“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

To summarize, what you seem to be saying is that we need a new definition of determinism, not the definition that is traditionally used, which is that a combination of past events combined with the laws of physics cause events to happen without deviation, including human actions. This is the hard determinist position that DBT espouses, that human will is not free because what we do now, is determined by the past. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that we lack free not because of that kind of determinism, but because of a different kind, which is our inner nature which compels us to move in the direction of what we believe to be greater satisfaction, whether it is or not. Is that correct?

You mentioned the two sides (the fact that nothing can force a person to do anything against his will and the fact that we are constantly moving in the direction of greater satisfaction from moment to moment, but you didn’t explain how the two-sided equation works when these two principles are brought together. And what do you mean by “whether it is or not?”

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

 

[Jarhyn]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

Some walks of life hope for a world wide wasteland, an eternal tire fire of suck as the world circles the drain, and finally dies.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

After Obama was in office for a while he said 'there is the world as you want it to be, and the world as it is'.

If you want a perfect world you will need perfect people, which do not exist.

On paper Chinese and Russian communism looked good, a social equity enforced by the state. Both failed.

Over here we nave Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Latinos and others all with varying social, political, religious, economic and world views.

At best it can be managed through legal means, laws to protect individual and group rights.

In the 70s and 80s I saw blatant black discrimination in business. Laws and civil law suuits put a stop to most of it. Along with a change in social consensus to have rights for al.

Right now we are seeing a tooth and nail battle over abortion rights along political and religious lines.

With diversity and freedom of expression goes conflicts.

If there is a right for gays to have equal rights then there is also a right to oppose gay rights.

If not then as an alternative you have Russian/Chinese kinds of communist forced social and political conformity.

 

[Jarhyn]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

After Obama was in office for a while he said 'there is the world as you want it to be, and the world as it is'.

If you want a perfect world you will need perfect people, which do not exist.

On paper Chinese and Russian communism looked good, a social equity enforced by the state. Both failed.

Over here we nave Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Latinos and others all with varying social, political, religious, economic and world views.

At best it can be managed through legal means, laws to protect individual and group rights.

In the 70s and 80s I saw blatant black discrimination in business. Laws and civil law suuits put a stop to most of it. Along with a change in social consensus to have rights for al.

Right now we are seeing a tooth and nail battle over abortion rights along political and religious lines.

With diversity and freedom of expression goes conflicts.

If there is a right for gays to have equal rights then there is also a right to oppose gay rights.

If not then as an alternative you have Russian/Chinese kinds of communist forced social and political conformity.

Yeah, it all only starts resolving when you try to fit in "ought" at some point.

Some people suck at resolving ought. Most people do. Many people decide it doesn't exist in the world, blind to the fact that they generate it by resisting the actions of the world on the particular stuff of it some part of it considers as a member of a set called "me" by that stuff there. People create "ought" by enforcing, as they are, any sort of change over time in momentum beyond laying there to die.

Everything else derives from the identical nature of justification across all such things and that "might makes right" leads to the world wide wasteland, and how the unfortunate and ironic conclusion is to respond to people who demonstrate that they are likely "someone who would" because they are "someone who did" that which leads to "world wide wasteland" when people let just anyone do something.

 

[steve_bank]

A few years back a recording got out of Latino LA city council members talking about how to politically limit blacks.

A once oppressed Latinos talking about disenfranchising blacks. It never ends. Identity politics.

There is no collective 'we', it is us and them.

 

[bilby]

Punishment and blame cannot alter the past; But the knowledge that they are likely to occur can certainly alter the present.

So they are not automatically meritless, despite their inability to influence the events to which they are nominally applied.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've not read the linked thesis nor the thread, but will related the view I've held all my life. I wonder how it compares to OP's view.

Long ago I read the opinion: "I believe in determinism, but don't lead my life as though I do." This sums up my position.

The universe is a big machine made up of smaller machines. An alarm clock will chime at 9 am unless it's broken. A brain will seek out food and water unless it's broken. One might say the brain is "programmed" to seek food and water.

