For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Atrocity.Where does this tend?
Honestly Jacobi the above to me is like a plate full of edible greenery - yes, word salad.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 2:50 pmRaphael in one speech to Adam (Paradise Lost):So how does this all tie back to determinism and religion? Well, if we’re assuming a deterministic universe (or a simulation governed by deterministic algorithms), this hypothetical God isn’t a mystical being; it’s an emergent construct—a natural endpoint of intelligent systems maximizing survival. It’s less about divine intervention and more about computational inevitability.
But here’s the kicker: If such a system exists, is there room for traditional notions of free will or moral judgment as we understand them? Probably not. Instead, what emerges is a form of deterministic ethics—actions are judged not by intent, but by outcomes within the system’s rules.
What is “interesting” to me is that even in BigMike’s imaginable, phantasy world — the projection of an ideal — it all reduces to the same. And this “bends the mind”.“What surmounts the reach
Of human sense, I shall delineate so,
By lik’ning spiritual to corporal forms
As may express them best; though what if Earth
Be but the shadow of Heaven, and things therein
Each to other like, more than on earth is thought?”
Yet it is entirely conceivable that, if only in imagination, that a world where true choice and freedom does exist. I.e. conceptually.
The simulation then is just a restatement of the conceptual model held to about “the way things are” (and can only be.)
The Doppelgänger proposition was interesting except that what would inevitably occur is that BigMike One would diverge and an Anti-BigMike Two would separate and oppose him in a spiritual and mortal struggle requiring an Epic Poem (likely to be presented in a full chapter in The Course.)
Check it out, Atto. Run that scenario through your AI mill and report back your findings …
Being a foodie, as you are, the most I can do here is cogitate about the best sauce à salade to top it with. Not a small consideration given the stakes …attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:48 pmHonestly Jacobi the above to me is like a plate full of edible greenery — yes, word salad.
The issue that life, and the world, and the universe is determined in many ways (or even fundamentally) is unavoidable — certainly philosophically and scientifically. But the assertions made (in this instance by BigMike) have larger repercussions which, at the least, must be taken into consideration. I agree: teach children that cannot result in “good”.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:48 pm Discourage a man's natural intuitions of being self-directing & accountable; teach him he is a mechanism to be used, fixed, or discarded; and he will treat his fellows as mechanisms.
Oh, please, Henry, spare me the melodrama. “Atrocity”? Really? Teaching people to understand their deterministic nature doesn’t make them treat others as mechanisms—it helps them see the interconnected causes of human behavior and fosters compassion, not cruelty. What leads to atrocity is the delusional belief in free will, which allows people to blame, punish, and hate others without understanding the complex forces that shape actions.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:48 pmAtrocity.Where does this tend?
Discourage a man's natural intuitions of being self-directing & accountable; teach him he is a mechanism to be used, fixed, or discarded; and he will treat his fellows as mechanisms.
This is Mike's utopia.
Teaching people to understand their deterministic nature doesn’t make them treat others as mechanisms
henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 7:29 pm If we're meat machines, it doesn't matter. What we do necessarily must be.
If we're free wills, believing we're meat machines can only lead to atrocity.
Man is utterly free, and utterly responsible for his actions.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 10:44 pmThe question “How is man free?” and ”Within what constraints?” is (from my perspective) the crucial question.
It's absolutely staggering that, in this day and age, anyone can outright deny science and determinism—not because they can point to any credible flaw in the overwhelming evidence, but simply because they lack the foresight and logical capacity to grapple with what follows. Henry, you’re not rejecting determinism because it’s wrong. You’re rejecting it because you’re clinging to a comforting illusion of free will that keeps your worldview from crumbling under scrutiny.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:37 amTeaching people to understand their deterministic nature doesn’t make them treat others as mechanismshenry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 7:29 pm If we're meat machines, it doesn't matter. What we do necessarily must be.
If we're free wills, believing we're meat machines can only lead to atrocity.
Do you have evidence to back that up or does that take too much effort? Surely a 5 minute google search could come up with 'something'. Just because you want something to be so doesn't make it so. I'm not even saying you are wrong--no one knows for certain--although I don't know what you are saying exactly. What does 'utterly free' mean? Nothing? Thought so.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 12:43 amMan is utterly free, and utterly responsible for his actions.Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 10:44 pmThe question “How is man free?” and ”Within what constraints?” is (from my perspective) the crucial question.
There are no ifs, ands, buts, or except for whens.
You make two levels of claim. One, that man does not have decisive agency; and another that he can recognize “interconnected causes” that influence behavior. You take away agency but reinsert it as a moral buttress. There is something murky here.Teaching people to understand their deterministic nature doesn’t make them treat others as mechanisms—it helps them see the interconnected causes of human behavior and fosters compassion, not cruelty.
