Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

fresco wrote:

Frank and Joe,

We (three) are not "defending anything". We are pointing out that from our position, yours looks untenable. This is NOT the same as having a belief system, which Frank keeps waving at us, and it is not using "logic" to defeat logic.

While I understand and appreciate the comments JL just wrote to Joe, I must say I agree with the essence of Joe's irony and sarcasm.

You folks are defending something -- or at least, you are ATTEMPTING to defend something.

It happens I think you are attempting to defend the indefensible, but I am willing to acknowledge that I may be in over my head on certain aspects of this discussion -- although I honestly think the reason I don't get a lot of what you appear to be saying is because there really is no there, there. (All implications of that statement were intended.)

If you actually are correct in some of the things you assert, it seems to me that you are better off simply shutting up -- because if you argue your case -- you are, in the act of doing so, acknowledging you are incorrect in your assumptions.

(I hope this was received as more than just an Oh yeah!)

Quote:

Now of course it is not easy to give up "vested interests" in conventional categorizations like "agnosticism" on Frank's part or "metaphysics" on Joe's because a personal debating history and/or self perception may hang on such attachments.

Mr. Pot, this is Mr. Kettle. Mr. Kettle; Mr. Pot.

Quote:

Those more "enlightened" than us would smile wisely at such "baggage", and laugh at our attempts to remind ourselves of the epistemological quagmire that we have partially escaped from by dropping baggage, by being tempted to try to throw a rope others who still carry it.

I know!

Christians often throw ropes to those of us who do not get it..

Quote:

My own puzzlement over people who have not "moved on" is that some significant writers like Wittgenstein, must be incomprehensible to them, but no doubt a rationalization would be forthcoming.

I haven't the foggiest idea of who Wittgenstein is -- nor do I see that being able to comprehend any particular writer should impact significantly on the discussion going on here.

This is an Internet forum, Fresco. I always appreciate your contributions, but to be honest, I often come away from what you have to say with the uneasy feeling that you were every bit as interested in communicating the notion that you are a learned individual as in actually contributing to the discussion in which you were participating.

I have trouble being impressed by people intent on impressing me - so I may be judging you too harshly on this. But I also can tell you that I have gotten information from people who obviously have very little formal education - yet who have an abundance of common sense. In fact, I think I've gotten more from people like that than I have from the more learned among us.

BOTTOM LINE: Every indication points to the fact that you folks are hawking a belief system in a non-ethical way -- pretending that it is more than a belief system. If one of you ever says something that amounts to more than a non-dualist approximation of a theist's "It is not a guess. I KNOW because it has been revealed to me!" -- I will pay it great respect.

But none of you has even come close to meeting that criterion.

Finally, I will propose the same question I have proposed often to theists who claim KNOWLEDGE of God (which is to say, REALITY) rather than BELIEF:

How do you know you are not deluding yourself?

(To save you trouble: Theists often answer that question with: I just know it. And if you would just take the trouble to do such and such -- you will be able to know it too.)

0 Replies

truth
Frank and Joe, it's been quite a long time since I concluded that there is no hope to introduce you to this other perspective, to benefit you with an awareness of the limitations of duallism. So why, you may ask, do I persist in my efforts? Frankly, because it is a wonderful challenge to try to answer your criticisms, to try to penetrate your defenses (and I DO believe that that is what they are--attempts to maintain a world view that makes room for EGO--it's normal; it's what almost everyone does; it's what I do unconsciously much of the time). Indeed, why do any of us participate in these debates when we know we can't win? And, really, what is there to win? What's the prize? We are all anonymous, not subjects to some kind of public credit, unless, of course, it's a private boost to our self-esteem. I have better ways to do that. Although, Frank, your personal attack on Fresco, treating his erudition as self-aggrandizement rings so much like the populist's charge of "elitism" against anyone with more than common accomplishments. I would not want him, or you, to talk down to me. I expect nothing less than his best, his best efforts, his best writing ability, and so on. Shame on you. You have enough smarts and education to be above that. I would think that you would compliment him on his achievements.

0 Replies

Listen guys...