Rationally I understand that [insert politician's name] is programmed to pursue "evil" and that "blaming" him for what was determined (at the "dawn of time"!) is irrational. But MY brain is programmed to feel anger against him.

We are faced with countless decisions every day. Some of them are to choose between "good" and "evil." Do some people who believe in determinism choose the evil, greedy path reasoning "I am not to blame for this evil: It was pre-ordained"? But our consciousness is actively participating in the decision-making and if we choose the evil path we are admitting that our brain machine is broken.

Does this make any sense at all? How does this compare with OP's thesis?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

Some walks of life hope for a world wide wasteland, an eternal tire fire of suck as the world circles the drain, and finally dies.

Probably because these people feel trapped with no way out and have only experienced misery and loss.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

After Obama was in office for a while he said 'there is the world as you want it to be, and the world as it is'.

If you want a perfect world you will need perfect people, which do not exist.

It depends what you mean by "perfect." Humanity is developing. You can't expect us to reach adulthood before we go through the necessary stages of childhood and adolescence.

On paper Chinese and Russian communism looked good, a social equity enforced by the state. Both failed.

That doesn't mean every economic system will fail, especially one that has no social equity enforcement whatsoever, yet it will be fair where everyone has a chance to increase their standard of living. Poverty will be a thing of the past.

Over here we nave Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Native Americans, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Latinos and others all with varying social, political, religious, economic and world views.

At best it can be managed through legal means, laws to protect individual and group rights.

It is true that there are varying social, political, religious, economic and world views, but this does not mean cooperation is impossible, especially when each nation sees the benefits of this new world for everyone, not just a few.

In the 70s and 80s I saw blatant black discrimination in business. Laws and civil law suuits put a stop to most of it. Along with a change in social consensus to have rights for al.

Right now we are seeing a tooth and nail battle over abortion rights along political and religious lines.

With diversity and freedom of expression goes conflicts.

If there is a right for gays to have equal rights then there is also a right to oppose gay rights.

If not then as an alternative you have Russian/Chinese kinds of communist forced social and political conformity.

There are conflicts and disagreements in this world, which makes it hard to envision a world where these conflicts won't be center stage. There will still be lawyers who will help solve friendly disputes, but the kind you are talking about will no longer be. People will be able to live in peace without anyone having to tell them what to do and we won't have to mind their business in order to protect our business because we would know that they could (not would) never desire to exploit or take advantage of anyone in order to gain at our expense. If you haven't read anything I posted, you won't have an inkling as to why this is possible, and you will continue to think this is just a pipe dream.

 

[peacegirl]

A few years back a recording got out of Latino LA city council members talking about how to politically limit blacks.

A once oppressed Latinos talking about disenfranchising blacks. It never ends. Identity politics.

There is no collective 'we', it is us and them.

But when identify politics ends, because there won't be a need for government (all authority and control), then we are entering an entirely new stage of development. This is why this new world is so hard to conceive of. People are basing what could be on what is, which is not going to allow a broader view of human potential.

 

[Jarhyn]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

Some walks of life hope for a world wide wasteland, an eternal tire fire of suck as the world circles the drain, and finally dies.

Probably because these people feel trapped with no way out and have only experienced misery and loss.

That's not really why they do that.

More humans came into exist at a time in this world where there was a lot to fight for and the world already was a world wide wasteland.

It's what we are physiologically adapted to and for: a hard existence where people can and do take whatever they can whenever they can in punctuated equilibrium with those around us. As such, doing that and existing that way actually is physiologically rewarding for some, perhaps even many, and they are simply acting in service of their own drives.

The world wide wasteland is not any challenge to the zero-sum life of "rape everything you can and kill everything you can't". It doesn't matter if there are a lot of humans or a few to such a lifestyle, as long as there are enough to find one to rape, and as long as there are enough left over to kill a few from time to time.

What do you do about such monsters living in the world, who are clearly going to be responsible, and who require adjudication to identify that responsibility formally?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

Some walks of life hope for a world wide wasteland, an eternal tire fire of suck as the world circles the drain, and finally dies.

Probably because these people feel trapped with no way out and have only experienced misery and loss.

That's not really why they do that.

More humans came into exist at a time in this world where there was a lot to fight for and the world already was a world wide wasteland.

It's what we are physiologically adapted to and for: a hard existence where people can and do take whatever they can whenever they can in punctuated equilibrium with those around us. As such, doing that and existing that way actually is physiologically rewarding for some, perhaps even many, and they are simply acting in service of their own drives.

We may be adapted to a hard existence, but that doesn't mean it's the ultimate end all, which is as far as our punctuated equilibrium will take us.

The world wide wasteland is not any challenge to the zero-sum life of "rape everything you can and kill everything you can't". It doesn't matter if there are a lot of humans or a few to such a lifestyle, as long as there are enough to find one to rape, and as long as there are enough left over to kill a few from time to time.

What do you do about such monsters living in the world, who are clearly going to be responsible, and who require adjudication to identify that responsibility formally?

Monsters in the world came from somewhere. Could it be that they weren't born that way, and that their predispositions and experiences together led them to the satisfaction of causing great harm by whatever means necessary?

 

[Jarhyn]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

Some walks of life hope for a world wide wasteland, an eternal tire fire of suck as the world circles the drain, and finally dies.

Probably because these people feel trapped with no way out and have only experienced misery and loss.

That's not really why they do that.

More humans came into exist at a time in this world where there was a lot to fight for and the world already was a world wide wasteland.

It's what we are physiologically adapted to and for: a hard existence where people can and do take whatever they can whenever they can in punctuated equilibrium with those around us. As such, doing that and existing that way actually is physiologically rewarding for some, perhaps even many, and they are simply acting in service of their own drives.

We may be adapted to a hard existence, but that doesn't mean it's the ultimate end all and as far as our punctuated equilibrium will take us.

The world wide wasteland is not any challenge to the zero-sum life of "rape everything you can and kill everything you can't". It doesn't matter if there are a lot of humans or a few to such a lifestyle, as long as there are enough to find one to rape, and as long as there are enough left over to kill a few from time to time.

What do you do about such monsters living in the world, who are clearly going to be responsible, and who require adjudication to identify that responsibility formally?

Monsters in the world came from somewhere. Could it be that they weren't born that way, and that their predispositions and experiences together led them to the satisfaction of causing great harm by whatever means necessary?

Yes, they came into the world via the birth canal of the parents who fucked so as to produce them.

Yes, they were born that way, and while SOME may have some outsized ability to be intelligent enough to think past their deficiencies, many will not.

Perhaps for some this is a function of experience, but this does not change what they are: those whose greatest satisfaction is diametrically opposed to you having satisfaction, and whose mere existence as they are makes them responsible for all manner of heinousness from our perspective.

Your worldview is childishly naive, and I say this from the perspective of such a monster who was lucky enough to be born intelligent enough to step away from that behavior, however it makes me feel.

There are of course artifacts of that drive towards the world wide wasteland in my behavior still. Namely that I don't treat such naivety with kid gloves.

To stop these people as they are today you cannot respond to their childhoods because their childhood is dead and gone as the past ever is. You have to say as a mature adult "it doesn't matter what made them as they are, they ARE as they are and as such THEY are responsible for their own actions, the object that they are is responsible for the wills they form, and I will level that response that I am able to.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, what is your ideal world?

A world that people of all walks of life hope for. A world in which there is no need for war, crime, or hatred. A world in which there is no hunger or discrimination. A world where everyone has their basic needs met. A world where everyone is treated with equal respect. A world where everyone has an opportunity to fulfill their God given potential and talents. A world where there is no more jealousy or abuse. A world where happiness, joy, and love prevail. Should I go on?

Some walks of life hope for a world wide wasteland, an eternal tire fire of suck as the world circles the drain, and finally dies.

Probably because these people feel trapped with no way out and have only experienced misery and loss.

That's not really why they do that.

More humans came into exist at a time in this world where there was a lot to fight for and the world already was a world wide wasteland.

It's what we are physiologically adapted to and for: a hard existence where people can and do take whatever they can whenever they can in punctuated equilibrium with those around us. As such, doing that and existing that way actually is physiologically rewarding for some, perhaps even many, and they are simply acting in service of their own drives.

We may be adapted to a hard existence, but that doesn't mean it's the ultimate end all and as far as our punctuated equilibrium will take us.

The world wide wasteland is not any challenge to the zero-sum life of "rape everything you can and kill everything you can't". It doesn't matter if there are a lot of humans or a few to such a lifestyle, as long as there are enough to find one to rape, and as long as there are enough left over to kill a few from time to time.

What do you do about such monsters living in the world, who are clearly going to be responsible, and who require adjudication to identify that responsibility formally?

Monsters in the world came from somewhere. Could it be that they weren't born that way, and that their predispositions and experiences together led them to the satisfaction of causing great harm by whatever means necessary?

Yes, they came into the world via the birth canal of the parents who fucked so as to produce them.

Yes, they were born that way, and while SOME may have some outsized ability to be intelligent enough to think past their deficiencies, many will not.

Intelligence has nothing to do with it. People don't kill who have less intelligence. Autism doesn't cause more murders. Educable people who are lower in I.Q. don't cause more murders than the average population. What are you even talking about?

Perhaps for some this is a function of experience, but this does not change what they are: those whose greatest satisfaction is diametrically opposed to you having satisfaction, and whose mere existence as they are makes them responsible for all manner of heinousness from our perspective.

Your worldview is childishly naive.

You are the one who is determined to defend your warlike worldview.

 

[Jarhyn]

Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

Ha! Hahahaha! Intelligence absolutely has a lot to do with it.

Although we should be quite clear here: Managed to fight clear because I was intelligent, but while intelligence is often necessary to think clear of that affect, it is only rarely sufficient: you need at least a few things you like outside of the warmth of the tire fires of the world wide wasteland to require society.

Autism doesn't cause more murders

Ok, wow. Just, wow.

Did you seriously just equate autism with a lack of intelligence?

You are the one who is determined to defend your warlike worldview

No, I'm just determined to recognize that some people simply wish to watch the world burn, and will use all manner of excuses to see to making it happen, including "I couldn't have done otherwise".

 

[peacegirl]

Intelligence has nothing to do with it.

Ha! Hahahaha! Intelligence absolutely has a lot to do with it.

Prove your case that people with intellectual deficits are more prone to murder and rape, not just an association, but cause and effect.

Although we should be quite clear here: Managed to fight clear because I was intelligent, but while intelligence is often necessary to think clear of that affect, it is only rarely sufficient: you need at least a few things you like outside of the warmth of the tire fires of the world wide wasteland to require society.

Autism doesn't cause more murders

Ok, wow. Just, wow.

Did you seriously just equate autism with a lack of intelligence?

You did. Moving the goalposts when you realized that what you said was extremely discriminatory?

You are the one who is determined to defend your warlike worldview

No, I'm just determined to recognize that some people simply wish to watch the world burn, and will use all manner of excuses to see to making it happen, including "I couldn't have done otherwise".

Wow, just wow. You haven't read a thing or your intelligence isn't up to par.

 

[Elixir]

Monsters in the world came from somewhere.

Every hairbrained "global solution" begins with that vacuous rationalization.

 

[peacegirl]

Monsters in the world came from somewhere.

Every hairbrained "global solution" begins with that vacuous rationalization.

What vacuous rationalization are you referring to Elixir or is it just your skepticism that there IS a "global solution?" You cannot use the fact that because there were "global solutions" that didn't work out, this one won't work out either. This is syllogistic reasoning at its worst.