henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:02 pm
"Ontic Free Will is a religious dogma for the useful purpose of social control then and, to a large extent, now."
So I'm indoctrinated to believe I'm free or that I have or am a free will so that I can be controlled.
That there is some cunning shit.
And she's arguing with you, which means she's trying to change your mind...but you can't change it, poor soul, because it's 'locked in' by Determinism. You could no more believe her and change your mind than you could change the colour of your eyeballs...but she's still telling you to change your mind.
That's kind of mean...it's mocking the cripple, isn't it? But I suppose she truly believes that can't change her mind either, so we can't blame her.
It doesn't even make sense. If it succeeds, Determinism fails. For it tells you that what it demands you do is impossible to do.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:02 pm
"Ontic Free Will is a religious dogma for the useful purpose of social control then and, to a large extent, now."
So I'm indoctrinated to believe I'm free or that I have or am a free will so that I can be controlled.
That there is some cunning shit.
And she's arguing with you, which means she's trying to change your mind...but you can't change it, poor soul, because it's 'locked in' by Determinism. You could no more believe her and change your mind than you could change the colour of your eyeballs...but she's still telling you to change your mind.
That's kind of mean...it's mocking the cripple, isn't it? But I suppose she truly believes that can't change her mind either, so we can't blame her.
It doesn't even make sense. If it succeeds, Determinism fails. For it tells you that what it demands you do is impossible to do.
Oh, it's all trifles...she's programmed to convince, I'm programmed to be unconvinced...just dominos fallin' and fallin' and fallin'...
...or...
We, she and me, are free wills, each choosing to convince and be unconvinced....two morally dimensioned agents.
The first: a meaningless exchange between two links in a chain.
The second: a meaningful exchange between two causes.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:55 pm
The second: a meaningful exchange between two causes.
And that's the assumption expressed in her actions...so her actions are not squaring with her claimed theory.
She doesn't really believe it...at least, not so much that it affects her actions.
Consider, though, if she and me are just programmed events: she has no choice but to do what she does. She isn't actually doing anything 'cept following a program. Her thoughts, her actions: just programs runnin'.
Me: I say I'm a free will, say everything I assess about myself supports this idea, but, mebbe I'm just runnin' a program too.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:10 pm
Me: I say I'm a free will, say everything I assess about myself supports this idea, but, mebbe I'm just runnin' a program too.
That's the world as she has to see it.
But if she really believed the latter was more plausible than the former, why would she be arguing? There could be absolutely nothing more futile than arguing that a rock had no right to run downhill, or a stream had no right to flow where it goes. You can't argue with these things. And to her, you're like them: just a product of prior conditions and causal chains. Why then the protesting?
...unless she thinks there's actually a very reasonable chance she's just wrong...
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:10 pm
Me: I say I'm a free will, say everything I assess about myself supports this idea, but, mebbe I'm just runnin' a program too.
That's the world as she has to see it.
But if she really believed the latter was more plausible than the former, why would she be arguing? There could be absolutely nothing more futile than arguing that a rock had no right to run downhill, or a stream had no right to flow where it goes. You can't argue with these things. And to her, you're like them: just a product of prior conditions and causal chains. Why then the protesting?
...unless she thinks there's actually a very reasonable chance she's just wrong...
Well, like I say: if she ain't a free will, she has no choice.
But, of course, she is, So: the question is, why would a free will claim to be less than a free will?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:19 pm
But, of course, she is, So: the question is, why would a free will claim to be less than a free will?
I can't say what her personal motive is, but I can guess at several.
Some people like Determinism because it seems to make everything controllable and predictable...things are what they are, no arguments.
Some people think complete Determinism is necessary for science, because of cause and effect. They also believe that without Determinism, science wouldn't work (of course, in order to say that, they have to have processed it with their consciousness. And if that consciousness is merely predetermined, it's not indexed to truth but to cause-and-effect, so science can't actually be trusted anymore; so that's ironic.)
The proposal that wills can "cause" things would be a denial of strict Materialism, and might lead to Dualism.
