Christian theology is drastically different. The unlikely event of acheiving a determinists utopia is not reason to become a Christian.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It is another utopia, with a reasonable chain of causation leading up to it. I by no means see it actually happening, because many brains are destined to reason poorly. Sadly, the emphasis is on the individual brain to use this information to improve their attributions of cause and effect. Concering probability, we might make it to alpha centauri before such a utopia becomes reality.
Should I not make the individual effort anyway?
you can't make the effort. YOU don't make any effort. effort doesn't exist. you're not doing anything... you're just a bunch of atoms floating around in a weird order. there's no point in trying to make an effort in any direction becos you cannot control or guide the direction any more than you can tell the atoms to rearrange themselves.
didn't einstein subscribe to something like that? and that is the point... god to me is just an abstract concept, a way of talking about that incomprehensible source. it's like pi. pi is just a symbol for a number we will never get to the bottom of, but can obtain a certain level of understanding and function from.
Yes, Einstein was born Jewish, but later on with his friend Baruch Spinoza (also Jewish), Einstein adopted a determinist view of reality. To get a clear picture, you should read Spinoza's philosophy. It's not quite the same as what I believe, but it is quite similar.
and deadnothing has a point... you're still talking about humans striving for some sort of perfect state, which is no different from a heaven perception. there is no improving the human condition becos we cannot improve ourselves, we have no choice in the matter.
True, perhaps the Christian heaven fails because it is truly unattainable. But simply because something does not seem probable, is not reason to give up. Science has succeeded many times where naysayers have predicted the impossible.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes, Einstein was born Jewish, but later on with his friend Baruch Spinoza (also Jewish), Einstein adopted a determinist view of reality. To get a clear picture, you should read Spinoza's philosophy. It's not quite the same as what I believe, but it is quite similar.
True, perhaps the Christian heaven fails because it is truly unattainable. But simply because something does not seem probable, is not reason to give up. Science has succeeded many times where naysayers have predicted the impossible.
im saying it seems to me that giving up and persevering make no sense. in a determinist worldview, neither is consequential. you cannot make any decision and thus you cannot give up or persevere. you have no choices. you're just atoms whirling around. why bother with either? if you're meant to work towards determinism, you will do it whether or not you want to or try, right?
you can't make the effort. YOU don't make any effort. effort doesn't exist. you're not doing anything... you're just a bunch of atoms floating around in a weird order. there's no point in trying to make an effort in any direction becos you cannot control or guide the direction any more than you can tell the atoms to rearrange themselves.
The information the brain receives is very important in determining it's course of action. If taken literally the information you are providing suggests laying in a ditch with no hope for anything. Alternatively if my brain receives information to the contrary then it's selected course of action will be on the order of striving for said goals.
You should look at this as a structure, whereby the causal events underlying brain actions do not remove from the typical psychology of our past, but rather as an enlightening aspect of it. It is still possible to love and feel passion, it is still possible to strive towards goals. The reasons for doing so are just enlightened.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
And while that is a logical possibility, it does not follow from it, that it is also a real possibility. We have thus far not observed such entities or contra-causal events in nature. So at this stage of the game, it doesn't not appear to be plausible. Only further investigation of reality will provide us with the knowledge and tools to make that determination.
that's probably never going to happen.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
im saying it seems to me that giving up and persevering make no sense. in a determinist worldview, neither is consequential. you cannot make any decision and thus you cannot give up or persevere. you have no choices. you're just atoms whirling around. why bother with either? if you're meant to work towards determinism, you will do it whether or not you want to or try, right?
On the contrary. Determinism is a matter similar to quantum mechanics. You can compare quantum mechanics to different types of fertilizer for growing bananas, but the two things, although related, are completely different parts of the same structure and such comparisons are irrelevent.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
i mean that your views of achieving "utopia" or "alpha centauri" shadow christian theology.
