all it takes for something to exist is...

Ahnimus wrote:

Oh, are we talking about intellect? Damn, you might have me beat.

What happened to this thread? It was swarming, and just as it started to get interesting it turned desolate.

I probably have you beat on staying power, stamina and endurance as well.

Ahnimus wrote:

I have respect for his position as a rational deliberator, it's his opinions of myself I do not respect.

Yet his "position as a rational deliberator" are precisely the cause of those opinions. Furthermore, respect would imply an alternative, an opposite that would be unworthy of respect. As a hard determinist, how could you possibly believe in that alternative?

Ahnimus wrote:

Hate the deed, not the man.

Huh?

Ahnimus wrote:

I used to have a lot of respect for you Dan, but lately you aren't adding to the topics. This is just verbal diahrrea.

You did both.

angelica wrote:

If you say "rational", if you are referring to rational processes, then wouldn't you say an opinion is also based on other criteria, such as emotional responses beyond reason as well?

I would say that, yes. However, I fail to see how a hard determinist can define any moral differentiation between an emotional decision and a reasoned one in the absence of self as an acting agent. Both would simply be reactions.

Also, in hard determinism, doesn't one believe that choices are made all the time between alternatives, but that they are determined by all kinds of factors supposedly rendering the will predisposed rather than free?

A billiard ball doesn't make a "choice" to go left or go right. It is simply pushed left or right. A different path would imply a different strike, and only one path exists.

onelongsong wrote:

honestly; i don't believe in anything. i know it sounds insane but i haven't been given enough evidence in any direction. i listen to everything and maybe one day i'll reach a conclusion. when the unknowns and variables can be taken into account.

i would actually like your input on my cancer findings. what i need to do is isolate the compound that kills the cancer. first i need to identify it though. i'll pm you when i get a chance and maybe you can help. i'm sure i'm just missing something but i need another set of eyes to look at it. i'll try to get it to you tomorrow.

Sounds good. An interesting method of isolation was mentioned on the HHMI lecture series on Infection Diseases and biomolecular science. The process involves 80,000 different tests performed by quite an elaborate machine. If you could get your hands on one.

angelica wrote:

I have the impression that Ahnimus thinks the self is an acting agent. This is why I think there are only small, actually insignificant differences between what he, yourself and myself are debating (for example, the differences between us three are more a matter of which aspect we each tend to put our focus on which is minor considering we tend to essentially see the exact same stuff. Also, we've obviously got personality clashes. I believe that like you or I, he fully gets the self aspect, but he wonders why we think that's a big deal, which is because he doesn't give that aspect much the time of day).

Ahnimus, do you see the self as an acting agent?

Depends how self is defined, B.F. Skinner defines it as "A self is a repertoire of behavior appropriate to a given set of contingencies." by that definition the self is synonymous with the rest of the human agent.

When we are talking about a hard determinist, we are talking about a human being that has volition, unlike a billiard ball. I'm under the impression that Ahnimus recognizes human volition. So, the determinist makes the choices based on emotions, reason, intuition, or otherwise, it's based on reasons and purposes below the surface within, or forces without that humans tens to be largely unaware of.

Again, Ahnimus, if I am misconstruing this compared to your beliefs, please let me know where you differ.

Pretty much, but like a billiard ball being struck by several cues, we are motivated to follow certain paths, while simultaneously being motivated to follow other paths. That is of course a loose metaphor.

angelica wrote:

Do you believe the human has volition, given all the variables that are at base of that volition, then? Which again, include the processes that go back to brain functioning, and even further through evolutionary processes and physical laws, etc.? Do you believe that the human being has the choice on how to respond to all of the variables they meet with in the external world? Even considering the choice to respond will be based on the evolutionarily determined brain and it's specific processes?

Say someone is not aware of all this unconscious stuff. They will tend to react to life situations, rather than respond. At the same time, we can also, at any time, depending on what is determined, become aware of the necessity to think things through and actually respond. We choose all day long, albeit unconsciously many times, everything, including what beliefs to hold. Many of us give up our power to choose our beliefs and then I see that we have chosen to accept what we've been taught. We have made our choice unconsciously.

Do you agree with this stuff?

Yup. There is only one hard determinist I know of that claims to actually live life without the illusion of free-will; Susan Blackmore. All others, including myself, recognize the necessity of the illusion, but Susan claims it's not necissary. I'll elaborate more on that as I read on in her book.

farfromglorified, do you believe the human has volition, given all the variables that are at base of that volition? Which again, include the processes that go back to brain functioning, and even further through evolutionary processes and physical laws, etc.? Do you believe that the human being has the choice on how to respond to all of the variables they meet with in the external world? Even considering the choice to respond will be based on the evolutionarily determined brain and it's specific processes?

Say someone is not aware of all this unconscious stuff. They will tend to react to life situations, rather than respond. At the same time, we can also, at any time, depending on what is determined, become aware of the necessity to think things through and actually respond. We choose all day long, albeit unconsciously many times, everything, including what beliefs to hold. Many of us give up our power to choose our beliefs and then I see that we have chosen to accept what we've been taught. We have made our choice unconsciously.

Do you agree so far farfromglorified? If you have anything to disagree with, or add, please do so.

angelica wrote:

Okay, Ahnimus. We've already discussed that religious or spiritual people see the determined aspects as "God's will". "Everything happens for a reason". You agree that you and them are looking at the same dynamics and calling it something different in regards to "what is meant to be", right?

Correct, but on the other hand, they tend to advocate Good and Evil, and free-choice in some other regard. Their difficulty is in explaining exactly what they mean.

Ahnimus wrote:

Correct, but on the other hand, they tend to advocate Good and Evil, and free-choice in some other regard. Their difficulty is in explaining exactly what they mean.

The problem you are talking about is not related to God. If it were I would do the same thing, and I think you realize I am reasonable. (edit: reasonably so, at least)

What you are referring to is the psychological problem of our split psyche. Interestingly, this concept relates to our biblical fall from Grace. Humans are in such a place that we teach duality from birth. Included in up/down, back/forth etc, we have right/wrong. It's opposites. It is general human behaviour (except for people who seek a holisitic or non-split view) to do what you are referring to. We are taught some aspects of life and ourselves are "bad" and we start to deny them. We put them in the Jungian shadow, which furthermore distorts everything we look at. We see the whole world split into opposites. Our inner filters are clogged with these distorted judgments we've been taught. People are looking through these preconceived ideas and cannot see what really exists. Even if we did not have religion, it would not solve the problem because the issue is about the human psyche. Does this make sense? Any thoughts?

I have spent the past maybe five years doing "shadow work" which includes facing and addressing this stuff, so I can return my thinking to wholeness. The result is I have become so much more integrated, and the outcome has been a dramatically increased sense of reality appraisal compared to where I used to be. I will continue to clear up these distortions as they parade before my eyes in the actions of other people, in each day. By my subjective view, I take responsibility for all of the ugliness and "bad", or undesirableness I see outside of me. ANY "negative trait" I see in others, I own it as a reflection of my split inner view. This way I clear up my distortions. You might understand why a subjective reality view is an effecive tool for doing this type of work.