The Philosophy Discussion Forum

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 6:46 pm

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

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 6:46 pm

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.

The above is nonsensical; determinism is defined by its nature as cause/s. Motivation is the cause

As I have asked in the past, give me one example of a human behaviour that is not a reaction to a causal stimulus.

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.

The above is again nonsensical;

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 7:11 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 6:46 pm

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

The above is nonsensical; determinism is defined by its nature as cause/s. Motivation is the cause

No, according to Determinism, there is no "motivation." "Motives" are mind-states. The mind does not exist. Only physical pre-causes exist.

As I have asked in the past, give me one example of a human behaviour that is not a reaction to a causal stimulus.

Argumentation. what you're trying to do right now.

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.

The above is again nonsensical;

It's Determinism. Determinism is nonsensical. And arguing for it is totally self-refuting: if you can do it, Determinism must be false; if you can't do it, then Determinism might still be true, but there's no rational reason to accept it, and arguments are futile.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 10:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 7:11 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 6:46 pm
The above is nonsensical; determinism is defined by its nature as cause/s. Motivation is the cause

No, according to Determinism, there is no "motivation." "Motives" are mind-states. The mind does not exist. Only physical pre-causes exist.

As I have asked in the past, give me one example of a human behaviour that is not a reaction to a causal stimulus.

Argumentation. what you're trying to do right now.

The above is again nonsensical;

It's Determinism. Determinism is nonsensical. And arguing for it is totally self-refuting: if you can do it, Determinism must be false; if you can't do it, then Determinism might still be true, but there's no rational reason to accept it, and arguments are futile.

Now that is an irrational conclusion. If determinism is causal, it means it is so by means of affecting an effect, a biological effect.

You're also not dealing with or challenging what I have stated.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2026 12:06 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 10:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 7:11 pm
No, according to Determinism, there is no "motivation." "Motives" are mind-states. The mind does not exist. Only physical pre-causes exist.
Argumentation. What you're trying to do right now.

Well, you may be right. I was wrong once back in the early sixties and swore never to do that again---lol!!
So, you believe determinism doesn't affect the mind or human will as so defined? Here is a formal definition of determinism.
"The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

Tell me, do you believe that the physical world is cause to all living organisms? Is the mind a totally independent agent in the world? Do you not realize that determinism, as you have so defined it, would have been defeated many erons ago; we would not be debating it today. Tell me, do you believe you are in this world or of this world? There is a very important difference; if you are of this world, that means you are a functional part of something larger than yourself, which means you are a relational part of the Earth. Then you must ask, functional in what way? Humanity is having a very profound effect on the condition of the environment, and the physical world is being profoundly changed by our activities. Do you accept that? Do you imagine this effect travels only one way? If not, you must then ask in what way it works both ways, meaning a reciprocal two-way relation, where you are affected. and through your reactions to your outer world, become a cause of its changing. It is called reciprocal causation, and it is the engine of reality.




It's Determinism. Determinism is nonsensical. And arguing for it is totally self-refuting: if you can do it, Determinism must be false; if you can't do it, then Determinism might still be true, but there's no rational reason to accept it, and arguments are futile.
You're using "mind" terms like "motivation" to describe a process that Determinism requires to be purely impersonal, physical and causal. In other words, you're not a real Determinist either: the words you're using show you don't understand Determinism at all, as does your propensity for arguing, when arguments cannot be part of any Deterministic causal chain, because they're abstract and appeal only to "minds."

As I stated above, by your definition, of course your right, but you're definition lacks an understanding of reality. It might be thought of as cause and effect in flow, or cause and reaction, the two-way reciprocity, being affected and reacting to the effect becomes cause to your outer world. Are you familiar at all with something called epigenetics? This is where some trauma experienced by your parents or grandparents creates a change in them that is passed on generationally. It does not change your DNA, but it changes the reading of your DNA; the effects of your parents or grandparents trauma are visited upon you in the here and now, altering your behaviour. This is today's science, not someone's wild idea. You need to give the topic greater thought.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 27, 2026 10:13 pm

Well, you may be right. I was wrong once back in the early sixties and swore never to do that again---lol!!
So, you believe determinism doesn't affect the mind or human will as so defined? Here is a formal definition of determinism.
"The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions."

