Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 3:11 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 2:50 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 02, 2025 3:14 am

Sorry, I'll get back to you later. The post I worked on just disappeared. In the meantime, think about probability!

Some might interpret 'this' as another form of just 'trying to' deflect and/or to detract.

instead of 'this one' just backing up and supporting its claim, and belief, here, 'this one' tells 'the other' to 'think about probability', only.

SHIT DISTURBING ARE YOU AGE, FIND IT MORE AFFECTIVE THAN THINKING--LOL!

Every thought, feeling, and move is a response to some internal or external stimulus. You never act from a void reaction is the only mode you have.
Choosing is just selecting one response over another within that ongoing loop. There’s no escape hatch from that cycle; no pure, unmotivated act exists. So, let's put it to rest, all creatures are reactionary creatures, period, no exceptions.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 3:20 am

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 3:11 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 2:50 am

Some might interpret 'this' as another form of just 'trying to' deflect and/or to detract.

instead of 'this one' just backing up and supporting its claim, and belief, here, 'this one' tells 'the other' to 'think about probability', only.

SHIT DISTURBING ARE YOU AGE, FIND IT MORE AFFECTIVE THAN THINKING--LOL!

What you wrote, here, is not appearing to make full sense. But anyway, you said and wrote,

Sorry, I'll get back to you later. The post I worked on just disappeared

24 hours later you then said and wrote.

Sorry, I'll get back to you later. The post I worked on just disappeared. In the meantime, think about probability!

Is 'the best' that you could really come up with, in those 24 hours, 'in the meantime, think about probability'?

How long is "gary childress" expected to 'think about probability' before you get back with some thing of actual substance?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 3:54 am Every thought, feeling, and move is a response to some internal or external stimulus.

Yes, again, 'this' can not be refuted by absolutely any one.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 3:54 am You never act from a void reaction is the only mode you have.

you prior sentence says more or less the exact same thing.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 3:54 am Choosing is just selecting one response over another within that ongoing loop.

I am not sure why you felt the need to at the words, 'within that ongoing loop', for, exactly, but yes, the word 'choosing' can refer to the 'action', or 'behaving', of 'just selecting one response over another'.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 3:54 am There’s no escape hatch from that cycle; no pure, unmotivated act exists.

And, there does not 'have to be' any so-called 'escape'. What is actually one of the questions, here, for you to think about and consider is why, to you, it is an absolute impossibility for 'free will' to exist, in absolutely any way at all, when the words and term, 'free will', is referring to just 'the ability to choose', only?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 03, 2025 3:54 am So, let's put it to rest, all creatures are reactionary creatures, period, no exceptions.

Was 'this' not obvious to absolutely every one, here, before?

And, just 'as obvious' is that all human beings have 'the ability to choose', and in regards to whether they 'behave', or 'misbehave'. And, just because human beings have had particular prior experiences, in no way means that they 'have to' 'react' badly, nor Wrongly.

Although you human beings cannot not react, and thus have absolutely no choice other than 'to react', you human beings can certainly 'choose' how, and/or in 'what way' you react, and/or behave, or misbehave.

In other words you human beings are absolutely 'free' to choose in 'some particular ways' how you 'react', or 'mis/behave'.

The one thing an organism can never do is not react to its environment, for even a considered inaction or an alternative reaction is a reaction to one's environment; to react is to belong to the greater whole, the greater self. There is no such thing as independent existence. The very essence and nature of your biological life is reaction, the breath of life.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:23 am The one thing an organism can never do is not react to its environment, for even a considered inaction or an alternative reaction is a reaction to one's environment; to react is to belong to the greater whole, the greater self. There is no such thing as independent existence. The very essence and nature of your biological life is reaction, the breath of life.

This caught my eye as rather absolute, so it prompted a reaction, if you don't mind.

A lot of what folks do is autopilot response, biological reaction, which opens the organism to aspects of mind not directly tied to the immediate environment, which is what philosophers do with abstract thinking.

For example, if you engage in a heated discussion using your hands-free transmitter while piloting a machine through a changing environment, the body will react while maintaining access to thoughts from mind, thoughts unrelated to the immediacy of the environment, i.e., living in the mind. When you get to where you're going, you might not even remember the trip, especially if it involved shouting Eureka, because of the gold you discovered via your access to mind.

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 7:04 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:23 am The one thing an organism can never do is not react to its environment, for even a considered inaction or an alternative reaction is a reaction to one's environment; to react is to belong to the greater whole, the greater self. There is no such thing as independent existence. The very essence and nature of your biological life is reaction, the breath of life.

This caught my eye as rather absolute, so it prompted a reaction, if you don't mind.
A lot of what folks do is autopilot response, biological reaction, which opens the organism to aspects of mind not directly tied to the immediate environment, which is what philosophers do with abstract thinking.

It was intended to infer that the reactions of all organisms are absolute; it makes them part of a greater whole. Abstract thinking is hardly mindless; it is playing with concepts already within the mind, but derived from one's world context, a bit like how musicians play with musical patterns and call it jiving. It is creating free-range reactions. Anything that is considered improvisational falls into the same category,


For example, if you engage in a heated discussion using your hands-free transmitter while piloting a machine through a changing environment, the body will react while maintaining access to thoughts from mind, thoughts unrelated to the immediacy of the environment, i.e., living in the mind. When you get to where you're going, you might not even remember the trip, especially if it involved shouting Eureka, because of the gold you discovered via your access to mind. [/quote]

Chewing gum, walking, and meditating would fall under the same heading. The mind/body is a wonderful mystery, which I do not believe to be separate. Being on autopilot is an adaptive function of the body/mind, both engaged with the world immediately and the other through abstract contemplation. If anything, it is the ultimate in multitasking; both remain relative to the physical world in orientation and reactive response.

I think human behavior is determined by many factor such as external forces, instinct, habit, emotion, and cognition – which can overpower each other. When cognition overpowers the other factors, this is thought of as an exercise of free will. I disagree.

Like reflex behavior, vision, and digestion, cognition is also automatic consisting of three automatic, uncontrollable steps. First, the brain evaluates options. Second, the brain determines what it perceives to be the best option. Third, the brain acts out the perceived best option.

Since all three steps are automatic, then choosing is also automatic. I call this cognitive determinism. Therefore, free will is an illusion.

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 2:48 am I think human behavior is determined by many factor such as external forces, instinct, habit, emotion, and cognition – which can overpower each other. When cognition overpowers the other factors, this is thought of as an exercise of free will. I disagree.

Like reflex behavior, vision, and digestion, cognition is also automatic, consisting of three automatic, uncontrollable steps. First, the brain evaluates options. Second, the brain determines what it perceives to be the best option. Third, the brain acts out the perceived best option.
Since all three steps are automatic, then choosing is also automatic. I call this cognitive determinism. Therefore, free will is an illusion.

Most reactions are caused by the greater reality of the physical world; some are the internal needs of the organism for elements found outside itself. Most people are convinced of free will simply by the fact that an individual can change their mind, but it is the same process that causes the first choice, which also causes the second choice; motivation comes from without. I suspect that all being is cause to all other beings, whether it be the world at large or other individuals. This fits perfectly with your above observation. There is one thing an organism cannot do, and that is, it cannot not react to its environment. No matter how many times an organism changes its mind, it is still the same cause governing its reactions, the greater reality of the world. All organisms are reactionary organisms. This is how an organism is, a functioning aspect of a whole. No behaviour is unmotivated, and this spells reaction, not action. A larger reality is always what its lower systems must adapt to; think of it as systems within systems, all as far as we know, are open systems.

I have come to realize that my idea of cognitive determinism is reactionary, as popeye1945 says. This is disturbing, but I guess this is possible.

Jori wrote: ↑Wed Oct 29, 2025 2:50 am I have come to realize that my idea of cognitive determinism is reactionary, as popeye1945 says. This is disturbing, but I guess this is possible.

Reality is reciprocal causation. The world and its contents as causes to the individual, the individual's reactions as causes to the world.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:23 am The one thing an organism can never do is not react to its environment, for even a considered inaction or an alternative reaction is a reaction to one's environment; to react is to belong to the greater whole, the greater self. There is no such thing as independent existence. The very essence and nature of your biological life is reaction, the breath of life.

Just out of curiosity has any one even thought otherwise?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 9:48 am

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 7:04 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:23 am The one thing an organism can never do is not react to its environment, for even a considered inaction or an alternative reaction is a reaction to one's environment; to react is to belong to the greater whole, the greater self. There is no such thing as independent existence. The very essence and nature of your biological life is reaction, the breath of life.

This caught my eye as rather absolute, so it prompted a reaction, if you don't mind.
A lot of what folks do is autopilot response, biological reaction, which opens the organism to aspects of mind not directly tied to the immediate environment, which is what philosophers do with abstract thinking.

It was intended to infer that the reactions of all organisms are absolute; it makes them part of a greater whole. Abstract thinking is hardly mindless; it is playing with concepts already within the mind, but derived from one's world context, a bit like how musicians play with musical patterns and call it jiving. It is creating free-range reactions. Anything that is considered improvisational falls into the same category,


For example, if you engage in a heated discussion using your hands-free transmitter while piloting a machine through a changing environment, the body will react while maintaining access to thoughts from mind, thoughts unrelated to the immediacy of the environment, i.e., living in the mind. When you get to where you're going, you might not even remember the trip, especially if it involved shouting Eureka, because of the gold you discovered via your access to mind.

Chewing gum, walking, and meditating would fall under the same heading. The mind/body is a wonderful mystery, [/quote]

What is the actual 'mystery', here, exactly, to people like you "popeye1945"?

There are many human bodies. There is only One Mind.

What else would you like to learn, understand, and know, here?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:23 am which I do not believe to be separate.

'This' is obviously the 'reaction' one would have, considering your past experiences.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 21, 2025 4:23 am Being on autopilot is an adaptive function of the body/mind, both engaged with the world immediately and the other through abstract contemplation. If anything, it is the ultimate in multitasking; both remain relative to the physical world in orientation and reactive response.

That you human beings 'react' is one thing. But, 'this' in no way infers, nor means, that you do not have 'the ability to choose', which can also be known as 'free will'.

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 2:48 am I think human behavior is determined by many factor such as external forces, instinct, habit, emotion, and cognition – which can overpower each other. When cognition overpowers the other factors, this is thought of as an exercise of free will. I disagree.

Who thinks 'this'?

Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 26, 2025 2:48 am Like reflex behavior, vision, and digestion, cognition is also automatic consisting of three automatic, uncontrollable steps. First, the brain evaluates options. Second, the brain determines what it perceives to be the best option. Third, the brain acts out the perceived best option.

Since all three steps are automatic, then choosing is also automatic. I call this cognitive determinism. Therefore, free will is an illusion.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 30, 2025 6:06 am

Jori wrote: ↑Wed Oct 29, 2025 2:50 am I have come to realize that my idea of cognitive determinism is reactionary, as popeye1945 says. This is disturbing, but I guess this is possible.

Reality is reciprocal causation. The world and its contents as causes to the individual, the individual's reactions as causes to the world.

I agree, Popeye. I'd express the case as sapiens in participating relationship with his environment, I mean sapiens as individuals and also as a political animal.

Jori , and you yourself in earlier posts ,use 'reactionary' in an odd way.

Mostly when we say "reactionary" we mean without enough cognitive reflection. Reactive personalities react simplistically often as a result of unpleasant emotions. Instead of taking time and effort to understand their own motives and their environments reactive individuals respond with fear and suspicion which leads to fight or flight reaction.
For an example of reflective not 'reactive, please see Gary Childress on forgiving the driver who cuts you up in traffic.

Political Reactionaries show the same mentality as reactive personalities. Fear of the other or of the new results in retreat to the good old days and occasionally in violent aggression.