peacegirl
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
- Messages
- 180
- Gender
- Female
- Basic Beliefs
- I believe in determinism which is the basis of my worldview
Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
Yes.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
Well I appreciate the honesty.Yes.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
We cannot attribute one cause of an action going back in time. There are many variables that come into play in determining a person’s choice. To repeat: The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present. Our memories, our genetics, and our environment all have an influence on the choices that we make everyday of our lives.No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?
Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.
Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?
.
If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.
If determinism is true, how else could it be?
If past states of the system determine the present state of the system, the present state of the system is set by its past events. That, by definition and action, is how determinism works.
If the present state of the system is not related or determined by past states of the system, you may call it probabilistic or random, but determinism it is not.
At some point we have no choice but to discuss it.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more.
At some point we have no choice but to discuss it.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more.
I have long known that. Which is why I’m not arguing against it.
The concept has great utility as you will see.I’m not arguing against the utility of the concept of free will, just its existence as you defined it.
We cannot attribute one cause of an action going back in time. There are many variables that come into play in determining a person’s choice. To repeat: The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present. Our memories, our genetics, and our environment all have an influence on the choices that we make everyday of our lives.No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?
Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.
Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?
.
If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.
If determinism is true, how else could it be?
If past states of the system determine the present state of the system, the present state of the system is set by its past events. That, by definition and action, is how determinism works.
If the present state of the system is not related or determined by past states of the system, you may call it probabilistic or random, but determinism it is not.
We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.
What was your username?Yes.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
We cannot attribute one cause of an action going back in time. There are many variables that come into play in determining a person’s choice. To repeat: The past cannot cause the present because all we have is the present. Our memories, our genetics, and our environment all have an influence on the choices that we make everyday of our lives.No one is denying that at one time the state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, but to say that the past CAUSES the present is a misnomer. How can the past cause anything if the past doesn't exist? We live in the present; we sleep in the present; we make choices in the present. We have memories of what just happened, but our memories that help us make a decision based on antecedent events, are all done in the present. If you can accept this (even if it's temporary), I can move forward.“Man has no free will, but not for the reason that determinists believe. Determinism is defined as behavior being CAUSED by past events. But this is false, because we ONLY have the present. The past doesn't CAUSE anything, it just presents conditions under which desire is aroused; consequently, he can't blame what is not responsible. I am answering this question prematurely at the risk of causing confusion until this discovery is understood in its entirety. This is what the author urged the reader not to do.They are not insolvable but they cannot be reconciled in the way determinism is presently defined. This is the elephant in the room, so to speak.I want to demonstrate how responsibility is increased when we understand the truth of our nature and how, as we extend this knowledge, we can prevent many of the ills that exist in society. Is anyone interested in learning why this chasm between determinists and libertarians has existed for so long, and how reconciling these differences can create a fantastic change for the better?
Perhaps the chasms between concepts, beliefs or points of view have reasons that are not easily resolved. They may even be unresolvable.
Redefine determinism? How should it be defined?
.
If determinism is true, conditions in the present have antecedents. Each and every state and condition of the system during the past was once the state and condition of the system in its own present moment, where events progressed deterministically from one state to the next without deviation or the possibility of any perceived alternative being realized.
If determinism is true, how else could it be?
If past states of the system determine the present state of the system, the present state of the system is set by its past events. That, by definition and action, is how determinism works.
If the present state of the system is not related or determined by past states of the system, you may call it probabilistic or random, but determinism it is not.
A deterministic universe may entail an infinite Web of causality, much of it chaotic yet deterministic, where any given event may be determined by an interaction of multiple factors.
We are also very similar to a rock rolling down a hill. We submit to the forces governing our actions, and follow the path of least resistance until our potential energy is used up.We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.
I hope you’ll stick with this thread. It was hard for me then (because people didn’t want to read) and it’s still hard for me but I think I am better at explaining the concepts, at least I hope I am..What was your username?Yes.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.
But we have been given the ability of consent. Nothing can be done to us without our consent. The standard definition implies that determinism is doing something to us without our consent. That’s why people are up in arms. People know intuitively that they are participants in the choices they make. They are not simply rocks rolling down a hill.We are also very similar to a rock rolling down a hill. We submit to the forces governing our actions, and follow the path of least resistance until our potential energy is used up.We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.
I’m getting impatient for the astounding revelation portion of this program.
True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.
Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.
You’ll understand why under the changed environmental conditions, we won’t be able to shift what is our responsibility to someone or something else in order to mitigate our part in an act that hurts another.True. The only difference between what I am presenting and the standard definition is that the past is gone. It cannot cause the present. The memory of what occurred presents conditions in the present that determine our choices or preferences, but we must give consent. Nothing is chosen without our consent so we cannot blame something or someone for what is our responsibility in an action.We are very similar to computer systems that have learned to take in information, compare options based on the available data, and spit out the best response based on that input.Is this a new take which people on this forum already discussed with you like, at least several years ago?
It has been ongoing, on and off, for a decade or more. The given definition of determinism is not my personal definition, just how it is defined. Where, if determinism is true, the past states of the system must necessarily set the present state of the system, which in turn sets/determines the future states of the system.
Any information that we receive is inseparable from the system itself, as is the state of the brain/mind that acquires and processes that information.