Tell me, do you believe that the physical world is cause to all living organisms?

Is the mind a totally independent agent in the world?

Do you not realize that determinism, as you have so defined it, would have been defeated many erons ago; we would not be debating it today.

Tell me, do you believe you are in this world or of this world?

Humanity is having a very profound effect on the condition of the environment, and the physical world is being profoundly changed by our activities. Do you accept that?

Do you imagine this effect travels only one way?

...you're definition lacks an understanding of reality.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:33 am The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:43 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:33 am
The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 2:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:43 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:33 am
The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

Immanuel,

Just curious, do you believe that for the individual, context defines?

When we come into this world, do we have an identity at birth?

...all creatures are reactionary organisms,

The process has nothing whatever to do with free will.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:43 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:33 am The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 2:52 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 2:43 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:43 am
No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

Immanuel,

Just curious, do you believe that for the individual, context defines?

I'll tell you what I believe...that I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

That's honest, at least. No organism at birth has an identity; you are born into this world as an anonymous constitution and do not gain a sense of identity until you are defined by the environment you are born into. There are examples of young animals, newborns that imprint on the first large presence around them, even geese imprint a human as their mother. Even in courtrooms, the judge takes the defendence circumtances in context into consideration. Just as a word is defined by the paragraph and sentence in which it is found. That is not to say that a particular constitution does not have some unique propensities, but the context will either allow for their expression or hinder their expression. This also addresses your protest below.

When we come into this world, do we have an identity at birth?

Of course we do. What a dumb question. How could there be a "birth of you" if "you" is not an identity?

..

all creatures are reactionary organisms,

Do you include yourself? Is your claim merely a "reaction" to your "environment," and unrelated to reason, logic, and mind? Or do you actually want me to believe you're reasoning, using your mind, and hoping to appeal to another mind, so that it will change? If it's the latter, then YOU don't believe in Determinism, no matter what I think.

Of course, I include myself; we are presently reacting to one another. Do you understand the relationship between subject/person and object/the psychical world? A quote might help: " Subject and Object stand or fall together. "Schopenhauer This means there really isn't either without the other. There is reciprocal causation going on, which makes you and the physical world one.

The process has nothing whatever to do with free will.

You assert this, with no proof -- and then, by arguing, act just as if it's not true. And then you wonder why I don't believe you.

Dubious wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 5:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:43 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2026 3:33 am The idea that DNA acts as a seat of consciousness is a compelling bridge between biology and metaphysics,...

No, it's a load of twaddle, actually. DNA is just a string of nucleotides, something far too simple to house any "consciousness." It's no more "consciousness" than a blueprint is a skyscraper.

...except that without a blueprint, the skyscraper or anything built or engineered wouldn't exist. So, in effect, though DNA is not in itself a seat of consciousness, without that prime building block, there would be no consciousness at all in anything specified as organic. It's the materialistic which creates the various levels of consciousness which progress from simply existing to reevaluating it as an evolutionary, metaphysical type of emergence in which the materialistic devolves as a subset in spite of being its very nucleus. Origins are fundamental to understanding a concept or how it harmonizes with observed fact.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 6:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 2:52 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 2:43 am

Immanuel,

Just curious, do you believe that for the individual, context defines?

I'll tell you what I believe...that I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about.

That's honest, at least. No organism at birth has an identity; you are born into this world as an anonymous constitution and do not gain a sense of identity until you are defined by the environment you are born into. There are examples of young animals, newborns that imprint on the first large presence around them, even geese imprint a human as their mother. Even in courtrooms, the judge takes the defendence circumtances in context into consideration. Just as a word is defined by the paragraph and sentence in which it is found. That is not to say that a particular constitution does not have some unique propensities, but the context will either allow for their expression or hinder their expression. This also addresses your protest below.