I've just picked up a book by Capra on "The Web of Life" which puts my amateur attempts to introduce some of you to recent paradigm shifts into the third division. I don't necessarily ascribe to his philosophy (deep ecology) but his range of references and his metalogical position would even give Wittgenstein (sorry Frank) a run for his money.

I really think we could shift gear in this forum if we all made an effort at least with the popularist literature. There is surely nothing special or difficult about attempting to reject some entrenched ideas, and surveying the general state of our world there seems little to lose.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank and Joe, it's been quite a long time since I concluded that there is no hope to introduce you to this other perspective, to benefit you with an awareness of the limitations of duallism. So why, you may ask, do I persist in my efforts? Frankly, because it is a wonderful challenge to try to answer your criticisms, to try to penetrate your defenses (and I DO believe that that is what they are--attempts to maintain a world view that makes room for EGO--it's normal; it's what almost everyone does; it's what I do unconsciously much of the time).

Well it may be normal -- and it may be what you do -- but it sure as hell is not what I am doing.

I am maintaining that I DO NO KNOW.

How many times do I have to say that?

Why are you indicating that you think I have decided one way or the other?

For all I know -- everything that I hold to be real or tangible or whatever else you want to use in description --- IS AN ILLUSION.

Could be!

And it could be exactly what it appears to be -- no mystery at all.

I DO NOT KNOW.

I am in this discussion because you and Fresco and Twyvel claim, just as theists and atheists claim, that you KNOW.

Fact is -- just as I am when I discuss REALITY with theists and atheists -- I am trying to find out if, in fact, you do KNOW.

I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW.

I see no evidence that would, even just on balance, point me in one direction or another on the question -- and I can tell you that the kinds of suggestions you and Fresco and Twyvel offer sound exactly like the kinds of suggestions theists offer -- "just accept it and at some point you also will start spouting that you KNOW it."

Quote:

Indeed, why do any of us participate in these debates when we know we can't win? And, really, what is there to win? What's the prize?

There is nothing to win -- and I do not conceive of it in that way.

Although if I can gleam some information from a thread -- I guess I could be said to be winning.

I am here because you folks are claiming to have knowledge of REALITY. All I'm doing is evaluating what you have to say.

So far, I've been very disappointed.

Quote:

Although, Frank, your personal attack on Fresco, treating his erudition as self-aggrandizement rings so much like the populist's charge of "elitism" against anyone with more than common accomplishments. I would not want him, or you, to talk down to me. I expect nothing less than his best, his best efforts, his best writing ability, and so on. Shame on you. You have enough smarts and education to be above that. I would think that you would compliment him on his achievements.

Well, it was not a personal attack on him -- and I do not feel ashamed. It was an observation.

And quite honestly, posting a comment like...

... "My own puzzlement over people who have not "moved on" is that some significant writers like Wittgenstein, must be incomprehensible to them, but no doubt a rationalization would be forthcoming."...

...is so goddam phony and patronizing I felt OBLIGED to offer comments about it such as I did.

Sorry you don't see things my way on this, JL, but that's the way things work out on occasion.

0 Replies

Frank: I thought Fresco's post was insufferably condescending and patronizing as well. But then I figured: who am I to complain?

0 Replies

I can assure both of the "injured parties" that it was certainly not my intention to "patronize". It was genuine regret that you are missing something.

0 Replies

I can assure both of the "injured parties" that it was certainly not my intention to "patronize". It was genuine regret that you are missing something.

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, you must realize that your "insufferable" statement did reflect some frustration and, perhaps, anger on your part. I sense my own anger when dealing with Rufio and her absolute unwillingness to understand what I am trying to communicate. But I certainly do not see your statement as an act of snubbing. One has to be very insecure to see that.

0 Replies

JLN

I understand the interpretation but there was genuinely no anger or frustration on my part (on this occasion).Attempted demolition is always a tempation but didn't cross my mind on this occasion, nor did the supercilious "suffering adult"
scenario.

0 Replies

And a later observation...

Since nobody has taken me up on the issue of the social utilityor semantic status of a "free will" concept, I personally have never felt "under attack". I see the issue of "absolute determinism" as a sideline which simply reinforces the need to think "out of the box". JLN and twyvel have made attempts to do just that.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

I see the issue of "absolute determinism" as a sideline which simply reinforces the need to think "out of the box". JLN and twyvel have made attempts to do just that.

