The Philosophy Discussion Forum

sorry about the tardiness but, I have just determined that bread makers have more kneads than most people...

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 12:25 am

Well, every action is a reaction and I suppose you could call a reaction a choice.
- If you grab any old shirt to wear without even bothering to consider it, you could call that a choice just because you picked it up.
- If you’re confused about what color to wear then you ponder your available colors for awhile, then pick up the green shirt because you decided that’s the color you want to wear. You could call that a choice.
- However, if you know what color shirt you are going to wear, and you always wear shirts in public, then you’re not making a choice. You’re not confused about what color to wear. You’re reacting to the need to wear a shirt, and you’re reacting to what color you know you must wear.

Reaction is quite simple.
Sit still and choose to never move again*.
When you do move, it will be a reaction to a need to move.

There's a saying that goes ... I had to do it. I had no choice. There's a reason for that saying.

*

Humans that are part of any situation, even gazing at stars, are part of that situation and they bring with them all the complexity of humanness. That includes the evolutionary drive, which in the complexity of humans includes the capacity to compare one of this with another of that for the purpose of an imagined advantage, and unless there is some need to override that advantage, even if that need to override advantage is self-destructive, then that becomes the choice and the chooser, whoever that is somewhere in that body, gets the credit for choosing.



*anguish has been known to cause that reaction.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 3:16 am

There’s reaction … and then there’s reaction.

- One reaction is to compare an apprehension with what you know of the past. That comparison seeks characteristics, patterns, types, likes and dislikes, all in just a few moments. One can be trained to enhance this natural choiceless reaction that was caused by a survival instinct.

- Another reaction, which is also choiceless and has been known to happen, is to transcend the particulars of form and apprehend the Self within that other form, all in just a few moments.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 3:30 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 12:25 am

Well, every action is a reaction and I suppose you could call a reaction a choice.
- If you grab any old shirt to wear without even bothering to consider it, you could call that a choice just because you picked it up.
- If you’re confused about what color to wear then you ponder your available colors for awhile, then pick up the green shirt because you decided that’s the color you want to wear. You could call that a choice.
- However, if you know what color shirt you are going to wear, and you always wear shirts in public, then you’re not making a choice. You’re not confused about what color to wear. You’re reacting to the need to wear a shirt, and you’re reacting to what color you know you must wear.

But something like "what colour" indicates a further problem to Determinism.

It isn't obvious for any reason that a red shirt is a more causally-linked choice than a brown shirt. Brown shirts may be as warm -- or warmer -- than red ones of the same sort. The choice is aesthetic, not practical; and it's not even possible to identify any specific cause of your choice. It looks very much like you made up your "mind," which Determinism says is impossible, since "mind" is not allowed to be a link in a Deterministic chain.

how soon we forget Star Trek...

the guys in the red shirts got shot

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 5:53 pm how soon we forget Star Trek...

the guys in the red shirts got shot

-Imp

At least it didn't show the blood. That's good.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 4:41 pm

Reasons for doing often appear after the doing.

To say you chose to do something comes later as justification, maybe even immediately later, and depending on the situation, that can be a serious matter as in, "Why did you come home at four in the morning," or on a more serious note ... "My God, why did you do that?"

But in normal situations boss ego explains, and in the intellectual realm one must be rational. Attempting to logically trace the causal link from the beginning of cause until the asking of the question "Why," particularly if chemically degraded for the day with the body fighting for stasis, can appear highly irrational to the witnesses external and internal. Thus, the advantage of choice after the fact, for under the condition of penalty the man can begin to grow a tale.

In the dire, climate-ending circumstance after the action, a man is required to provide a logical cause for the action, keeping in mind that action defines the choice, and cause for action is now fluid in the rational realm, seeing as how he had to perform the action out of need.

But here's the real rub, the real evidence of human influence in situations.

After an action of need, a woman need not even grow a tale. A woman don't need no stinking cause. She can simply say, "I felt like it." And, given some of the tales that grow out of that sort of reply, such a rationale is perfectly acceptable, e.g., The Duke lacrosse scandal.

*

Anyway, random thoughts as usual, not a peer-reviewed philosophical treatise. Good chat, I did feel the need to clarify. I'm gone for awhile, back to nature before it gets too buggy and the poison plants start blooming.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 2:20 am sorry about the tardiness but, I have just determined that bread makers have more kneads than most people...

-Imp

Luckily, they also have more bread.

RickLewis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2026 7:48 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 2:20 am sorry about the tardiness but, I have just determined that bread makers have more kneads than most people...

