You cannot make "Choices" in Hard Determinism

[Gary Childress]

bi-pedal featherless chickens.

Hey! I resemble that remark!

[Age]

The language is all philosophically overcomplicated, you guys. A 'choice' is what a person makes when they decide to do something. What the word is describing with such ordinary and quite sufficient use is that very behavior.

What it isn't describing, and certainly couldn't ever describe, is the thing that is already in question for the cartesian dualist; that point of contact between ghost and material where 'choice', as they (not us Big Mikeans) define it, actually happens.

These dualists make the word have to mean some kind of abracadabra shit when it was doing just fine describing the goal-oriented behavior of bi-pedal featherless chickens.

As I have SAID A FEW TIMES ALREADY, defining A WORD in 'A WAY' that 'it' could NOT EVER EXIST, and then CLAIMING, 'See, 'it' does NOT EXIST', besides being BEYOND ABSURDITY, is JUST PLAIN OLD STUPIDITY.

ANY and ALL WORDS REFER TO some 'thing'. And, if what A WORD is REFERRING TO, does NOT EVEN EXIST, then 'THAT WORD' is a COMPLETELY REDUNDANT WORD, and THUS DOES NOT BELONG IN LANGUAGE.

ALL you human beings REALLY NEED TO DO, here, is JUST COME, and WORK, TOGETHER, PEACEFULLY, in FINDING OUT what the WORDS in A DISCUSSION are MEANING, and/or JUST REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, FIRST.

ONCE you human beings START DOING 'this', then you HAVE JUST STARTED 'world peace'.

And, IF, and WHEN, you are ALL DOING 'this', CONTINUALLY, then you ARE, and WILL BE, Creating ETERNAL 'world peace'.

BUT, as MOST, in this forum, here, have SHOWN and PROVED, IGNORING others WAS A VERY POPULAR PASTIME, BACK when this was being written, anyway.

JUST 'LOOK AT' HOW Truly SIMPLE A WORD like 'choice' GOT MISUNDERSTOOD.

As "promethean75" SO SIMPLY and SO EASILY POINTED OUT, and SHOWED, the word 'choice' JUST MEANS and REFERS TO just some thing Truly SIMPLE, and BASIC. And, there WAS and IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING COMPLICATED, NOR HARD, here.

[Wizard22]

The language is all philosophically overcomplicated, you guys. A 'choice' is what a person makes when they decide to do something. What the word is describing with such ordinary and quite sufficient use is that very behavior.

What it isn't describing, and certainly couldn't ever describe, is the thing that is already in question for the cartesian dualist; that point of contact between ghost and material where 'choice', as they (not us Big Mikeans) define it, actually happens.

These dualists make the word have to mean some kind of abracadabra shit when it was doing just fine describing the goal-oriented behavior of bi-pedal featherless chickens.

Choice -is- "abracadabra shit" though.

Do you or anyone else, history's greatest "scientists", know the type of neural networks and synapse firing that goes into choosing Left door or Right door? No...no they don't.

[promethean75]

I don't even know what you're asking. What do you mean by "type" of neural networks and synapse firing?

Still though, by virtue of the fact that freewill and determinism can't be verified empirically, i know freewill to be impossible a priori and due to certain logical circumstances pointed out by your homeboy Spinz. Specifically, the bit about two fundamentally different substances being impossible (the cartesian second substance) and unable to interact causally (if two were to exist).

Instead, there is one causal body (the universe) and two known modes or ways it exists... one way is mind, and the other is extension (energy, mass, etc).

For every idea, thought or feeling there is a corresponding effect on the body and so the mind is determined to think what it does based on how its body is affected by extended things. This commits it causally to extension, i.e., it follows the causal order of effects it experiences with the body and therefore can't be "free" of being caused, nor can it be a causa sui.

The order and flow of ideas is the same as the order and flow of things, Spinz once said sorta. That's what he means.

Where we part is when Spinz suggests that something of mind remains after the body dies. This is a parallelism version of his monism and it's a big leap, but that was Spinz's swagger. He liked to say cryptic shit and then leave us hanging with half-explanations.

[Wizard22]

I don't even know what you're asking. What do you mean by "type" of neural networks and synapse firing?

Still though, by virtue of the fact that freewill and determinism can't be verified empirically, i know freewill to be impossible a priori and due to certain logical circumstances pointed out by your homeboy Spinz. Specifically, the bit about two fundamentally different substances being impossible (the cartesian second substance) and unable to interact causally (if two were to exist).

Instead, there is one causal body (the universe) and two known modes or ways it exists... one way is mind, and the other is extension (energy, mass, etc).

For every idea, thought or feeling there is a corresponding effect on the body and so the mind is determined to think what it does based on how its body is affected by extended things. This commits it causally to extension, i.e., it follows the causal order of effects it experiences with the body and therefore can't be "free" of being caused, nor can it be a causa sui.

The order and flow of ideas is the same as the order and flow of things, Spinz once said sorta. That's what he means.

Where we part is when Spinz suggests that something of mind remains after the body dies. This is a parallelism version of his monism and it's a big leap, but that was Spinz's swagger. He liked to say cryptic shit and then leave us hanging with half-explanations.