When we come into this world, do we have an identity at birth?

Of course we do. What a dumb question. How could there be a "birth of you" if "you" is not an identity?

..

all creatures are reactionary organisms,

Do you include yourself? Is your claim merely a "reaction" to your "environment," and unrelated to reason, logic, and mind? Or do you actually want me to believe you're reasoning, using your mind, and hoping to appeal to another mind, so that it will change? If it's the latter, then YOU don't believe in Determinism, no matter what I think.

Of course, I include myself; we are presently reacting to one another. Do you understand the relationship between subject/person and object/the psychical world? A quote might help: " Subject and Object stand or fall together. "Schopenhauer This means there really isn't either without the other. There is reciprocal causation going on, which makes you and the physical world one.

The process has nothing whatever to do with free will.

You assert this, with no proof -- and then, by arguing, act just as if it's not true. And then you wonder why I don't believe you.

Well, let's try it this way: you do as an organism come to know the world...

Honestly, I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what Determinism implies about you. If you did, you'd realize you can't believe in Determinism: if Determinism were true, then you could only be predetermined to be under the causally-induced impression that Determinism is true, not to know that it is. And you can't argue for it. Arguing assumes the existence of things that Determinism requires you not to believe can exist.

...do you believe that in the here and now, your behaviours are caused...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 1:15 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 6:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 2:52 am

I'll tell you what I believe...that I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about.


Of course we do. What a dumb question. How could there be a "birth of you" if "you" is not an identity?

Do you include yourself? Is your claim merely a "reaction" to your "environment," and unrelated to reason, logic, and mind? Or do you actually want me to believe you're reasoning, using your mind, and hoping to appeal to another mind, so that it will change? If it's the latter, then YOU don't believe in Determinism, no matter what I think.

You assert this, with no proof -- and then, by arguing, act just as if it's not true. And then you wonder why I don't believe you.

Well, let's try it this way: you do as an organism come to know the world...

Start there. You and I are not just "organisms." We're volitional, spiritual beings, as well as organic. So your first assumption would need to be proved, not just granted without evidence.

Honestly, I don't think you have the foggiest notion of what Determinism implies about you. If you did, you'd realize you can't believe in Determinism: if Determinism were true, then you could only be predetermined to be under the causally-induced impression that Determinism is true, not to know that it is. And you can't argue for it. Arguing assumes the existence of things that Determinism requires you not to believe can exist.

...do you believe that in the here and now, your behaviours are caused...

No. I believe they are chosen. The outside world sets some of the options under which each choice can be made...for example, I can go east, west, north or south. But where I stand right now, I have no ability to choose upwards or downwards, so my environment is contrary to the possibility of two choices, but offers me four others.

The locus of choice is my will, not the environment around me. And you believe the same, since you both offer to "change" my will, and offer to "change" your own, if my argument turns out to be better. You can't "change" anything, under Determinism, nor have you any will with which to do it. All there is, is the state of being the external environment has imposed upon you. No more.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 6:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 1:15 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2026 6:21 am

Well, let's try it this way: you do as an organism come to know the world...

Start there. You and I are not just "organisms." We're volitional, spiritual beings, as well as organic. So your first assumption would need to be proved, not just granted without evidence.

...do you believe that in the here and now, your behaviours are caused...

No. I believe they are chosen. The outside world sets some of the options under which each choice can be made...for example, I can go east, west, north or south. But where I stand right now, I have no ability to choose upwards or downwards, so my environment is contrary to the possibility of two choices, but offers me four others.

The locus of choice is my will, not the environment around me. And you believe the same, since you both offer to "change" my will, and offer to "change" your own, if my argument turns out to be better. You can't "change" anything, under Determinism, nor have you any will with which to do it. All there is, is the state of being the external environment has imposed upon you. No more.

You don't seem to wish to deal with what I have presented,

Everybody has the sense that they have free will; it is philosophy that questions the obvious or the apparent.

If we cannot get beyond your belief that what seems to be true is true, it is self-evident.