We would be much better off with a realistic view of reality. Our current social paradigms are largely the results of christian theology, or the other abrahamic dogmas. They are not at all similar.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The information the brain receives is very important in determining it's course of action. If taken literally the information you are providing suggests laying in a ditch with no hope for anything. Alternatively if my brain receives information to the contrary then it's selected course of action will be on the order of striving for said goals.
You should look at this as a structure, whereby the causal events underlying brain actions do not remove from the typical psychology of our past, but rather as an enlightening aspect of it. It is still possible to love and feel passion, it is still possible to strive towards goals. The reasons for doing so are just enlightened.
my point is that you seem to think the philosophy of determinism can only be interpreted one way. i disagree. perhaps for you, it is a sign of hope. for many, it would inspire the kind of listless defeatism i'm describing. likewise, various religion can inspire the kind of compassion and progress you are espousing or it can inspire arrogance and atrocity. i don't see how one is "better" than the other in terms of the results they inspire.
my point is that you seem to think the philosophy of determinism can only be interpreted one way. i disagree. perhaps for you, it is a sign of hope. for many, it would inspire the kind of listless defeatism i'm describing. likewise, various religion can inspire the kind of compassion and progress you are espousing or it can inspire arrogance and atrocity. i don't see how one is "better" than the other in terms of the results they inspire.
One more accurately describes reality. These same arguments can be asked of Christianity, and you will find much more difficulty in answering them.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
We would be much better off with a realistic view of reality. Our current social paradigms are largely the results of christian theology, or the other abrahamic dogmas. They are not at all similar.
in a way, yes they are. simply put, like ss said, "you're still talking about humans striving for some sort of perfect state, which is no different from a heaven perception"
it's the same unending desire in nature... found in all religions, or beliefs, including atheism.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
By the "one", you assume that there is a homuncular agent, and that is not correct. The only entity that could be ascribed as the "one" is the brain. The brain as an organ is not a simple thing. There is no seat of agency in the brain, it's a diffuse system of interacting parts.
Even your perception of color is a constant battle with color opponent cells in "combat".
You are thinking in the wrong terms, far too simple.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
in a way, yes they are. simply put, like ss said, "you're still talking about humans striving for some sort of perfect state, which is no different from a heaven perception"
it's the same unending desire in nature... found in all religions, or beliefs, including atheism.
I'm not expecting to acheive a perfect state. I'm speaking in terms of best predictions, best outcomes, not perfection.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
By the "one", you assume that there is a homuncular agent, and that is not correct. The only entity that could be ascribed as the "one" is the brain. The brain as an organ is not a simple thing. There is no seat of agency in the brain, it's a diffuse system of interacting parts.
Even your perception of color is a constant battle with color opponent cells in "combat".
You are thinking in the wrong terms, far too simple.
What I'm saying is, if you're brain determines a course of action then isn't that kinda splitting hairs? If my brain determines its course of action it's just another way of saying, "I have determined my course of action."
So therefore, the "one", is indeed the brain. The brain is part of what makes me what I am. The brain is the one typing. The brain is the one reasoning. The brain is me.
Or who says, "I want a chocolate ice cream"? Me, or the brain? I think they're one in the same, no?
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
I'm not expecting to acheive a perfect state. I'm speaking in terms of best predictions, best outcomes, not perfection.
it's still the same thing.... sure, go out and talk to every christian, or every religious person... and they'll tell you the same thing you've just said.
everybody wants to live the best they can.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
The values 520, 534, 564 are the wavelengths in nanometers corresponding to the different colors Red, Green and Blue respectively.
The connections that you see to the three opponent cells (Blue-Yellow|Red-Green|Black-White) are marked with either a - or a + discribing either inhibitory (-) or excitatory (+) interactions. Depending on the algorithmic interaction of this framework, a color perception arises somewhere on the Munsell color model.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What I'm saying is, if you're brain determines a course of action then isn't that kinda splitting hairs? If my brain determines its course of action it's just another way of saying, "I have determined my course of action."
