Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will.

Centroles and Jonat.

You are somewhat missing the point here. You keep refering to matter and energy as if they are different things when they are not. E=mc^2 remember? Your belief in that regard makes you material monist's. That's what Twyvel is saying. As I said a long time ago you are trying to argue a metaphysical issue using only science. If you persist you will be blinding yourself to many possibilities.

Centroles wrote



I am indeed taking the opposite perspective....whether or not determinism is the actual truth is irrelevent to whether or not it is a good thing or a bad thing to society. The idea of determinism is bad, regardless of whether or not determinism itself is true.

While compassion and understanding are a possible outcome of a belief in determinism, that result is not inevitable, and, perhaps not even likely. Nor is your claim that determinism is the "only" path to such enlightenment very credible either, at least in my view; I am a pretty compassionate guy, and I don't believe in determinism at all. There are many others like me.

The harm I am thinking of here involves the vast majority of our fellow citizens, whose "morality" is dictated by a belief in a heavenly reward. Take away the bell, and the dog stops salivating. For every person converted to determinism who becomes a better human being, I suspect a dozen more will become worse: catatonic, joyless, even hostile and violent, to a universe in which they have lost the illusion of significance.

Is the quest for truth worth it? Perhaps, if we could ever really know the truth. But in a debate in which most parties have agreed that science can never be absolutely sure of anything, and having no other reliable guide, it seems a case of substituting one possibly flawed ideology for another one that is equally suspect.

I am already aware of E=MC^2. I already used it before in this thread to explain my point. In that regard, you could say i am a monist. I never denied that what i believe wasn't monistic in a sense, though Centroles did. I only made a finer distinction to what i believe.
What i am using mostly to explain my stance on the subject is logic and what has already been discovered. Since it is believed by most here that thought is not matter/energy, logic would lead to conclude that thought is something that is not matter/energy. This unknown element could even have similar relations with matter as E=MC^2. I haven't seen the existence of such an element. I deem it even more unlikely that such an element would only appear in the brain and wouldn't reveal itself outside in the universe.
I don't totally deny the possibility that thoughts are not matter/energy. However, logically we would have to involve probability to see if such was likely. I do not deem it likely. It would be far more probable that thoughts are matter/energy. IMO others oppose this idea more becuase of emotional reasons, rather than logical. We would not like to think ourselves robots, nor that consciousness may be nothing more than an illusion. IF consciousness was an illusion, there would be simply no way to tell, since we ALL suffer under that illusion.

I try to look at each situation objectively. Even though i may conclude that consciousness is an illusion, in the end it doesn't matter. Greyfan earlier said it nicely. Regardless of the truth, we WILL live on.

truth
Jonat, yes regardless of the Truth we will live on. I might suggest that we need to know only practical truths, The Truth is not necesssary (whatever it means). I think the total and absolute reality we can never grasp, any more than we can catch water with a fork. But I take solice in the feeling that I AM that Truth (and so are you).
As I understand the debate between Twyvel and the rest of you. You are expressing thoughts about the nature of the material world and how it operates mechanistically, while Tywvel is talking about your thought process itself. I agree that for practical purposes we can operate quite effectively with scientific material/mechanistic models of the world, but METAPHYSICALLY speaking science is illusory, offering no relief from the suffering we experience (often too subtle to put our finger on it) because of the alienation we create by means of our thinking.
I repeat: I feel that mysticism is the cure for metaphysical/spiritual suffering, but physcial survival requires the use of illusory thinking (i.e., physical science and the engineering derived from it). If you have no inclination to recognize your spiritual suffering and thus wish to transcend it, you can ignore what Twyvel is saying. But someday....

twyvel, I'm not debating with you over the fact that I believe in a material world. I'm debating with you over your statements that I believe in thought, the self or conciousness. I've repeatedly stated that I don't. I've repeatedly stated that they are mere illusions and don't exist. I've repeatedly stated that I believe there is no self, that we are all in essence objects that are blown around by other objects and forces. I merely stated that our beliefs are similar in that neither of us believe in a self and without a self there can be no observers. And you repeatedly ignore this and insist on telling me about my own beliefs. It is this insistence that you know what I believe and ignore my statements to the contrary that is provoking hositility.

Attacking me for using words like "I", "you", "human being" etc. is nothing short of absurd. Eliminating those words from the vocabulary would make any effort to communicate rather difficult.

You yourself stated that you don't believe in the notion of a singular concious just like I have. And yet, you have repeatedly used words like "you" and "I" while attacking me for doing the same. Doesn't that strike you as a bit hypocritical.