Here you introduce a sharper thrust: that having decisive agency, affirming it, holding oneself and others accountable, is “clinging” to an illusion. In fact, you desire and are working (intellectually) to make the assertion of responsibility “crumble”. That is the undercurrent of your discourse.You’re rejecting it because you’re clinging to a comforting illusion of free will that keeps your worldview from crumbling under scrutiny.
It leads to teaching those who do not have the intellectual armaments to combat your assertions to disbelieve in their agency. Yours is a seductive intellectual doctrine. And you use the word “science” as a lever against which, in your view, one cannot argue. It is a suspicious sophistry, brother BigMike. It (likely) connects to other intellectual currents that if known and expressed would necessarily alarm.You parrot the same tired argument—that determinism makes life meaningless or leads to atrocity—but that’s not a critique of determinism. It’s an admission that you’re unwilling to follow logic to its inevitable conclusion. Science doesn’t care about your personal discomfort, and the universe doesn’t pause to reassure you that you’re special.
The Appeal to Absolute Authority!The deterministic nature of reality has been demonstrated in everything from physics to neuroscience. It’s not some fringe idea; it’s the foundation of modern scientific understanding.
More of the same: now accusations of laziness, denial.Your refusal to engage with it isn’t principled—it's intellectual laziness. Clinging to free will in the face of mounting evidence against it is like denying evolution because you don’t like the implications for your creation story.
Again, two levels of assertion. One relevant, considerable and necessary. But the other one doubtful and (I think) camouflaging another (what they call these days) “agenda”.Determinism doesn’t destroy accountability; it refines it by showing us how to address root causes instead of flailing at symptoms.
Yes, in his head. As I say: Mike is a compatibilist (who thinks he's a determinist). He wants to have his cake and eat it too.There is something murky here.
BigMike wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2024 6:59 pm It's a question that never fails to fascinate and frustrate in equal measure. Why is it that religious adherents, who often champion their beliefs as rooted in truth, so vehemently reject scientific facts when those facts conflict with their worldview? Take determinism, for instance. Science tells us that everything—from the formation of galaxies to the workings of our brains—is governed by immutable physical laws. There’s no room for free will in this framework. Every thought, every action, every choice we believe we make is a product of these deterministic processes.
Truths are logical conclusions, based on valid premises of empirical data, such that no one today can validate religious beliefs as being necessarily true universally. They are just beliefs, born of fear, to sooth and control those fears. I see free will as simply choices within the physical universal construct. Choices are not deterministic as soon as one sees multiple possibilities and picks one, while others pick another. There's a difference between the framework and the choices within that framework, hence freewill. Of the things we 'can' do, we 'choose' which ones we do.
And yet, so many religious doctrines cling to the idea of free will as if it’s a gift from their deity, a cornerstone of moral responsibility. But let’s face it: free will, as traditionally understood, is about as plausible as a flat Earth. It defies the very laws of physics and neuroscience.
It's not a gift from any deity, nor does it have anything to do with morality, I'm sure no christian wants to be murdered, yet free will allows it to happen.
Why, then, does this cognitive dissonance persist? Could it be that religious institutions thrive on the illusion of free will because it allows them to enforce moral codes, assign blame, and justify eternal rewards or punishments? After all, a deterministic universe leaves no room for sin, no room for divine judgment, and no room for the comforting, if delusional, notion that we control our destiny.
Sin is a construct of the human mind born out of the fear of death, the will to survive. It does not exist in the universe, only in the minds of humans. Of course no one gets out of here alive, but one wants to postpone the inevitable. Anyone that believes that free will determines any specific thing is a fool, it only allows for anything humans are capable of, so it does quite the opposite, it allows anything humans can do within the physical universal construct.
Let’s unpack this. How do proponents of religion reconcile their belief in physically impossible concepts with the reality of a universe governed by deterministic laws? Why do they resist scientific findings, like the absence of free will, that challenge these beliefs? And what does it say about the human condition that so many prefer comforting illusions to uncomfortable truths?
To me it sounds like your real problem is with free will and not your topic. Have you done something horrible and choose not to believe in free will so you can blame it on determinism? What, you didn't do it, determinism did? Seriously??? Science hasn't proven there isn't free will. If you think so, then it would seem to me, you don't really know what free will is.
I’d love to hear your thoughts—especially if you think there’s a way to bridge this gap between religious belief and scientific reality.
And finally you go back to the topic at hand. Wow!
So BigMike, how big are you???