Some folks like that Determinism means they have no moral responsibility -- you can't be blamed for what you couldn't help doing.
Some people think that the idea of God entails that He must also micromanage the universe -- so they think a denial of Determinism is a denial of God.
Some people don't like the idea of a realm other than the physical -- the volitional -- being allowed to exist.
And some people just want to get out of arguing; claiming Determinism frustrates all further thought, because belief in Determinism is irrational and unfalsifiable. One can always go to, "Yeah, you only say that because you were caused to, not cuz it's rational."
It might be one of these, or she might have her own. I don't think any of them are good, though.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 5:19 pm
But, of course, she is, So: the question is, why would a free will claim to be less than a free will?
I can't say what her personal motive is, but I can guess at several.
Some people like Determinism because it seems to make everything controllable and predictable...things are what they are, no arguments.
Some people think complete Determinism is necessary for science, because of cause and effect. They also believe that without Determinism, science wouldn't work (of course, in order to say that, they have to have processed it with their consciousness. And if that consciousness is merely predetermined, it's not indexed to truth but to cause-and-effect, so science can't actually be trusted anymore; so that's ironic.)
The proposal that wills can "cause" things would be a denial of strict Materialism, and might lead to Dualism.
Some folks like that Determinism means they have no moral responsibility -- you can't be blamed for what you couldn't help doing.
Some people think that the idea of God entails that He must also micromanage the universe -- so they think a denial of Determinism is a denial of God.
Some people don't like the idea of a realm other than the physical -- the volitional -- being allowed to exist.
And some people just want to get out of arguing; claiming Determinism frustrates all further thought, because belief in Determinism is irrational and unfalsifiable. One can always go to, "Yeah, you only say that because you were caused to, not cuz it's rational."
It might be one of these, or she might have her own. I don't think any of them are good, though.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:08 pm
Leftists always think that Conservatives are "uncompassionate,"
I know you're trying to make a point...but it's an extreme characterization that rings untrue to me. I think people are individuals...NOT platforms. People can have varying viewpoints or beliefs while still being cooperative and wanting the same or similar goals.
Dividing people into imaginary groups based on labels with extreme notions assigned to them is a destructive game. It makes it nearly impossible to hear/see each other truthfully. It turns us all into fantasy game avatars to war against. And perhaps threatens to turn us into a giant video game?
Surely there is more depth to our characters and consciousness than that.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:08 pm
Leftists always think that Conservatives are "uncompassionate,"
I know you're trying to make a point...but it's an extreme characterization that rings untrue to me.
Don't make too much of the word "always." It was metaphorical.
You'll find that many women, for example, use "always" and "never" that way frequently, as in "You never take me out," or "You always say that." They are speaking about the regularities or averages of their experience, and of the feelings it engenders; they are not speaking literally. And they are dismayed with the literalism of their husbands when they respond, "What do you mean, never? I took you out last month."
On the other hand, if you want to be unhappy with me being too cavalier in adopting a common feminine figure of speech, I concede that you are justified.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:08 pm
Leftists always think that Conservatives are "uncompassionate,"
I know you're trying to make a point...but it's an extreme characterization that rings untrue to me.
Don't make too much of the word "always." It was metaphorical.
You'll find that many women, for example, use "always" and "never" that way frequently, as in "You never take me out," or "You always say that." They are speaking about the regularities or averages of their experience, and of the feelings it engenders; they are not speaking literally. And they are dismayed with the literalism of their husbands when they respond, "What do you mean, never? I took you out last month."
On the other hand, if you want to be unhappy with me being too cavalier in adopting a common feminine figure of speech, I concede that you are justified.
Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:20 pm
You're as transparent as you are ridiculous.
And you, alas, are as ad hominem as you are irrelevant.
IC, the word "always" is not the issue. Think more broadly, and you will see. Instead, you zeroed in on that, and assigned it as a female shortcoming, in your usual M.O. Wouldn't you recognize that's transparent and ridiculous if you saw someone else respond in such a way?