Spinz skipped Platonic Theory of Forms day in college, clearly...

Basic Geometry proves that multiple types of energy and matter exist, not "One".

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't even know what you're asking. What do you mean by "type" of neural networks and synapse firing?

Still though, by virtue of the fact that freewill and determinism can't be verified empirically, i know freewill to be impossible a priori and due to certain logical circumstances pointed out by your homeboy Spinz. Specifically, the bit about two fundamentally different substances being impossible (the cartesian second substance) and unable to interact causally (if two were to exist).

Instead, there is one causal body (the universe) and two known modes or ways it exists... one way is mind, and the other is extension (energy, mass, etc).

For every idea, thought or feeling there is a corresponding effect on the body and so the mind is determined to think what it does based on how its body is affected by extended things. This commits it causally to extension, i.e., it follows the causal order of effects it experiences with the body and therefore can't be "free" of being caused, nor can it be a causa sui.

The order and flow of ideas is the same as the order and flow of things, Spinz once said sorta. That's what he means.

Where we part is when Spinz suggests that something of mind remains after the body dies. This is a parallelism version of his monism and it's a big leap, but that was Spinz's swagger. He liked to say cryptic shit and then leave us hanging with half-explanations.

Spinz skipped Platonic Theory of Forms day in college, clearly...

Basic Geometry proves that multiple types of energy and matter exist, not "One".

Ehh....

Basic geometry observes all forms as a variation of a cycle, a loop. Even the example of a line, unituitively, is a loop as the beginning an end are a point with all points merely being variations of eachother.

[Wizard22]

Ehh....

Basic geometry observes all forms as a variation of a cycle, a loop. Even the example of a line, unituitively, is a loop as the beginning an end are a point with all points merely being variations of eachother.

The simplest 'real' object is a Tetrahedron with 4 points, 6 lines, and 4 faces. Two-dimensional "shapes" technically don't exist, or are not "real". A piece of paper is a 3d object.

These basic forms refute Monism that there is only 'One' substance--what would that 'One' substance possibly be? What shape would it take? What shape(s) could it possibly take?

[Eodnhoj7]

Ehh....

Basic geometry observes all forms as a variation of a cycle, a loop. Even the example of a line, unituitively, is a loop as the beginning an end are a point with all points merely being variations of eachother.

The simplest 'real' object is a Tetrahedron with 4 points, 6 lines, and 4 faces. Two-dimensional "shapes" technically don't exist, or are not "real". A piece of paper is a 3d object.

These basic forms refute Monism that there is only 'One' substance--what would that 'One' substance possibly be? What shape would it take? What shape(s) could it possibly take?

Not really as the forms are recursion of a point, a cycling of a point maintaining itself through infinite variation where any space between points is further points. This results in a monism through the point and monism being the foundation of paradox as the point is the foundational paradox of one/many, finite/infinite, form/formless, absolute/relative, etc.

It is the foundation of all distinctive measurements, both rational and intuitive.

Dualism is refutable as the relationship of contrasts necessitate one thing through the relationship.

[popeye1945]

Presumably because some entity (God perhaps?) knows, in-advance, what you would have chosen if you ever could have options, which you don't.

This 'God-Entity' is an inevitability, a Final Conclusion to Hard Determinism. All roads lead to It / God / Fate / Whatever this Absolute Ideal could be.

Hard Determinists do not believe in things such as "options, choices, decisions, freedom" Etc. All of these are self-imposed delusions of the human brain. Any and all experiences of freedom, are Illusions. To the Hard Determinist, I presume and guess that they must believe, the human brain cooks up these false "Choices" as a way to maintain self-identity, self-control, and even more fundamental delusions of Autonomy. "You", if there could exist such a thing as a You, have no actual control over your body or mind. You cannot in fact "move left, right, up, down, forward, back". Any direction you move, is Pre-Determined.

Therefore, you can only ever move 'One' direction, forever. All living organisms, only move this One direction, into the Pre-Determined Future.

There is only "One Fate" (Fatalism) to the Hard Determinists.

I don't believe in determinism or free will. The cosmos and the world and its creatures, which of necessity adapt to a changing world are all indeterminate or happenstance. There is no predetermined condition or goal, it is just the mindless process of energy. Earth changes in relation to the indeterminate cosmos, which includes life on Earth. All living creatures are reactive creatures adapting to this indeterminate larger reality. There is no free will or determinism. There is PERHAPS CHOICE, but the one thing all creatures cannot do is to not react to their environment. Life is a function of Earth and Earth is a function of the greater cosmos, all a directionless process of energy.

[Phil8659]

Presumably because some entity (God perhaps?) knows, in-advance, what you would have chosen if you ever could have options, which you don't.

This 'God-Entity' is an inevitability, a Final Conclusion to Hard Determinism. All roads lead to It / God / Fate / Whatever this Absolute Ideal could be.