Greyfan, many people don't believe in god, or heaven of any kind including me. And they lead perfectly moral lives. Those that do believe in heaven, choose to do so inspite of all the evidence to the contrary. Thus you have no basis for suggesting that me stating evidence that the concept of self, of free will too is an illusion would lead to the deteriaration of morals or of society. Currently, those that don't believe in heaven or god and thus have no motivation for behaving moral still do so. And those that choose to ignore the evidence in order to hang on to their belief in god will undoubtedly do the same in realtion to any evidence that goes against the notion of free will. What's worse is that that arguement in addition to being unfounded is also clearly not what this thread was created to discuss. If you wish to debate it, lets do so in another thread.

Adrain, the fact that matter and energy are interchangable and thus probably one and the same is irrelevent to what's being discussed here. They're mere semantics. If I chose to exclude one or the other, that would confuse many people and would open up a whole new arguement. If you want to talk about how matter and energy are one and the same, if you wish to try and come up with a new word to encompass this concept by representing both, let's also do so on another thread.

JLN, tweyvel has never said anything about relieving suffering by transcending pain. If that was his intention, I commend his efforts but request that he do so elsewhere and instead focus on the topic at hand. And you should be aware, a belief in determinism also points to the lack of a self or an observer and allows one to transcend pain.

truth
Centroles, I know that Twyvel did not explicitly discuss the buddhistic/liberating meaning of her perspective, but it is there nevertheless. I'm afraid the similarity you see between your assertion acknowlegement of the non-existence of the self and her far more radical position is incorrect. The two positions are VERY different. You say we are just material objects blown about by other objects without any "selves" involved. You acknowlege that in the absense of a self there can be no observer. But Twyvel's position is that there are neither observed nor observer, but that observation is continuous. This reference to a non-selfconscious awareness, that there is ONLY experience means--as far as I understand her--that your "objects" are only thingless observations. But I AM surprised she should be so picky as to scold you for using the first person singular or plural. She knows, I'm sure, that these are just conventions of usage which even she uses--but doesn't mean. Does that apply to you?
Twyvel, pardon my presumption.

And thus we see the backtracking begin.

First, Centroles, you assured me that a dog had died, been cryogenically frozen, and then revivified. You even included the poignant detail of the dog's tragic, last-gasp whimper. That was, according to you, scientific proof that the dead could be resurrected. Then you changed your story, and are now relying on hamsters being put into a state of cryogenic suspension and then revived. And now you say that the dog story -- the story that purportedly proved me wrong -- wasn't really a big accomplishment after all. I suppose in your next post you'll admit there's no evidence that the amazing Lazarus dog had ever existed -- making it, I suppose, more of a shaggy dog story than a frozen dog story -- but that it's beside the point because really the hamsters are more important anyway.

Centroles, I cannot express my disappointment at this crass bait-and-switch. You promised me a dead dog and you gave me chilly hamsters. You offered Ted Williams but delivered Woody Allen from Sleeper. I will, however, not be satisfied with anything less than what you guaranteed. You promised me a dog as alive as a door hinge, as frisky as Ramses III, able to fetch and roll over with the vigor of the Hoover Dam. In other words, a dog neither chilled, shaken, nor stirred, but dead, dead, dead.

Furthermore, you promised that the report appeared on CNN. Now you say you are having trouble tracking down the original story because CNN doesn't archive its stories. But that's ok, I will accept a report from any other comparable independent news source. I will not, however, accept press releases from companies engaged in cryogenics or associated fields. Given the scientific ramifications of the story -- which, as you initially remarked, proved that revivification of the dead was possible -- I'm sure many media outlets covered this episode. You should have no problem finding it elsewhere.

Joe give Centroles a break! He can't be held responsible for what he posted, it was all predetermined. (Bloody neurons never do what they're told!)

jonat3




Thought can be observed, but it cannot be said to be anything except the observation (of it), i.e. thought cannot be said to be any kind of material, nor can it be distinguished from observation.

All that can be known of thought, of energy, of material etc. occurs in what is referred to as the mental realm, that is, all knowledge is mental. And the mental realm is indistinguishable from awareness or the awareness of it, so there is only one element, from, my view.

What is called 'material'; all that is known about what is referred to as material is sense impressions, not 'material things' or whatever as JLNobody has mentioned.

JLN, I admit I'm not responding to twyvel's ideology. I'm merely responding to the beliefs she expressed in this thread. The positions she took in this thread are identical to mine, and to the positions that determinism points to.

twyvel, I am not arguing about the sources of thought or knowledge in the metaphysical realm. My position is that they simply don't exist. I don't believe in a metaphysical realm. When I stated in agreement to your position, I was merely agreeing to the original contentions you made on this thread. Contentions that there in no self, there are no observers, that this is all an illusion etc. These contentions fall in line with my beliefs and can be derived from determinism.

Frankly joe, I don't care whether you believe me or not as you already attacked my integrity. I hope that you stick to attacking contentions rather than users in the future.

Your arguement has already been disproven. Proof of a dead animal, dead for hours and then revived is proof enough that your position doesn't have a leg to stand. You stated quite specifically that an animal can't be revived after death, this proves otherwise.

I will however find the story and I will post the link for it as soon as I do, not for your benefit, but for the other people on this thread.

Until then, lets get back to discussing the relevent issues.

Are there any positions that I haven't been clear on, any issues I haven't addressed, any contentions I haven't backed up?

If so, what?

If not, then do you buy my arguement?

JLNobody and Centroles

Yes perhaps I was going a little over the top questioning Centroles on the use of 'self' words, which no doubt comes from a slight frustration from statements of Centroles such as:

And you should be aware, a belief in determinism also points to the lack of a self or an observer and allows one to transcend pain.

…without a caveat stating that there is no 'one' that transcends pain, there is only pain. Anyway we all do it so I will not raise the issue again.

twyvel, I am not sure exactly what position of mine you are attacking. I merely stated that the original contentions you made, that there is no self, that there is no observer fall straight in line with my contentions.

You however stated that material monoism does not fall in line with these notions. Thus I have to conclude that what perception you have of material monoism doesn't fall directly with my belifes or contentions. Because my contentions DO suggest that ther in no self, no observer and indeed no pain (this is how determinism suggests that one transcends pain, because both one and pain are illusions).

Ah, now i see what you are trying to say. All things science comes up with would indeed only be observations. According to you observation of an object may not equal the reality of the object. That can be quite true. It has to be noted that even though science is only descriptive in nature, it is atleast accurate enough to allow us to manipulate the universe.
Wether an observation of an object conforms to reality or not still doesn't answer the question if human minds are predetermined in nature. Reality might be that it is so, or might not. Even this is descriptive in nature, but descriptions is all we have.

I suggest that the presence of life is strong evidence that there has been no death

Jonat3

I have added some words to your quotation for reflection.

<< All things science comes up with would indeed only be observations. According to you observation of an object may not equal the reality of the object. That can be quite true. It has to be noted that even though science is only descriptive in nature, it is atleast accurate enough to allow us to manipulate the OBSERVATION OF THE universe.>>

Yes, quite true fresco. But my point is that if our reasoning doesn't reflect our observations, it most likely doesn't correspond with reality.

I have never attacked your integrity, for the simple reason that I have no basis for evaluating your integrity. For all I know, you are a model citizen, a pillar of your community, a person of high standards and spotless moral rectitude. Your arguments are faulty, but that should have no bearing on your personal integrity.


The linked press release notes that the hamsters were "clinically dead," but implied that they weren't "brain dead." Now, granted, I'm no biologist, and I'm not sure I could tell the difference between a brain-dead hamster and one that is simply a bit groggy, but there certainly seems to be a marked difference between the two types of "death." If you're relying on the resurrection of the "clinically dead," then there's no need to look for it in the field of cryogenics: after all, it happens with some frequency in mainstream hospitals. But you had promised me a dead dog -- a dog that had died naturally from a brain tumor, not one that had been manipulated into a near-death state of cryogenic suspension. According to you, the revivification of that kind of dead-dead dog, as opposed to the almost-dead hamsters, proved the falsity of my position. I'm still waiting for the evidence of that death-and-resurrection.


Your generosity is touching.


I prefer to stick to the dead dogs for now. I won't debate anything further with you until you sort out your position with twyvel. If, as you want us to believe, you are truly a doctrinaire non-dualist, then there is nothing left to discuss. As I have mentioned in another thread, neither induction nor deduction nor any manner of proof known to man is capable of demonstrating the truth or falsity of non-dualism. It is, therefore, an issue of metaphysics, a matter purely of faith. I have a good deal of respect for people who sincerely believe in metaphysical systems, but I will not debate their metaphysics.

I can't believe you guys are still at it. Just checking in to see if the dead dog turned up yet. I'm really looking forward to eternity with Penelope Cruz.