So therefore, the "one", is indeed the brain. The brain is part of what makes me what I am. The brain is the one typing. The brain is the one reasoning. The brain is me.
Or who says, "I want a chocolate ice cream"? Me, or the brain? I think they're one in the same, no?
The "one" can also be extended to the whole of reality. Because in our causal system we are not causally detached from events in the universe, brains are not independent of thermodynamics or the law of conservation mass-energy.
There is no "one". The brain does what it does, it does it based largely on the information it receives. You are thinking far too simply about this and I don't think I have the patience to explain everything to you in lay terms.
Then pick up a copy of Brain-Wise by Pat Churchland.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
it's still the same thing.... sure, go out and talk to every christian, or every religious person... and they'll tell you the same thing you've just said.
everybody wants to live the best they can.
Ok, but what does it have to do with causal attribution.
Religion has historically encouraged people to attribute cause to some mysterious contra-causal free-will or soul. The results of this dogma have been the deaths of billions of people and the dogma continues on today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The "one" can also be extended to the whole of reality. Because in our causal system we are not causally detached from events in the universe, brains are not independent of thermodynamics or the law of conservation mass-energy.
There is no "one". The brain does what it does, it does it based largely on the information it receives. You are thinking far too simply about this and I don't think I have the patience to explain everything to you in lay terms.
Then pick up a copy of Brain-Wise by Pat Churchland.
i'm just asking questions that's all. just using common sense. sure i don't any of what you're saying. it seems to me they're merely concepts... not facts.
but i'm leaning to agreeing in a way, cause i work at this mental health hospital and everytime i see some messed up patient i wonder how anyone could ever choose to end up the way they are.
i'm glad this is the last saturday i'll ever be working.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
i'm just asking questions that's all. just using common sense. sure i don't any of what you're saying. it seems to me they're merely concepts... not facts.
but i'm leaning to agreeing in a way, cause i work at this mental health hospital and everytime i see some messed up patient i wonder how anyone could ever choose to end up the way they are.
i'm glad this is the last saturday i'll ever be working.
Alot of people just ignore the mentally ill.
It gets pretty nutty when you try to reconcile souls and free-will with phenomena like proposognosia, anosognosia, inattentional blindsight, apraxia, aphasia, pervasive development disorders (Autism, Rett's, etc..), schizophrenia and so on and so on.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It gets pretty nutty when you try to reconcile souls and free-will with phenomena like proposognosia, anosognosia, inattentional blindsight, apraxia, aphasia, pervasive development disorders (Autism, Rett's, etc..), schizophrenia and so on and so on.
i've never argued that certain things such as these things you mention are fated. what i do argue is whether we have a choice or not.
i mean... like i said earlier... in regards to the brain.... but that doesn't matter since i'm thinking of it simplistically.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
The "one" can also be extended to the whole of reality. Because in our causal system we are not causally detached from events in the universe, brains are not independent of thermodynamics or the law of conservation mass-energy.
There is no "one". The brain does what it does, it does it based largely on the information it receives. You are thinking far too simply about this and I don't think I have the patience to explain everything to you in lay terms.
Then pick up a copy of Brain-Wise by Pat Churchland.
but the brain, in all practical respects, creates a uniquely functioning being and entity. so for all practical purposes, your determinism changes nothing. it just offers a different explanation than free will. instead of a soul that can't be predicted determining actions, you have a brain that can't be predicted determining actions. you cannot predict human behavior in either case. so whether you believe in free will or determinism makes absolutely no difference in how you act in the real world.
i've never argued that certain things such as these things you mention are fated. what i do argue is whether we have a choice or not.
i mean... like i said earlier... in regards to the brain.... but that doesn't matter since i'm thinking of it simplistically.
It all depends on how you look at it.
For example:
If you saw a train approaching a man standing on the tracks. Assuming the man does not move and the train continues on it's course. You would not factor in quantum-indeterminacy as to whether or not the man would be killed by the train. You'd look at the causality of the situation and assume he would in-fact be killed by the train.