Wow, isn't that a coincidence. And they both tend to agree with your thesis. Wow, what a coincidence.

0 Replies

No Frank, they have not expressed agreement with my thesis of semantic utility. They have argued at different levels of abstraction about the status of "self" as an "actor". This is an alternative approach to the actual question asked on this thread.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

No Frank, they have not expressed agreement with my thesis of semantic utility. They have argued at different levels of abstraction about the status of "self" as an "actor". This is an alternative approach to the actual question asked on this thread.

Get off it, Fresco!

I said they agree with your thesis.

I didn't say they argree with everything you write.

You, Twyvel, and JL have been in fairly consistent accord on a wide variety of guesses -- and you have been in fairly consistent accord that you want to consider your guesses as something more than guesses -- and you have been in fairly consistent accord in bemoaning the fact that people have called attention to the fact that the way you folks are treating your guesses closely resembles the way theist threat their guesses.

So wow!

Isn't it amazing that you find their way of thinking to be "thinking outside the box."

Sort of a roundabout way of telling us that you think outside the box -- wouldn't you say?

Nothing more than that!

0 Replies

Fresco: You argued that free will can be explained by social utility? I must have missed that. Can you summarize your position, or link to the post where you set out your argument?

0 Replies

truth
Frank, if there has been any conspicuous guessing here it is YOUR GUESS that Fresco, Twyvel and I are merely guessing. I don't think you can say that without understanding what we have been trying to communicate to you.

0 Replies

Joe,

My arguments around page 3 or 4 centered on the view that the concept of "free will" only arose in "real life" in "ethical" situations. i.e The concept is USEFUL in litigation type situations and "determinism" is used by the defense in mitigation. This argument might have been put by Wittgenstein as an illustration of an "appropriate language game" (ethics) versus an inappropriate one (dualism), where "semantics" is absolutely governed by appropriate context.

This emphasis differs from that taken by twyvel who homes in on the word "illusion" in the original question and offers a monist "solution" to transcend both "free will" and "determinism."

I admit to secondary non-dualist comments in my own right when the social utility issue was ignored, partially in accordance with Wittgenstein's general anti-reductionist position and partially in support of twyvel and JLN's illustration of problems of definition in a "choice situation".

0 Replies

I remember JLNobody and I agreeing that even though an illusion is not real it is none-the-less a real illusion. Now I would say that that is incorrect and/or misleading. An illusion is just a vacuous concept; >an illusion< it's not made out of illusory "stuff".

Whatever is, >is< and >is not<. It cannot be represented because whatever is said is too much.

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, an interesting distinction, but nevertheless a dualist distinction, i.e., that there are non-illusory and illusory realities, the latter purely "vacuous." I maintain that an "awakened" experience and an "illusory" experience are BOTH EXPERIENCES, hence ultimately of one cloth.
Assuming I understand your last paragraph, let me say that whatever IS also IS NOT because it is in continuous process of changing (into something else) and therefore cannot be represented because ALL representations are static images and therefore violations of "its" ontological status. What does this say about Aristotilian logic? Can A also be not-A?

0 Replies

truth
Twyvel, of course my statement above had only to do with ontology, with the reality status of realistic and unrealistic experiences. From the pragmatic perspective, however, these ontologically equal realities are of unequal value. Illusions are useless, except for the magician and artist. Delusions are useless almost always for most people, but they can serve functions for the psychotic, making his life bearable. What is it that R.D. Laing said? Psychotics are not lost; they are hiding. When this is so, they "hide" by means of delusions.

0 Replies

Centroles wrote:

i'm not saying that life is an illusion. simply that the notion of having free will is an illusion. ...................
......................
thus if everything we do now is a result of what happened in the past and everything we do a moment from now is a result of the past and what we are doing right now, then essentially, everything is an action reaction chain that we have no control over.

thus, we effectively have no free will.

I'm getting in late on this I know.

Well I can't agree with that argument. After all, I have the free will and choice to smack an annoying twat or not to. It's all up to me. Smile

0 Replies

Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know