Hard Determinists do not believe in things such as "options, choices, decisions, freedom" Etc. All of these are self-imposed delusions of the human brain. Any and all experiences of freedom, are Illusions. To the Hard Determinist, I presume and guess that they must believe, the human brain cooks up these false "Choices" as a way to maintain self-identity, self-control, and even more fundamental delusions of Autonomy. "You", if there could exist such a thing as a You, have no actual control over your body or mind. You cannot in fact "move left, right, up, down, forward, back". Any direction you move, is Pre-Determined.

Therefore, you can only ever move 'One' direction, forever. All living organisms, only move this One direction, into the Pre-Determined Future.

There is only "One Fate" (Fatalism) to the Hard Determinists.

Every bit of grammar is based on making judgments in terms of the relative differences, as it takes both relative and correlative to state any thing at all, all you are claiming, which is not new at all, is that total idiots, morons, illiterates, paste words together. If you cannot make a choice, then you are stating that they are ignorant of that which they have to make a choice about, a simply oxymoron.
Show me anybody claiming that they cannot make a choice, and is, not brain dead.
Christ!
All of information processing involves asserting correlatives, nouns, of relative differences, verbs. May as well say, existence does not exist! Oh, my, I did not say that; really, really, I didn't do it. the devil did, but did not cause he, well, there is no he, or she, Oh God, I must be a transvest tight.
Hey ma, I am pasting words together, got more flue?

Once upon a time, a little boy decided to pour a glass of water, then some dumb ass moron convinced him that he had no choices and he drowned in his own piss. Score! Evolution gets rid of two worthless fools with one glass of water!

[Age]

Presumably because some entity (God perhaps?) knows, in-advance, what you would have chosen if you ever could have options, which you don't.

This 'God-Entity' is an inevitability, a Final Conclusion to Hard Determinism. All roads lead to It / God / Fate / Whatever this Absolute Ideal could be.

Hard Determinists do not believe in things such as "options, choices, decisions, freedom" Etc. All of these are self-imposed delusions of the human brain. Any and all experiences of freedom, are Illusions. To the Hard Determinist, I presume and guess that they must believe, the human brain cooks up these false "Choices" as a way to maintain self-identity, self-control, and even more fundamental delusions of Autonomy. "You", if there could exist such a thing as a You, have no actual control over your body or mind. You cannot in fact "move left, right, up, down, forward, back". Any direction you move, is Pre-Determined.

Therefore, you can only ever move 'One' direction, forever. All living organisms, only move this One direction, into the Pre-Determined Future.

There is only "One Fate" (Fatalism) to the Hard Determinists.

I don't believe in determinism or free will. The cosmos and the world and its creatures, which of necessity adapt to a changing world are all indeterminate or happenstance. There is no predetermined condition or goal,

So, there is no instinctual goal within you, right?

it is just the mindless process of energy.

What, exactly, is the, supposedly, mindless process of energy?

Earth changes in relation to the indeterminate cosmos, which includes life on Earth.

If someone else said and claimed, 'Earth changes in relation to the determinate cosmos, which included life of earth', then would you just accept 'that'?

If no, then would you want proof?

If yes, then will you provide proof for what you just said and claimed?

If no, then why not?

If you do not have any, then why do you claim 'this' to be true and right?

All living creatures are reactive creatures adapting to this indeterminate larger reality.

That all living creatures are obviously reactive creatures as no bearing at all on whether any so-called 'larger reality' is determinate or indeterminate.

If any one wants to claim that 'it' is determinate or indeterminate, then I just ask, 'What actual proof do you have, exactly?'

There is no free will or determinism.

How are you defining these two terms, exactly?

There is PERHAPS CHOICE,

What do you mean by, there is 'perhaps' choice?

There is, obviously, choice, is there not?

but the one thing all creatures cannot do is to not react to their environment.

So what?

How is stating this irrefutable Fact helping in any way at all in your belief that the Universe is indeterminate, and/or that there is no 'free will' and no 'determinism' at all.

Life is a function of Earth and Earth is a function of the greater cosmos, all a directionless process of energy.

So, you have absolutely no point at all in being HERE, right?

[popeye1945]

There is no predetermined goal of biological evolutionary adaptation; the plasticity of biology in its adaptations to Earth follows change, the only apparent constant about reality itself. The Earth is part of the cosmos and adapts to the overall changes of the cosmos in the same way life's adaptations follow the Earth's changes. There is no apparent goal of biological evolution; if there were a goal in and of itself, it could not adapt to the ever-changing world, and if the world were not somewhat plastic, it could not adjust to the ever-changing cosmos. Reaction to a larger whole is what governs the plasticity of human evolution and its behaviours, and through its reactive behaviours, the behaviour/reactions become causes to the ever-changing world, and I suspect that the reactions of the changing earth become causes to an ever-changing cosmos. If one assumes that possibilities are infinite, then change has no boundaries. If possibilities are finite, then Nietzsche's eternal return is possible, and thus a full cycle indicates a possible goal that, when reached, repeats itself, a circular, endless process, or it comes to an end. Perhaps our universe is tied to a greater whole to which it adapts. "So, you have no point in being here, right?" No, you do not, other than being part of something greater than yourself, immersed in its process.
The point of life in general is to survive and procreate. Humans have the alternative to bestow meaning upon their lives and those of other life forms.