If you look at choice from an introspective perspective, or from a top-level perspective, then most certainly choices do exist. You choose between a coffee or a cappucino, an apple or an orange. Underlying those choices are causes, however. Those causes ultimately determine what you choose. They just aren't normally factored into our observations of choice.
All determinism proposes for social policy is that we do factor causation into our observations of choice. Similar to when we view OCD patients' compulsive hand-washing, we do not view that as a free-choice, largely because the cause is apparent to us in that moment. So long as we remain aware of causation and seek to identify causes properly, then we can make progress in the social sphere. When we view some choices as caused by antecedents and others as free-choices, we leave the judgement doors open to errors.
Clarrence Darrow's book Crime its cause and treatment does an excellent job of describing how this paradigm might bennefit society.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ok, but what does it have to do with causal attribution.
Religion has historically encouraged people to attribute cause to some mysterious contra-causal free-will or soul. The results of this dogma have been the deaths of billions of people and the dogma continues on today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
do you truly think that if the entire world converted to determinism overnight this would cease? instead of killing each other for god, you'd have people killing each other becos they think the other person is uncurably determined to be evil.
Comments
Christian theology is drastically different. The unlikely event of acheiving a determinists utopia is not reason to become a Christian.
you can't make the effort. YOU don't make any effort. effort doesn't exist. you're not doing anything... you're just a bunch of atoms floating around in a weird order. there's no point in trying to make an effort in any direction becos you cannot control or guide the direction any more than you can tell the atoms to rearrange themselves.
Yes, Einstein was born Jewish, but later on with his friend Baruch Spinoza (also Jewish), Einstein adopted a determinist view of reality. To get a clear picture, you should read Spinoza's philosophy. It's not quite the same as what I believe, but it is quite similar.
True, perhaps the Christian heaven fails because it is truly unattainable. But simply because something does not seem probable, is not reason to give up. Science has succeeded many times where naysayers have predicted the impossible.
im saying it seems to me that giving up and persevering make no sense. in a determinist worldview, neither is consequential. you cannot make any decision and thus you cannot give up or persevere. you have no choices. you're just atoms whirling around. why bother with either? if you're meant to work towards determinism, you will do it whether or not you want to or try, right?
The information the brain receives is very important in determining it's course of action. If taken literally the information you are providing suggests laying in a ditch with no hope for anything. Alternatively if my brain receives information to the contrary then it's selected course of action will be on the order of striving for said goals.
You should look at this as a structure, whereby the causal events underlying brain actions do not remove from the typical psychology of our past, but rather as an enlightening aspect of it. It is still possible to love and feel passion, it is still possible to strive towards goals. The reasons for doing so are just enlightened.
On the contrary. Determinism is a matter similar to quantum mechanics. You can compare quantum mechanics to different types of fertilizer for growing bananas, but the two things, although related, are completely different parts of the same structure and such comparisons are irrelevent.
i mean that your views of achieving "utopia" or "alpha centauri" shadow christian theology.
We would be much better off with a realistic view of reality. Our current social paradigms are largely the results of christian theology, or the other abrahamic dogmas. They are not at all similar.
my point is that you seem to think the philosophy of determinism can only be interpreted one way. i disagree. perhaps for you, it is a sign of hope. for many, it would inspire the kind of listless defeatism i'm describing. likewise, various religion can inspire the kind of compassion and progress you are espousing or it can inspire arrogance and atrocity. i don't see how one is "better" than the other in terms of the results they inspire.
One more accurately describes reality. These same arguments can be asked of Christianity, and you will find much more difficulty in answering them.
No
it's the same unending desire in nature... found in all religions, or beliefs, including atheism.
By the "one", you assume that there is a homuncular agent, and that is not correct. The only entity that could be ascribed as the "one" is the brain. The brain as an organ is not a simple thing. There is no seat of agency in the brain, it's a diffuse system of interacting parts.
