor amongst volumes in print to explain life,
NS: That “feeling better” with instinct over intellect is exactly how the terrorist bomber views it also. That is the feeling of faith surpassing reason. ‘Philosophy’ is Not writings of great thinkers that one adopts. It is the pursuit of wisdom in one’s own depth of understanding of the true nature of things (like what exactly is a conscience?). One only reads philosophy to ‘learn’ how other thinkers attempted to answer these important questions. Learning is not ‘believing.’
"I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." (Galileo Galilei)
NS: “Belief” (or ‘faith’) is: “acceptance of or confidence in an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof.” (Webster)
Belief is a bird of quite another color from a serious intellectual inquiry, reasoning, and weighing of the pro-con arguments, such as some of us are attempting here. Even where there is no clear resolution, the act of reasoned investigation deepens the understanding of all its participants. But ignorant ‘belief’ otoh, wants nothing to do with ‘thinking’ (‘man’s excellence,’ according to Aristotle) and labels it as nothing more than brash ‘egotism,’ or ‘of the devil.’ How else could they view it, when they have no drive of their own to think well.
MT: It's apparent to me that this philosophy of determinism works well for some and ruins the lives of others, i.e. another example of the superiority of yin/yang over any other philosophical theory.
NS: This presupposes that a fool’s life would not have been “ruined” by foolish decisions had they not accepted determinism as working foolish acts through them, but had instead taken full credit for each of their foolish decisions. We all are unaware of the future, and must make “our” best guess as to which present decision to make. Determinists don’t just lie there waiting for directions. The eventual decision doesn’t alter one wit due to one’s understanding of its ultimate source.
MT: Man obviously has a trust in (a) God and uses this belief to dump the responsibility we have, and often feel too challenged to deal with, as the hu'mans we are.
NS: That is likely true for “Believers.” But, speaking as one of many atheistic determinists, I would suggest that Man too often is a control freak seeking to dominate nature to his own will, rather than face the (to him) abhorrent fact that he is fully nature’s creature, and not the other way around. That is ‘Taoism.’
MT: Should determinism be trusted over the sense of conscience we are endowed with?
NS: Neither determinism, nor free will, deny a sense of conscience. They only differ in its origins and the effectiveness of its influence. (greater effect goes to soft determinism)
MT: I feel much better with my Self trusting in the instinctual truth of conscience over that of a more intellectual approach thru yet another philosophical endeavor amongst volumes in print to explain life,
NS: That “feeling better” with instinct over intellect is exactly how the terrorist bomber views it also. That is the feeling of faith surpassing reason. ‘Philosophy’ is Not writings of great thinkers that one adopts. It is the pursuit of wisdom in one’s own depth of understanding of the true nature of things (like what exactly is a conscience?). One only reads philosophy to ‘learn’ how other thinkers attempted to answer these important questions. Learning is not ‘believing.’
"I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." (Galileo Galilei)
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20645
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests