Then the part where the hardcore determinists
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm Again, who are the "hardcore" determinists? Those who take determinism seriously like me, so, the determinists?
That's what hardcore means to me, I ran it by an AI and it also guessed that that's what a hardcore determinist could mean.
Here's what I got running it by AI:
"A hard determinist believes that all events, including human actions, are causally predetermined and that free will is an illusion. They hold that every event is necessitated by prior events, and thus, no one could have acted otherwise than they did. This position is considered an extreme form of determinism because it asserts that free will is incompatible with determinism".
In other words, as I understand this [rightly or admittedly wrongly], everything that we think, feel, intuit, say and do is inherently/necessarily a manifestation
of the only possible reality.
So, sure, if you need to scrap the "core" part that may well be only because you were never able not to.
Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm If by "compelled" you just mean "determined", than just say "determined". Being "compelled" sounds like being forced somehow, but determinists aren't forced, they are determined.
Actually, from my frame of mind, compelled would seem to be the more appropriate choice of words. If we cannot freely think, feel, intuit, say and do anything at all then what
does compel this? How about a brain wholly in sync with the laws of matter? How about a brain able to sustain a psychological assessment that seems to convey free will? The psychological
illusion of free will.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm If you mean something else by "compelled" then you're wrong.
Unless, of course, I meant only that which my brain requires of me to mean in order for hard determinism
to reflect the laws of matter. What we mean here [philosophically] isn't the point, in my view, it's the evidence we have accumulated enabling us to demonstrate [even to ourselves] that the human brain somehow did acquire volition when somehow matter became biological. And [so far] all the way up to us "here and now". Somehow.
Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled to point out that
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm That's the opposite of what determinists would insist on. Either it's determined that they'll point out something, or it's determined that they won't point out that something.
This is always the tricky part for those of my ilk who, in regard to meaning, morality and metaphysics, have managed to think themselves into believing they were never able to opt freely to think any other way. What if someone does believe what they point out here but could never have not pointed it out...?
Sure, we can squabble endlessly regarding how the human brain functions when interacting with other brains, but that doesn't make many of our own conclusions here anything more than a "world of words". Including mine. I merely point out it gets all the more problematic when we acknowledge the gaps between what we think we know about the human brain and all that there is to know about it going back to the staggering mystery of why anything exists at all. Let alone why it exists as it does and not some other way.
Why on Earth do you suppose mere mortals keep creating Gods? The one size fits all explanation for everything. Well, as long as you keep insisting only your own denomination reflects
the One True Path.
Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled to point out that a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm Determinism has nothing to do with subjective judgments of brilliance and imperfection. A determinist too can easily say that a book is brilliant or imperfect.
Unless, perhaps, it has everything to do with it. In other words, from my frame of mind, hard determinists are no less in the same boat we are all in. They judge any number of things, just as we all do, but they have no capacity to demonstrate that their own judgments were in fact wholly determined by brains entirely in sync with the laws of matter.
Then those who claim to be determinists when posting here but "somehow" their own arguments are always deemed [by them] to be the most brilliant and perfect. What, nature picked them to get it right? And that will bring us around to understanding the universe in a No God world in regard to...teleology?
Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled to point out that a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect. Unless, perhaps, you are someone who claims that even though you were, are and always will be inherently and necessarily both,
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm How can a human be a brilliant and imperfect book? Humans aren't books. (Maybe my English is bad.)
Again, if the laws of matter are applicable to all matter [biological and otherwise] this would include the human brain. But science is how close to or how far away from grasping the extent to which the human brain is matter like no other matter?
Then the part where the hardcore determinists insist they are compelled to point out that a book published in a wholly determined universe is neither brilliant nor imperfect. Unless, perhaps, you are someone who claims that even though you were, are and always will be inherently and necessarily both, that’s still “compatible” with being responsible. Morally and otherwise.
Atla wrote: ↑Sat Jul 26, 2025 2:19 pm What do subjective judgments of brilliance and imperfection about a book have to do with responsibility? So how does the "unless" come in?
Unless will always be a component here, in my view, as long as there are variables embedded in the human condition we still do not fully understand. The brain itself being the most mysterious matter of all.