Even your perception of color is a constant battle with color opponent cells in "combat".
You are thinking in the wrong terms, far too simple.
I'm not expecting to acheive a perfect state. I'm speaking in terms of best predictions, best outcomes, not perfection.
So therefore, the "one", is indeed the brain. The brain is part of what makes me what I am. The brain is the one typing. The brain is the one reasoning. The brain is me.
Or who says, "I want a chocolate ice cream"? Me, or the brain? I think they're one in the same, no?
everybody wants to live the best they can.
http://pages.slc.edu/~ebj/IM_97/Lecture14/cone_wiring.GIF
The values 520, 534, 564 are the wavelengths in nanometers corresponding to the different colors Red, Green and Blue respectively.
The connections that you see to the three opponent cells (Blue-Yellow|Red-Green|Black-White) are marked with either a - or a + discribing either inhibitory (-) or excitatory (+) interactions. Depending on the algorithmic interaction of this framework, a color perception arises somewhere on the Munsell color model.
The "one" can also be extended to the whole of reality. Because in our causal system we are not causally detached from events in the universe, brains are not independent of thermodynamics or the law of conservation mass-energy.
There is no "one". The brain does what it does, it does it based largely on the information it receives. You are thinking far too simply about this and I don't think I have the patience to explain everything to you in lay terms.
Read that book by David Hume http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext03/trthn10.txt
Then pick up a copy of Brain-Wise by Pat Churchland.
Ok, but what does it have to do with causal attribution.
Religion has historically encouraged people to attribute cause to some mysterious contra-causal free-will or soul. The results of this dogma have been the deaths of billions of people and the dogma continues on today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
but i'm leaning to agreeing in a way, cause i work at this mental health hospital and everytime i see some messed up patient i wonder how anyone could ever choose to end up the way they are.
i'm glad this is the last saturday i'll ever be working.
Alot of people just ignore the mentally ill.
It gets pretty nutty when you try to reconcile souls and free-will with phenomena like proposognosia, anosognosia, inattentional blindsight, apraxia, aphasia, pervasive development disorders (Autism, Rett's, etc..), schizophrenia and so on and so on.
i mean... like i said earlier... in regards to the brain.... but that doesn't matter since i'm thinking of it simplistically.
what same arguments?
but the brain, in all practical respects, creates a uniquely functioning being and entity. so for all practical purposes, your determinism changes nothing. it just offers a different explanation than free will. instead of a soul that can't be predicted determining actions, you have a brain that can't be predicted determining actions. you cannot predict human behavior in either case. so whether you believe in free will or determinism makes absolutely no difference in how you act in the real world.
It all depends on how you look at it.
For example:
If you saw a train approaching a man standing on the tracks. Assuming the man does not move and the train continues on it's course. You would not factor in quantum-indeterminacy as to whether or not the man would be killed by the train. You'd look at the causality of the situation and assume he would in-fact be killed by the train.
If you look at choice from an introspective perspective, or from a top-level perspective, then most certainly choices do exist. You choose between a coffee or a cappucino, an apple or an orange. Underlying those choices are causes, however. Those causes ultimately determine what you choose. They just aren't normally factored into our observations of choice.
All determinism proposes for social policy is that we do factor causation into our observations of choice. Similar to when we view OCD patients' compulsive hand-washing, we do not view that as a free-choice, largely because the cause is apparent to us in that moment. So long as we remain aware of causation and seek to identify causes properly, then we can make progress in the social sphere. When we view some choices as caused by antecedents and others as free-choices, we leave the judgement doors open to errors.
Clarrence Darrow's book Crime its cause and treatment does an excellent job of describing how this paradigm might bennefit society.
do you truly think that if the entire world converted to determinism overnight this would cease? instead of killing each other for god, you'd have people killing each other becos they think the other person is uncurably determined to be evil.