-Imp

Luckily, they also have more bread.

aye but we'll just roll with it

-Imp

RickLewis wrote: ↑Sun Apr 26, 2026 7:48 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 2:20 am sorry about the tardiness but, I have just determined that bread makers have more kneads than most people...

-Imp

Luckily, they also have more bread.

Not sure they do. I hear they're a bunch of loafers.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 12:54 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 3:16 am

There’s reaction … and then there’s reaction.

- One reaction is to compare an apprehension with what you know of the past. That comparison seeks characteristics, patterns, types, likes and dislikes, all in just a few moments. One can be trained to enhance this natural choiceless reaction that was caused by a survival instinct.

- Another reaction, which is also choiceless and has been known to happen, is to transcend the particulars of form and apprehend the Self within that other form, all in just a few moments.

You don't seem to be arguing against organisms being reactive creatures, but naming differing types, and yes, even instincts are a form of reactions which do not depend upon consciousness. So, I think we are on the same page here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:29 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 12:21 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 6:47 am Again, I ask those who wish to challenge this to supply an example of human action I cannot prove to be a human reaction. Any human behavior is motivated, and motivation spells reaction, NOT action. Just one example that all it takes.

Any human motion is motivated by need.

That can't be right.

What "need" does a person have for art, or for feelings of swell-being, or for love, or for joining political parties, or for intellectual stimulation? These are all consciousness-premised "needs," -- all of which Determinism has to insist cannot be real. They cannot motivate action.

Remember that Determinism requires us to suppose that the mind is ever an initiator of any action, and that choice is impossible. The real explanation for anything that happens is supposed to lie in pre-existing, material causal chains. So how can a purely immaterial, existential "need" be real? And how can "need" (which is a feeling) be included in any description of how an action came about?

Rather, the truth is that many human actions are motivated by wants, many of which relate to non-material things and values. Determinism cannot accept that, but it's true, and obviously so. You know it in yourself.

Motivation is the key; that which is motivated spells reaction, not action. The recent understanding of epigenetics is interesting; the experience of the parents, perhaps trauma, affects the parents' DNA, and this is passed on to their child, such that their DNA is read differently due to the parents' trauma, and perhaps the grandchildren as well. I do not know how long of a chain this can be, but it shows the world plays us like an instrument.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 12:25 am

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 2:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:29 pm

Hi IC. Always a pleasure.

Based on what you say, I don't appear to be a Determinist then...

Probably not. Nobody really is.

There are people like popeye, who try to talk as if they are; but even they don't try to live as if Determinism were true. If they did, they'd be dead in a day or so. Anybody who simply says, "Well, it's all preset by prior causes anyway, so I don't have to do a darn thing" isn't going to have the brains to feed himself or stay out of traffic.

We all live as if free will is true: because we cannot do otherwise. That should tell us something.

There is a reason there is a distinction made between ultimate reality and that of apparent reality, because apparent reality is not reality. Apparent reality is a biological readout of the energy fields around us as they alter/change the standing state of our biology, interpreted by the mind, this is experience/knowledge and meaning, so you might say these energies play us like an instrument, and the melody they play is apparent reality. This alone really fucks up free will; an instrument cannot play itself. Through the perception of the organism, this is a world of duality; such a perception is a necessity for its survival, and yet, it is an illusion. The creative field is one of continuity, encompassing the earth and the cosmos, and we are a node in the drama of existence. So, yes, we must function as if the world and the cosmos were made up of separate parts due to our limited cognitive abilities, and this is your world of free will, an illusion.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 2:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:29 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 12:21 am
Any human motion is motivated by need.

That can't be right.

What "need" does a person have for art, or for feelings of swell-being, or for love, or for joining political parties, or for intellectual stimulation? These are all consciousness-premised "needs," -- all of which Determinism has to insist cannot be real. They cannot motivate action.

Remember that Determinism requires us to suppose that the mind is ever an initiator of any action, and that choice is impossible. The real explanation for anything that happens is supposed to lie in pre-existing, material causal chains. So how can a purely immaterial, existential "need" be real? And how can "need" (which is a feeling) be included in any description of how an action came about?

Rather, the truth is that many human actions are motivated by wants, many of which relate to non-material things and values. Determinism cannot accept that, but it's true, and obviously so. You know it in yourself.

Motivation is the key;

It cannot be. Under Deterministic theories, there can be no "motivation," because "motivation" implies a mind that chooses to do something.

Rather, Determinism would have to say there was only "causality." Popeye was caused to argue for Determinism. He didn't "know" that it was better, and wasn't "motivated" to argue for it -- he was forced to, because impersonal, material, prior causes locked him into nothing but that.

In other words, Popeye is not rational. He's predetermined. That's the story Determinism has to tell.

Moreover, there is no way to "believe" him. Whatever IC or anybody else was going to "decide" is actually nothing else but causality operating again. So if they disbelieve him, they are not "right" or "wrong" to do so; like him, they are all puppets on strings, and cannot choose to do anything but whatever causality has pre-fated them to do. They have no choice but to disbelieve, because prior causes MAKE them disbelieve.

So why is Popeye arguing? Only because he has to; Determinism has fated him to this project, and he is fated to be disbelieved or believed not based on the rationality of his argument, but purely on those prior material causes. He has nothing he can possibly gain. He's wasting energy.

Good thing Determinism also says there's no "him" to feel bad about that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 3:59 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 2:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:29 pm
That can't be right.

What "need" does a person have for art, or for feelings of well-being, or for love, or for joining political parties, or for intellectual stimulation? These are all consciousness-premised "needs," -- all of which Determinism has to insist cannot be real. They cannot motivate action.
Remember that Determinism requires us to suppose that the mind is ever an initiator of any action, and that choice is impossible. The real explanation for anything that happens is supposed to lie in pre-existing, material causal chains. So how can a purely immaterial, existential "need" be real? And how can "need" (which is a feeling) be included in any description of how an action came about?

The physical world is the most immediate source of cause to reactionary creatures; it does not need to be a distant cause ingrained in one's DNA. No organism's behaviour is affected without first being caused by the outer world. Let me qualify that, those causes that dwell within are dependent as a cause on the outside world to satisfy the inner need through what is available in the outside world. All creatures are reactionary organisms; if this were not so, evolutionary adaptation would not be possible. Organisms adapt to the ever-changing world through reciprocal causation, where the very presence of being is cause. The presence of the greater reality of the earth is cause for all organisms and their reactions are cause, even if incremental, to the ever-changing world as a contribution to its changing. Organisms are but nodes in the reality of which is larger than their being; they are not in ,this world; they are of the world. Cause is motivation; you seem to be having difficulty with that, and motivation spells reaction, not cause.

Rather, the truth is that many human actions are motivated by wants, many of which relate to non-material things and values. Determinism cannot accept that, but it's true, and obviously so. You know it in yourself.

Wants are causal, needs are causal, and desires are causal, and you need a causal world for all of them.

Motivation is the key;

It cannot be. Under Deterministic theories, there can be no "motivation," because "motivation" implies a mind that chooses to do something.
Rather, Determinism would have to say there was only "causality." Popeye was caused to argue for Determinism. He didn't "know" that it was better, and wasn't "motivated" to argue for it -- he was forced to, because impersonal, material, prior causes locked him into nothing but that.
In other words, Popeye is not rational. He's predetermined. That's the story Determinism has to tell. [/quote]

The above is nonsensical; determinism is defined by its nature as cause/s. Motivation is the cause that moves the will of the organism into reaction; there are no behaviours that are not reactions to a causal stimulus. As I have asked in the past, give me one example of a human behaviour that is not a reaction to a causal stimulus. There simply is no such thing as human action; it is all reaction, but those reactions are cause to the organism's outer world. This is where reciprocal causation comes in; reciprocal causation is the engine of reality.



Moreover, there is no way to "believe" him. Whatever IC or anybody else was going to "decide" is actually nothing else but causality operating again. So if they disbelieve him, they are not "right" or "wrong" to do so; like him, they are all puppets on strings, and cannot choose to do anything but whatever causality has pre-fated them to do. They have no choice but to disbelieve, because prior causes MAKE them disbelieve.
So why is Popeye arguing? Only because he has to; Determinism has fated him to this project, and he is fated to be disbelieved or believed not based on the rationality of his argument, but purely on those prior material causes. He has nothing he can possibly gain. He's wasting energy.
Good thing Determinism also says there's no "him" to feel bad about that.
[/quote]

The above is again nonsensical; even the process of knowing the world for an organism is entirely causal. You do not experience a reality that is out there; your apparent reality is caused by the energetic fields around you as they affect/change in the standing state of your biology, your apparent reality is a biological readout of those changes. As the mind interprets these changes as experience/knowledge and meaning, it creates a world of its own. You are played like an instrument by the energies of the outside world, and the melody it plays on you is your everyday reality, your apparent reality. Again, apparent reality is a biological readout of its own body's altered states.